‘A Sword and a Shield’: How the Supreme Court Supercharged Trump’s Power

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 50

  • @MrRhomas913
    @MrRhomas913 2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    I knew that getting rid of the filibuster for the appointment of federal judges, cabinet members, and ambassadorships would come back to bite us. Trump got his 3 SC justices and here we are.

  • @carlossalgado5524
    @carlossalgado5524 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

    This is a GOOD reminder that IF you give the state TOO much power in a democracy, you will EVENTUALLY regret when somebody you DON'T like is elected.

  • @MattyV001
    @MattyV001 12 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +17

    I will never ever get over that immunity decision. That is as crazy as anything our reality show president has done or tried to do.

    • @MrRhomas913
      @MrRhomas913 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      Yeah. Just think if Biden had been brought up for the murder of those soldiers in Afghanistan who died at the gate by some DA in the home county of the dead soldier. We would have had Harris as president and she likely would have been elected.

    • @ndavies8
      @ndavies8 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      There will be more craziness to come. We live in our own version of an oligarchy. Any other person will be doing hard time now.

  • @kevinwoolley7960
    @kevinwoolley7960 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +5

    29:20 The SCOTUS of the early 1930s was correct and this is a return to correct Constitutional principles.

  • @kevinwoolley7960
    @kevinwoolley7960 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +7

    34:35 LOL none of us, literally none, are concerned about firefighters and teachers. We are concerned by administrative non elected beaurocrats forgiving trillions in student loan debt or mandating CO2 restrictions in a way that Congress never approved. It's time for Congress to do their job and actually vote on hard things instead of grandstanding.

    • @robertlee8805
      @robertlee8805 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      Yeh. You'll love the DAMAGES from extreme weather.

  • @aleccraig7283
    @aleccraig7283 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

    I know this conversation isn’t the exact place for the argument… but the argument is Removing Government Fat/Gridlock vs. Status Quo
    I feel like this is the actual conversation that isn’t happening, but it more closely addresses the motivations behind the actions.

    • @Dan-dy8zp
      @Dan-dy8zp 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

      1) What can be done about gridlock since the us constitution is quite hard to change?
      2) We already have the richest 3 guys having more money than the poorest ONE HALF of voters, and their share is constantly growing. The 'fat' is what the billionaires call anything that slows the process of them growing their share even faster.

    • @aleccraig7283
      @aleccraig7283 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@Dan-dy8zp 1) the Constitution doesn't have to change to make meaningful changes in the government. Optimizing operations and execution of laws benefits everyone (except people profiting of the inefficiencies).
      2) Perhaps billionaires are not the right people for the job. If a billionaire WERE the right person for the job, they better have a track record of eliminating inefficiencies of an extant large system....however, I don't like the conflicts of interest with SpaceX and Gov't contracts.

    • @Existential8Ball
      @Existential8Ball 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Not only is constitutional change slow, but we’ve had an entire era of McConnell style obstructionism. They wanted to “show” public projects don’t work by destroying them and its processes. Now their donors get to sweep in a buy up its corpse.

  • @Miiro55
    @Miiro55 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Can't trump just blanket pardon his staff or key members like biden did to his son?
    That gives the executive branch immunity just like the president in that case no?

    • @parker9012
      @parker9012 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Yep, that's why I found the immunity decision a little boring. The president can just pardon himself and his staff, the last day of office.

  • @ThinkingMan482
    @ThinkingMan482 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    Immunity from prosecution for illegal acts would never have mattered to any other president in my lifetime (with the exception of Richard Nixon.) With Trump, it's a prospect at any moment.

    • @TheAuthenticFloridaMan
      @TheAuthenticFloridaMan 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

      Tell that to joe and hunter biden you iidoit

    • @TheAuthenticFloridaMan
      @TheAuthenticFloridaMan 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Your thinking is about as deep.as the pimple on my face dummy

    • @kevinwoolley7960
      @kevinwoolley7960 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      Who just granted his own son complete immunity for any and all crimes for the last 10 years?

