Besides upstanding lawyers and law-abiding honorable (present and former) judges, here's a growing list of Profiles in Courage men, women, and advocacy groups who refuse to be cowed or kneel to the force of Trump/Musk/MAGA/Fox "News" intimidation:
I'll begin with Missouri's own Jess[ica] (à la John Lewis's "get in good trouble") Piper, then, in no particular order, Heather Cox Richardson, Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, Ruth Ben-Ghait, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Hayes, Jim Acosta, Jen Rubin And the Contrarians, Steve Brodner, Brian Tyler Cohen, Johathan Bernstein, Jessica Craven, Annne Applebaum, Lucian Truscott IV, AOC, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Snyder, Robert B. Hubbell, Ben Meiseilas, Steve Schmidt, Josh Marshall, Paul Krugman, Andy Borowitz, Jeff Danziger, Ann Telnaes,͏ ͏Will Bunch, Jake Tapper, American Bar Association, Blue Missouri, Third Act, Democracy Forward, Public Citizen, Democracy Index, Democracy Docket, ACLU et al. And, as Joyce Vance says, "We're in this together"--or via Jess Piper, from rural Missouri: "Solidarity." FIGHT BACK! WE ARE NOT ALONE!
Jonathan, normally, a shut-down is a problem for a president and their party but could Musk and Trump see a shut-down as an asset? Another way to challenge the purpose of government? An opportunity to say "government is shut down but we have an extra-governmental way to act"? Do they have another narrative that they would supply -- a really dangerous one -- in which the shut down becomes an "emergency" that allows for emergency powers? shutting down courts?
Yes, that's definitely a danger. Given what's happening now, I'm not sure that anyone should worry about giving them a permission structure to do illegal things. But yes: for the question of public opinion, if Democrats take responsibility for a shutdown, then it creates a very mixed message that Trump could potentially exploit.
I'm not sure why you are downplaying the ideal that we are in a constitutional crisis.
If the President can simply defund any program that he disagrees with then we don't have a representative democracy. So how we plausibly expect this budget showdown to look at all like previous ones is hard to fathom.
Either Congress decides to defend it's powers or they don't exist. And that is up to Republicans. Three Republicans in the House (the most obvious candidates being Don Bacon (NE), Mike Lawler (NY), and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)) deciding that democracy is more important than party could change our national conversation and this situation. Exactly how that plays out would be anyone's guess.
But while Congress lets Trump simply end programs and agencies that Congress enacted through legislation we aren't operating by the US constitution.
So I think the Democrats power is in making the Republicans confront this topic head on. Stop normalizing what is going on.
Don't at all mean to be downplaying the idea that the Constitution is being massively violated, and how important that is. If it sounded like that, I just didn't write clearly.
I'm actually not a big fan of "Constitutional crisis" as a useful phrase, but to the extent that it is, we're surely in one.
I guess why it felt like downplaying the constitutional violations is because the article seems to suggest that the budget showdown will follow previous patterns. or that the past hold some meaningful predictive value right now.
Isn't it just as likely; if Congress looks like they are at a standstill. That Trump/Musk declare that they will implement the budget that they want and run the treasury as they see fit? That would explain why the most blatant violations have been about accessing and taking over the treasury.
That seems outlandish, but after what we've seen I think it's actually at least as likely as any normal budget standoff from the past.
I'm trying not to just leap to dystopian fantasy, but the level of ignoring constitutional limits is beyond anything I would have considered possible 1 month ago. And Congress is just ignoring that the President is usurping their power and acting as though we're in a normal situation.
Besides upstanding lawyers and law-abiding honorable (present and former) judges, here's a growing list of Profiles in Courage men, women, and advocacy groups who refuse to be cowed or kneel to the force of Trump/Musk/MAGA/Fox "News" intimidation:
I'll begin with Missouri's own Jess[ica] (à la John Lewis's "get in good trouble") Piper, then, in no particular order, Heather Cox Richardson, Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, Ruth Ben-Ghait, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Hayes, Jim Acosta, Jen Rubin And the Contrarians, Steve Brodner, Brian Tyler Cohen, Johathan Bernstein, Jessica Craven, Annne Applebaum, Lucian Truscott IV, AOC, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Snyder, Robert B. Hubbell, Ben Meiseilas, Steve Schmidt, Josh Marshall, Paul Krugman, Andy Borowitz, Jeff Danziger, Ann Telnaes,͏ ͏Will Bunch, Jake Tapper, American Bar Association, Blue Missouri, Third Act, Democracy Forward, Public Citizen, Democracy Index, Democracy Docket, ACLU et al. And, as Joyce Vance says, "We're in this together"--or via Jess Piper, from rural Missouri: "Solidarity." FIGHT BACK! WE ARE NOT ALONE!
"lawlessly slashing valuable and popular government programs" -- Not altogether clear that the programs being slashed fit the definition of "popular".
Jonathan, normally, a shut-down is a problem for a president and their party but could Musk and Trump see a shut-down as an asset? Another way to challenge the purpose of government? An opportunity to say "government is shut down but we have an extra-governmental way to act"? Do they have another narrative that they would supply -- a really dangerous one -- in which the shut down becomes an "emergency" that allows for emergency powers? shutting down courts?
Yes, that's definitely a danger. Given what's happening now, I'm not sure that anyone should worry about giving them a permission structure to do illegal things. But yes: for the question of public opinion, if Democrats take responsibility for a shutdown, then it creates a very mixed message that Trump could potentially exploit.
I'm not sure why you are downplaying the ideal that we are in a constitutional crisis.
If the President can simply defund any program that he disagrees with then we don't have a representative democracy. So how we plausibly expect this budget showdown to look at all like previous ones is hard to fathom.
Either Congress decides to defend it's powers or they don't exist. And that is up to Republicans. Three Republicans in the House (the most obvious candidates being Don Bacon (NE), Mike Lawler (NY), and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)) deciding that democracy is more important than party could change our national conversation and this situation. Exactly how that plays out would be anyone's guess.
But while Congress lets Trump simply end programs and agencies that Congress enacted through legislation we aren't operating by the US constitution.
So I think the Democrats power is in making the Republicans confront this topic head on. Stop normalizing what is going on.
Don't at all mean to be downplaying the idea that the Constitution is being massively violated, and how important that is. If it sounded like that, I just didn't write clearly.
I'm actually not a big fan of "Constitutional crisis" as a useful phrase, but to the extent that it is, we're surely in one.
Thanks for the reply.
I guess why it felt like downplaying the constitutional violations is because the article seems to suggest that the budget showdown will follow previous patterns. or that the past hold some meaningful predictive value right now.
Isn't it just as likely; if Congress looks like they are at a standstill. That Trump/Musk declare that they will implement the budget that they want and run the treasury as they see fit? That would explain why the most blatant violations have been about accessing and taking over the treasury.
That seems outlandish, but after what we've seen I think it's actually at least as likely as any normal budget standoff from the past.
I'm trying not to just leap to dystopian fantasy, but the level of ignoring constitutional limits is beyond anything I would have considered possible 1 month ago. And Congress is just ignoring that the President is usurping their power and acting as though we're in a normal situation.
The budget issue is still a month away.