Snatching power? If you’re interested in the subject, the local level is where all the action happens. From Jed Shugarman (MSNBC legal analyst):
“In the United States, almost 90 percent of state judges have to run in popular elections to remain on the bench. In the past decade, this peculiarly American institution has produced vicious multi-million-dollar political election campaigns and high-profile allegations of judicial bias and misconduct. The People's Courts traces the history of judicial elections and Americans' quest for an independent judiciary--one that would ensure fairness for all before the law--from the colonial era to the present.
“In the aftermath of economic disaster, nineteenth-century reformers embraced popular elections as a way to make politically appointed judges less susceptible to partisan patronage and more independent of the legislative and executive branches of government. This effort to reinforce the separation of powers and limit government succeeded in many ways, but it created new threats to judicial independence and provoked further calls for reform. Merit selection emerged as the most promising means of reducing partisan and financial influence from judicial selection. It too, however, proved vulnerable to pressure from party politics and special interest groups.
“Yet, as Shugerman concludes, it still has more potential for protecting judicial independence than either political appointment or popular election.
“The People's Courts shows how Americans have been deeply committed to judicial independence, but that commitment has also been manipulated by special interests. By understanding our history of judicial selection, we can better protect and preserve the independence of judges from political and partisan influence.”
Trump has never been interested in working with Congress. A question that came to my mind is would Congress consider redirecting the rescinded funds to different uses or will these funds just idle.
Once again I commend you on a well written article that is easily read and understood. Your depth of knowledge, clarity, and balanced insight is very appreciated. I find it appalling that no news outlets reported about the ongoing court case.
Your posts often give me reason to hope that we can find a way to move forward in learning to work together with education and civil debate. Thank you.
This is no longer a Constitutional Republic or a Representative Democracy. This is a dictatorship.
I am not going to whine about what Trump is doing but I am going to ask the incoming Congress to revoke the recission loophole. Laws originate in Congress or Congress is irrelevant. Laws are executed by the President or Congress is irrelevant. Laws are obeyed by the President of the courts are irrelevant.
We have seen all of the above disregarded and that, my friends, constitutes a dicatatorship.
We have a choice to make. Either Congress and the Supreme Court bring the presidency to heel or dissolve the Constitution and acknowledge the reality that we don't care.
Cogent and thoughtful analysis as usual! Quick question though: in this situation could groups or individuals potentially have standing for specific program allocations regardless of Trump’s claim that only the GAO does? As non-citizens refugees might not qualify but what about minority owned businesses for example? Thanks
When it becomes "normal" to have "business as usual" we are caught in an endless loop. Unfortunately that loop is actually a spiral (picture a slinky toy) that goes deeper down.
Or as Bruce Cochburn* writes, " the trouble with normal is it always gets worse".
*Bruce is a fabulous singer songwriter and you should check out his song!
Your Article: Short and to the point! The backbone to our governmental system is the Constitution (and all the testaments thereof). So, we therefore are impelled to elect representatives of both Houses to make that an urgent reality.
By the way, P. B. Murray, Missouri's Nonpartisan Judicial Plan (1940) is a positive aspect of the judicial process.
Thanks Gabe for your insightful analysis of our system!
I really appreciate the explanation! I made it through and understand a lot more of the rescissions process (a sentence I never thought I would say 😂)
Snatching power? If you’re interested in the subject, the local level is where all the action happens. From Jed Shugarman (MSNBC legal analyst):
“In the United States, almost 90 percent of state judges have to run in popular elections to remain on the bench. In the past decade, this peculiarly American institution has produced vicious multi-million-dollar political election campaigns and high-profile allegations of judicial bias and misconduct. The People's Courts traces the history of judicial elections and Americans' quest for an independent judiciary--one that would ensure fairness for all before the law--from the colonial era to the present.
“In the aftermath of economic disaster, nineteenth-century reformers embraced popular elections as a way to make politically appointed judges less susceptible to partisan patronage and more independent of the legislative and executive branches of government. This effort to reinforce the separation of powers and limit government succeeded in many ways, but it created new threats to judicial independence and provoked further calls for reform. Merit selection emerged as the most promising means of reducing partisan and financial influence from judicial selection. It too, however, proved vulnerable to pressure from party politics and special interest groups.
“Yet, as Shugerman concludes, it still has more potential for protecting judicial independence than either political appointment or popular election.
“The People's Courts shows how Americans have been deeply committed to judicial independence, but that commitment has also been manipulated by special interests. By understanding our history of judicial selection, we can better protect and preserve the independence of judges from political and partisan influence.”
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674055489
Trump has never been interested in working with Congress. A question that came to my mind is would Congress consider redirecting the rescinded funds to different uses or will these funds just idle.
Thanks Gabe! Good, clear story - short enough to get through and an important topic.
Once again I commend you on a well written article that is easily read and understood. Your depth of knowledge, clarity, and balanced insight is very appreciated. I find it appalling that no news outlets reported about the ongoing court case.
Your posts often give me reason to hope that we can find a way to move forward in learning to work together with education and civil debate. Thank you.
Thanks Gabe - great piece. How can we reintroduce civics instruction into our schools - you should be the headmaster!
Remember Nixon's fight, expect a similar outcome when Congress or someone with standing starts standing up for the appropriation(s).
Excellent explanations. Thank you.
This is no longer a Constitutional Republic or a Representative Democracy. This is a dictatorship.
I am not going to whine about what Trump is doing but I am going to ask the incoming Congress to revoke the recission loophole. Laws originate in Congress or Congress is irrelevant. Laws are executed by the President or Congress is irrelevant. Laws are obeyed by the President of the courts are irrelevant.
We have seen all of the above disregarded and that, my friends, constitutes a dicatatorship.
We have a choice to make. Either Congress and the Supreme Court bring the presidency to heel or dissolve the Constitution and acknowledge the reality that we don't care.
Tik Tok
Cogent and thoughtful analysis as usual! Quick question though: in this situation could groups or individuals potentially have standing for specific program allocations regardless of Trump’s claim that only the GAO does? As non-citizens refugees might not qualify but what about minority owned businesses for example? Thanks
When it becomes "normal" to have "business as usual" we are caught in an endless loop. Unfortunately that loop is actually a spiral (picture a slinky toy) that goes deeper down.
Or as Bruce Cochburn* writes, " the trouble with normal is it always gets worse".
*Bruce is a fabulous singer songwriter and you should check out his song!
http://brucecockburn.com/discography/the-trouble-with-normal/
David Herrick Pope
Your Article: Short and to the point! The backbone to our governmental system is the Constitution (and all the testaments thereof). So, we therefore are impelled to elect representatives of both Houses to make that an urgent reality.
By the way, P. B. Murray, Missouri's Nonpartisan Judicial Plan (1940) is a positive aspect of the judicial process.
Thanks Gabe for your insightful analysis of our system!
Good explanation but still head scratching as to why this loop hole wasn't closed long ago.