politics @lemmy.world MicroWave @lemmy.world 6d ago

Democrats finally sue Trump for trying to control elections

newrepublic.com Democrats Finally Sue Trump for Trying to Control Elections

The Democratic Party has filed a lawsuit against one of Trump’s most dangerous executive orders.

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.

You're viewing a single thread.

96 comments

That's not going to work.

What he's REALLY BEEN doing is changing the power balance, which used to be Legislative, Executive, and Judicial with Judicial having final say in most things by ruling on their constitutionality, and elevating the Executive branch. He will ignore judicial rulings as they "don't apply" to his office.
- Because the Supreme Court of The United States of America said as much. The courts basically signed all their real power away in Trump v. America. What I'm sure will eventually be called the Trump Doctrine if the president does it, than it is not illegal. Trump can legally take control over the election process because he's taking it as the president. So regardless of any other law whatever he does it legal.
  
  While trump v America had the wrong ruling, the conclusion your sharing isn't correct.
  
  The ruling shielded the president from personal liability for actions taken as president. It didn't touch the offices ability to be sued or be legally restrained.
  
  If trump, in his capacity as president, violates the law "the president" can be sued and forced to stop, but not trump personally. You can't send him to jail for improperly claiming authority over the FEC, but you can prevent the office of the president from doing so.
- That's not going to work either. It's a bad idea to openly defy judges, because they can easily drain your bank account.
  
  You'll note that even now, Trump lawyers claim they are doing their best to comply with court orders.
  
  Assuming the rule of law is respected
  
  Judges can drain bank accounts of those who don't respect rule of law. That's kind of the point of draining their bank account.
  
  I keep hearing arguments like this, and I'd love to be reassured by them, but they come after watching Trump receive 34 felony convictions with no actual punishment for those convictions, after which he was elected President of the United States of America. It also comes after watching a 4 year long failure to attach (or even try to attach) any consequences to him for Jan 06.
  
  So, you'll forgive me if I'll wait until I hear about bank accounts being drained and that it has any measurable impact on the rate of progress at https://www.project2025.observer/ before I lull myself back into to believing Trump is in any way not untouchable.
  
  There are a lot of things the system can do to stop something like this. So far it's not doing very many of them.
  
  but they come after watching Trump receive 34 felony convictions with no actual punishment for those convictions
  
  Yeah, well, blame the courts for sentencing him to "Never mind, we cool bro."
  
  any consequences to him for Jan 06.
  
  That gets tricky. The core argument would be that Trump's speech before the attack is firmly within his 1A rights (and it almost certainly is, 1A speech rights are extremely broad and anything short of a direct call to immediate lawless action is usually protected) and that his not doing anything to stop it once it started is him doing a shit job, but not technically illegal (but hypothetically impeachable, if both houses would agree to it which was never going to happen).
  
  You'd have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he planned for J6 to happen the way it did in a fashion that is definitely not attached to his duties as president in any even vaguely reasonable way to have anything to hang on him at all without an impeachment. Something like hard evidence of him coordinating specifically the attack on the capitol (as opposed to the rally or march to the capitol steps) with the people entering the capitol or their leadership and not merely an otherwise legal protest/rally. Which is a high bar to reach.
  
  I don't mean this to sound argumentative, but every time I make a statement like you replied to I feel like no one gets what I'm saying.
  
  I understand there are reasons things take awhile. I understand our justice system is supposed to be set up that the state needs to make a solid case.
  
  I also understand that Trump has managed to fall through every loophole in every layer of our justice system so far, and avoided any consequences that would cause him actual financial hardship, any sort of punishment whatsoever for his 34 felonies, and any kind of consequences for Jan 06.
  
  So, NOW, when he's at the height of his power, I take no comfort from how our justice system can or should or might work. I will take comfort when I see it actually doing something to meaningfully impede Donald Trump and Elon Musk, which so far I have not seen.
  
  He also received an $83 million judgment, which he already paid. And a $400 million fine, which he will pay.
  
  Also, keep in mind that Trump cannot act alone. Even if he could shrug off a million dollar fine, his employees cannot. And judges will target his employees, until nobody is willing to break the law for him.
  
  I don't think Trump is going to lose any sleep over his employees getting millions of dollars in fines or jail time. He can just preemptively pardon them no questions asked if he could be bothered to remember they exist. Also nearly 50% of voting aged adults actually support Trump ignoring the courts so I don't think there's much anyone can do.
  
  Trump can't pardon employees who are found in contempt of court. Trump might not lose sleep, but the employees will. Most employees, even Trump supporters, won't take an assignment that will lead to losing their life savings.
  
  And judges will target his employees, until nobody is willing to break the law for him.
  
  And when they do, I'll applaud for them as loudly as anyone else.
  
  Until then, as they say, it's vaporware.
  
  There is no need for judges to target anyone yet, because the Trump admin hasn't been found in contempt.
  