    • @abrahamroloff8671
      @abrahamroloff8671 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Ignoring the two commenters that don't understand the difference between presidential immunity and presidential pardons...
      Our last 4 presidents all committed crimes in office, they just weren't prosecuted for them.

  • @af031987
    @af031987 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +10

    I am honestly shocked at the dishonesty and bias displayed in this conversation. The fact that the reasoning behind thing like unitary power theory or reduction of the administrative state isn’t discussed is borderline journalistic malpractice. You can disagree with the legal theories but at least discuss why you believe they are wrong rather than just decrying their follow on effects.

    • @onedroprule
      @onedroprule 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +6

      First, this is an opinion podcast, not a Wikipedia article. They're not under any duty to explain every cockamamie far right legal theory. Second, checks and balances: Presidents should not be free from consequences and accountability.

    • @psycoloco1113
      @psycoloco1113 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      The unitary power theory is nonsense because the constitution is specifically set up to split all government power into three branches, and setup in such a way so that each branch can counteract the other so that no other branch is supreme to the other.
      It is easy for lunatics and autocratic types to interpret laws in our system so as to enrich themselves or rule with an iron fist. Congress makes laws somewhat vague and broad and not direct to allow a president leeway in it's administration, all it takes is one person to come in and destroy the constitutional system that only functions if people are honorable.
      As for diminishing the administrative state I think you guys end up missing the forest for the trees on this one, if the argument was hey how can we review a law to make it work for our 21st century issues then we could have a discussion on how to change things to streamline them and make them better instead of getting rid of them entirely, administrative offices exist for a reason, often times that reason has been death, maiming, and other harms placed on regular people by the elites. The current America is so spoiled by being free of disease, having access to safe food, little to no conflict in their homes that they take the system working properly and take it as an overreach on their freedoms. The FDA exists because of how badly industry behaved in the past, the fed exists because investors and industries behaved so badly that destabilized the economy, etc. but instead it's always the same argument from right wingers tear it down, instead of reform.

    • @jhaokip23
      @jhaokip23 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@onedropruleDon't be surprised when "theory" becomes practice.

  • @michaelavery1978
    @michaelavery1978 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    If you squint your ears, it sounds exactly like Ezra with a bit of a female filter.

    • @michaelavery1978
      @michaelavery1978 6 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      ..the huge variation in tempo and breathy stuff...the Ivy League Valley accent.

    • @tristan7216
      @tristan7216 2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      My theory is that all of them, and most the announcers on NPR as well, are Ira Glass, using audio software. Since 1995 at least.

    • @michaelavery1978
      @michaelavery1978 2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@tristan7216 Yeah, very similar!

  • @traviswhitescarver738
    @traviswhitescarver738 5 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    ATF?

  • @donbalduf572
    @donbalduf572 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    I see what you did with the "sword and shield" language. Perfect.

  • @florianwicher
    @florianwicher 10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    I love that there's always book recommendations :) thanks!

  • @tpm1999
    @tpm1999 11 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

    MAGA will not be stopped

    • @Dan-dy8zp
      @Dan-dy8zp 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      When was it greatest? What are we going back to?

  • @kevinwoolley7960
    @kevinwoolley7960 7 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    24:48 This argument is garbage. Congress cannot delegate interpretation of a staute to a regulatory agency. Interpretation of a statute is by definition a judicial duty and Congress cannot subvert the judicial branch in this way. If Congress wants to make an ambiguous statute clear, it can legislate, so this decision actually increases the power of the legislative branch. The problem is that Congress wants to dodge all decisions so they can grandstand and raise campaign money while unelected beaurocrats make all the hard choices.

  • @collinbober6707
    @collinbober6707 11 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    nothing like drinking 2 to 3 beers watching new ezra klein podcast

  • @QuantumIllusionStudio
    @QuantumIllusionStudio 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +6

    Clown discussion

  • @Pasta-B1FBA
    @Pasta-B1FBA 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    ♟️we are the new normal BGR 🛋