We HAVE to do something about the so-called Unitary Presidency

[choie]

So the Supreme Court in its wisdom is removing the stay of trump's overhaul (actually destruction) of OUR government, stating that his executive orders would likely be rubber stamped. The Supreme Court, the Federal Society and the Heritage Foundation have created a King.

I don't care of it's a republican, Democrat, Independent or Martian - no president should have this power.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Short of changing the constitution, court expansion is the only remedy

And court expansion can only happen if the filibuster is DEAD.

Keep that in mind when you vote in the Democratic primaries for senator.

[choie]

2. Where in the constitution does it say that the president

can overhaul the government on his own say so?

[markpkessinger]

12. The notion stems largely from Antonin Scaliia's dissent in Morrrison v. Olson

Morrison v. Olson was a case in which the court upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel law. In his dissent, Antonin Scalia wrote:

Article II, § 1, cl. 1, of the Constitution provides: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States.” [T]his does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power.

The Federalist Society then picked up on that and ran with it, developing the "unitary executive theory" that the court's MAGA majority subscribes to today, and under which they are giving Trump a blank check. Many legal scholars have serious issues with it because, among other things, it (1) violates the separation of powers by vesting too much authority in the executive branch, (2) holds that government agencies that are, by design, supposed to be independent of the executive branch's political whims are unconstitutional; (3) disregards and downplays the role of Congress and the courts in checking the power of the presidency; (4) rests on questionable "originalist" interpretations of the Constitutions that don't quite square with the historical record; and (5) leads precisely to the kind of authoritarian presidency we are now seeing, and which the framers of the Constitution resolutely opposed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. It doesn't say he can't

It only says congress or the courts can stop him, and at present, neither will.

[EdmondDantes_]

3. Not entirely. Court expansion isn't what killed the Dred Scott decision

Eventually Thomas, Alito, and Roberts will leave the court. And while Thomas and Alito will definitely try to leave under a Republican president and Senate, that's not guaranteed.

And while maybe I'm just an optimist, I think eventually the public will tire of the Heritage Foundation/Republican approach, and will adjust their votes to make the current extremist judicial philosophy go out of favor.

[markpkessinger]

14. Dred Scott was overturned by the Civil War . . .

. . . and the subsequent passage of the 13th and 14th amendments. It didn't go away merely because justices aged off the court or died!

And I think there's a good chance that Thomas, and possibly Alito, will retire during Trump's current term, allowing him to name replacements who are likely to be as bad or worse. And even if a Democrat is elected in 2028, the other MAGA justices are young enough that they will likely remain on the court for the duration of that presidency.

So there's really very little chance in the next decade of the court's ideology shifting very much!

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. Waiting out the MAGA justices is a passive measure that may or may not produce the desired results.

Expanding the court is an active measure, that provides results.

[dalton99a]

4. Trump probably pronounces it urinary

[J_William_Ryan]

5. "Where in the constitution does it say that the president can overhaul the government on his own say so?"

It doesn’t – that’s the problem.

Unitary executive dogma holds that such powers are ‘implied,’ that a president can be checked only by the states via the impeachment process or General Elections every four years – otherwise a president is at liberty to do whatever he wants with impunity, ignore any law, ignore any court, ignore the Constitution altogether.

And now unitary executive dogma has been codified by the Supreme Court.

[LT Barclay]

9. So under that view, if elected I promise to offer the 6 SCOTUS judges who brought us this nightmare a chance to resign

and if they refuse, I’ll drag them from their chambers and strip them of their robes in front of the Washington Monument. Then I’ll tweak the Constitution so we don’t have this problem again before I turn over power to someone more qualified.

[BBbats]

6. I Dunno.......

I'll be surprised if there is gonna be a free & fair election.

[Hornedfrog2000]

17. Our elections havent been fair for a long time

They havent gotten any more free thats for sure

[BlueTsunami2018]

7. We do.

But no one wants to do what actually needs to be done.

[LastDemocratInSC]

8. The Mars option won't work

so long as we have Slim Whitman recordings we can play.

[GiqueCee]

10. The Unitary Executive...

... is the Nazi über-president that Cheney and Rumsfeld tried to shove down everyone's throats when Bush The Lesser was president.
Now they've finally gotten their ill-begotten wish, god-fucking-damn them to hell.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. A different composition of both Houses of Congress is a good start.

[Evolve Dammit]

13. This has been a GOP thing since 2000. "We create our own reality" "Unitary Executive."

This started with Bush/Cheney. Or at least metastasized after Reagan.

[Kablooie]

18. If we ever get a Dem president again...

And he used the unitary powers to put back our government, repubs and scotus will be screaming about him claiming powers the president doesn’t have.

Unitary powers are reserved only for Republicans.

[Cosmocat]

21. Correct - the only way to "stop it" is somehow getting a D back in there

cause he or she will operate with decency, reason and ethics AND Rs will work like crazy to handcuff him or her in every way possible.

Doubtful it happens at this point ...

[Nasruddin]

19. You're right but

it's too late.

You need your own version of the unitary executive to alter the damage done by this one.
And no person you get in that position is ever going to give it up, for their own protection if nothing else.

[calimary]

20. He'll NEVER be a "king" in MY book.

Not EVER!!!

[kentuck]

22. John Roberts is a big believer in the unitary executive....

...it appears.