Summary

The Democratic National Committee and two other party committees have sued Trump over Executive Order 14215, which claims authority to seize control of the Federal Elections Commission.

The lawsuit argues this violates federal law and threatens free elections.

The order also claims power over other agencies including the SEC, FTC, and NLRB.

Democrats contend this executive overreach contradicts constitutional principles and a century of Supreme Court precedent upholding Congress’s authority to insulate certain agencies from presidential control.

  • @stickly
    link
    37 hours ago

    You do know who appoints the judges, right?

    And you think the federal government doesn’t have the resources to pull off those crimes without plausible deniability? Or that the right wing militias aren’t perfectly constructed to take their own initiative, fight and die for their dear leader anyway?

    • @FlowVoid
      link
      English
      2
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      State judges are elected or appointed by governors.

      Judges aren’t healthcare CEOs: they are accustomed to being targeted by criminals, they have armed security details, and they have the chief of police on speed-dial.

      The federal government might have “plausible deniability” but the perps are still going to be arrested and tried. “Plausible deniability” just means the government will abandon them.

      • @stickly
        link
        16 hours ago

        Genuine question because I’m not a lawyer, but why would a state judge specifically need to issue the warrant? And could it come from any red state maga judge?

        And yes, the government would absolutely abandon them. But all a dictator (or his public propaganda) needs to say is “unfortunate violence, but that judge got what was coming to him” and the lap dogs will eat it up. There are way more willing martyrs than judges.

        Will the chief of police stop the feds from finding a hard-drive full of CP in the judges office, sourced back to some international investigation the feds have jurisdiction over?

        Your phrasing keeps implying that naked unconstitutional acts would be met with armed resistance, but that’s not what I’m trying to get across. A state judge could pretty fairly label Trump an outlaw today, giving judicial sanction for violent arrest. That doesn’t put a bunch of state police on par with Trump engaging the national guard. All he needs is some thin veil of imagined legitimacy and he has the power to “defend” America from any threat.

        • @FlowVoid
          link
          English
          2
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          would a state judge specifically need to issue the warrant?

          For federal crimes, a federal judge would issue the warrant. But not a hand-picked federal judge, they would be randomly chosen from within the jurisdiction.

          Even if a Trump-appointed judge were randomly chosen, I doubt they would go along with a bogus warrant against another judge. For one thing, judges (like cops) protect their own. For another, the warrant would be appealed and it’s quite unlikely that every judge in the line of appeal would play along.

          stop the feds from finding a hard-drive full of CP in the judges office

          That’s not the slam-dunk you seem to think. First, local PD would be present during the search and notice that a hard drive appeared out of nowhere. Next, the forensics team would notice that the only fingerprints on the drive belonged to federal agents. Finally, the judge’s password-protected computer would have no record of interfacing with that drive. All in all, those charges would likely be dismissed.

          A state judge could pretty fairly label Trump an outlaw today, giving judicial sanction for violent arrest.

          Trump might be an “outlaw” because he is not following the law, but that is not the same as a “criminal” (someone who has specifically violated the criminal code). And only criminals can be arrested.

          The consequence for breaking the law is often not arrest, but a lawsuit. And Trump is being sued all over the place.

          That doesn’t put a bunch of state police on par with Trump engaging the national guard.

          Trump isn’t going to successfully engage the national guard against the state police. For one thing, the national guard is paid by the governor’s office. What is Trump offering them?

          If the governor tells the guard “Any guardsman who interferes with state police won’t get paid and/or will be demoted”, then nobody will interfere.

          • @stickly
            link
            0
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            Tell me where the buck stops, because we could go back and forth all day. The only people who can remove Trump from office are the legislative branch, and they already consent to what he’s doing. He could just cut federal funding to any state that causes too much of a ruckus.

            If they won’t hold him accountable for any blatantly unconstitutional activity then nothing can change. Sure, I guess you could imagine a scenario where all of America collectively decides that the states have a right to intercede and remove elected federal officials, but that’s no longer playing by the rules of the game.

            The judicial branch alone cannot save you, suits can go back and forth and injunctions be ignored in perpetuity. If it causes any real annoyance there’s a million levers to pull (pulling funding, national emergencies, the insurrection act, targeted coercion, etc…)

            • @FlowVoid
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              The only people who can remove Trump from office are the legislative branch

              That’s true.

              We’re not talking about removing him from office, though. We are talking about judicial remedies, which usually involve paying restitution to people who have been wronged. And getting those people paid is not as difficult as you imagine.

              He could just cut federal funding to any state that causes too much of a ruckus.

              Governors might care if you cut federal funding to their states.

              But judges don’t care. And judges don’t work for the governor.

              a million levers to pull (pulling funding, national emergencies, the insurrection act, targeted coercion

              There’s a reason why judges tend to consider themselves as untouchable. None of this would have any effect on them.

              Judges sentence mafia captains and drug kingpins to jail, people for whom extortion and violent retribution are second nature. Why do you think they would suddenly be scared off by Trump’s crew of incompetent doofuses?

              injunctions be ignored in perpetuity

              No, they can’t. Nobody has an infinite bank account.

              • @stickly
                link
                14 hours ago

                Ok, can a judge freeze a tank or a drone cruising at 50,000 feet? You’re banking on every single judge to agree to play civil war chicken? Not even a few of them (such as his personal appointments to the SCOTUS) will back Trump in this?

                The judicial system just hemmed and hawwed for 4 years, refusing to lock him up for blatant crimes. Now they’re going to grow a spine when he has access to the nuclear launch codes?

                If the judicial branch wanted to stop him they could have done it any time on the last 8 years. So either they can’t or won’t…

                • @FlowVoid
                  link
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  4 hours ago

                  can a judge freeze a tank

                  Is Trump personally driving that tank?

                  Once you order the military to break the law, all bets are off. Things aren’t necessarily going to go your way, especially if you’re suddenly a very unpopular leader. I think a randomly chosen soldier would be equally likely to target the White House than another American citizen with that tank.

                  If the judicial branch wanted to stop him

                  The judicial system normally acts very slowly. They are the most deliberative branch of government. But they can move much faster when they are being defied.

                  And frankly it wasn’t their job to “stop” Trump. That was the job of voters, and we failed.

                  • @stickly
                    link
                    14 hours ago

                    So you concede that the courts can’t do anything when push comes to shove. It’s up to the guy in the tank, the rogue secret service agent, the personal chef with a grudge, etc…

                    There’s a reason why the main push of the first few weeks were purges of executive officials and telling all federal employees to quit. Anyone left has passed the acid test of loyalty to Trump or is meek enough to “just follow orders”.

                    Is it a foolproof plan for Trump? Time will tell where all loyalties lay, but their actions have shown where they think the true threat is.