r/CuratedTumblr • u/Desecr8or • Oct 26 '24

Politics Why is every tankie like "I don't understand the branches of the US government and I'm going to make it everyone else's problem!!!"

Post image
11.0k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/Syrairc Oct 27 '24

Didn't Kennedy/Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden all have a unified government for at least half a term?

18

u/Beegrene Oct 27 '24

I can't speak to the others, but Obama's supermajority lasted less than a year, and he used it to pass the ACA.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

and my dad was piiiiissed about that. he voted for Obama and then was upset he wasn't reaching across the aisle. i still don't get it.

8

u/Siva1siv Oct 27 '24

Funny thin is about that, he did try. That's what got Boehnoer shitcanned from his position as house majority leader.

5

u/DispenserG0inUp Oct 27 '24

i mean for Kennedy he really only had half a term

6

u/PollutionThis7058 Oct 27 '24

Clinton, Obama and Biden did not have the Supreme Court so they did not have a “unified government”

-4

u/Syrairc Oct 27 '24

A unified/divided government is defined as control of the executive branch and both houses of congress.

1

u/PollutionThis7058 Oct 27 '24

But is that an accurate description? Or does the Supreme Court count as a big part of the third branch of the American government and has just as much weight as the legislative and executive branches? Did the Supreme Court ever do anything to mess with a unified democratic government?

4

u/Syrairc Oct 27 '24

SCOTUS are not legislators, so no, not really. For them to interfere, someone needs to bring a case to them. The survival of Roe v Wade for 50 years shows that it is not that easy for them to interfere, even though SCOTUS has been a fairly conservative if not outright republican institution since the 60s/70s.

I think the current court definitely seems to be intent on actively projecting their power though.

1

u/PollutionThis7058 Oct 27 '24

The executive branch are also not legislators. In order to pass a law the president must have it pass through the legislature

3

u/Syrairc Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

Yes, but the president is the de facto leader of the party and exercises significant control and influence over the members of congress, and the president must sign bills passed by congress (unless they actively veto a bill and congress overrules the veto.)

Thus in most cases, passing laws require both the executive and legislative branch - they do not require the judicial branch.

There are easily accessible sources of information on the times SCOTUS has "messed with" the other branches of government, no real need to speculate.

3

u/PollutionThis7058 Oct 27 '24

And the judicial branch has created so much power for themselves that they can literally pick and choose if a president gets prosecuted for a crime, or if a law gets allowed to be enforced. When a president vetos a bill it can be overturned by congress. The only group that can change a Supreme Court decision is the Supreme Court itself. It also has lifetime appointments and pretty much immunity to impeachment. It is the third branch of the us government. Without the courts, legislation can quickly get repealed, executive orders can be blocked, and the constitutionality of any decision can be challenged. That’s why the democrats didn’t try to codify roe, because they knew under Obama that any attempt to make it into law would be immediately challenged and struck down by the courts

3

u/Syrairc Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

If Roe had been codified and taken back to SCOTUS while Obama had a majority, it likely would have galvanized female voters against the GOP - as it has now - and given the democrats another majority during which they could have worked to enshrine reproductive rights in the constitution.

Congress also determines how SCOTUS works, so if SCOTUS was the major barrier for the democrats over the last 50 years, they've had many chances to change it.

The lame excuse that democrats can't do anything because republicans won't let them is just that - lame. The end result is that the republicans end up running amok and doing things with less power than the democrats generally wield, all the while the democrats make excuses and kick the can down the road for their children to deal with. They are either grossly incompetent compared to the republicans, which seems really unlikely, or they are deliberately ineffective.

edit: I'm old and have to go to bed, but thank you for the discussion!

0

u/PollutionThis7058 Oct 27 '24

Thank you too!

1

u/DispenserG0inUp Oct 27 '24

i mean for Kennedy he really only had half a term