  Do you not comprehend that I no longer feel any sense of hope from what our justice system could or might do in the future, since it has utterly failed to impede him in any substantive way to date? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying it is meaningless given what has happened to him so far (no substantive impact) until something different happens (substantive impact).
  
  Because so far, he seems to be gaming things really well, and I see no reason to think that will change.
  
  I (and all of us) waited for what our justice system could do for four years. And it did nothing that mattered. I say again:
  
  So, you’ll forgive me if I’ll wait until I hear about bank accounts being drained and that it has any measurable impact on the rate of progress at https://www.project2025.observer/ before I lull myself back into to believing Trump is in any way not untouchable.
  
  Trump has lost several court cases already, and many are just getting started. For example, today Cathy Harris was reinstated to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
  
  If you expect the judicial system to broadly restore the status quo under Biden, then you're probably going to be disappointed. Any victories will be on a case-by-case basis. That's literally how the judicial system operates.
  
  Trump has lost several court cases already, and many are just getting started.
  
  I feel we define consequences differently.
  
  If you expect the judicial system to broadly restore the status quo under Biden
  
  I expected the judicial system to have him in prison, or have made a credible attempt at such, before his cultists could re-elect him. That's why nothing about what it might do in the future has meaning to me. When it does something that matters, that will be fantastic. I hope I'm alive to see it.
  
  Right now we're coming up on 5 years of fluff and Trump pulling change out of his couch cushions then replenishing it with NFTs, gold shoes, and other grift.
  
  So all these assurances ring hollow if I'm to take them as any indication that he won't be able to continue raw dogging the US and the world until he gets sick of it or until arteriosclerosis finally does us all a favor.
  
  Does the judge have a computer with a button on it that says drain? What's the process, and can that process be disrupted?
  
  I'm being quite serious.
  
  I answered this elsewhere, but the upshot is that banks treat court orders like checks drawn from your account. Once they are signed, there isn't any good way to stop the funds from being withdrawn.
  
  Ok now the judge is in jail for treason or has all their personal assets liquidated into the Sovereign Wealth fund. What next? A new judge is hand picked and installed, is he going to put his neck out like the last guy?
  
  Jails are administered by judges. Put a judge in jail illegally, and another judge will immediately release them.
  
  Ok, the judge gets swept up in a military tribunal or they just say anyone collaborating with this judge is also guilty of treason. This is all putting aside brownshirts straight up burning down their house and the FBI regrettably failing to catch the culprits.
  
  You can't arrest someone for treason without a warrant. And warrants are signed by judges.
  
  The rest of your hypothetical describes kidnapping and arson. Kidnapping and arson are state crimes even if the perp is a federal employee. The brownshirts would be arrested by state/local police (who vastly outnumber federal agents btw) and tried in state courts.
  
  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?
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  Well, you can't legally arrest someone without a warrant. We're talking about a situation where the rule of law is being dismantled.
  
  Although, I also wouldn't put it past them to argue that you don't need a warrant to arrest someone for "issuing a treasonous court order" on the grounds that it was done in plain view or that they have probable cause to believe the judge committed said treason, which is a felony and thus doesn't require a warrant.
  
  It's obvious baloney but that doesn't mean it's not a workable veneer of legitimacy.
  
  All arrests end with an appearance before a judge. If it's obvious baloney, the judge will dismiss.
  
  How did it work out of Andrew "the courts have made decision " Jackson?
  
  Jackson probably never said that.
  
  In any case, he wasn't defying the court. He was passing the buck.
  
  This case was between Samuel Worcester and the state of Georgia, and the SCOTUS ordered the state of Georgia to release Worcester. Jackson was not involved and didn't want to be involved (hence the snarky "let THEM enforce it", ie "keep me out of this").
  
  However, the SCOTUS never asked for Jackson's help and ultimately didn't need it.
  
  Yeah I was reading up on it recently and it's surprising that there were people tiptoeing around the Supreme courts decision, but at the end everyone did actually cave and either followed the ruling or it became a non issue.
  
  Who is the THEY doing the draining? Could they be fired? Could a Trump loyalist be placed there instead?
  
  Not legally you say? What if someone didn't care about doing it legally? What if they just fired the person and replaced them. How about that.
  
  THEY is the judge.
  
  Suppose you sued Bob, and Bob was dumb enough to openly defy the judge. The judge could write a court order that says "Bob owes Melatonin $1000" or "Bob owes the court $1000".
  
  For all practical purposes, that order works the same as a check signed by Bob. If it's written to you, then you and your lawyer can take it to the bank. The bank teller will give you $1000 and deduct $1000 from Bob's account. It doesn't matter what Bob says or what Bob's employees say. The bank teller doesn't work for Bob.
  
  The same is true if "Bob" is a DoJ lawyer or even the DoJ itself.
  
  I would like to see how this works if the check is drawn off the president of the United States. I daresay, it's going to be different, at least with this president.
  
  The US has checking accounts just like everyone else. That's how they write paychecks.
  
  And if a bank can draw from the US account when presented with a federal employee's paycheck, it can do the same when presented with a court order.

96 comments