120
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
120 points (100.0% liked)
Progressive Politics
3174 readers
341 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's why there are (were?) three branches with the intention of balancing each other to some degree. The Founders knew what could happen. They just didn't foresee two of the branches ceding their power to the executive.
One of the three branches is nominated and confirmed by the other two branches, so you only really have to capture the senate and the presidency, as we have seen.
The basic idea of the founders was good, but the US implementation of checks and balances is wildly outdated. There were several points where equivalent powers have proven disastrous in other countries over the last 3 centuries, and the US failed to act upon such data.
Taking the judiciary is a long term project though. It's resistant to short term swings associated with the rise of autocrats. The problem is the Republicans have been moving in this direction for decades.
Yeah, the president isn't even supposed to have that much power. It's the party-first subservience in the other two branches, especially the legislative branch, which is exacerbating the issue. And the fact that the state-level governments are bowing down to Der Leader whuch appear to be amplifying his bullshit.