This is nonsense. The administration is already ignoring judicial orders in multiple areas. Who cares what they’ve “emphasized,” they are transparently a pack of liars. You are not calling balls and strikes, this is very obviously an enormous illegal power grab. The comparison with the New Deal is facile, and a Heritage talking point—everything FDR did, *including trying to expand the Court*, he did through laws passed in Congress. That is entirely different from simply trying to personalize the power of the entire executive branch, which is very clearly what is happening.
Do you really think that personalization has a great track record for improving state capacity or the ability of governments to make credible commitments? Is there anything in what is occurring that truly leads you to think either of those things could be improved by the actions being taken specifically?
Yes the vagaries of fate mean that “in the long term” almost anything is possible, but should that really stop you from drawing the obvious conclusion about what is plainly happening in front of our faces? This is all de-institutionalization, a hallmark of personalization, and manifestly NOT something that leads to high state capacity and a beneficial environment for STEM innovations.
What an evasive response. DOGE is a ketamine addled version of Trump's attack on the US Government. It has operated like the cadres of a conquering hostile power would and Vichyesque excuses don't have much traction.
What you mean is that you don’t have the ability to answer and so resort to insults. I'm not emotionally distraught at all. Perhaps you are. In any case, there is no way to defend the operations of DOGE unless you are an enemy of the United States.
A plain reading of the US Constitution does not lead one to a government where the Judiciary is superior to the other two branches but that is what we have today. The Executive Branch is trying to avoid a head on collision with the Judiciary despite much provocation. It is past time for Congress to do its Constitutional duty ans better define the role of the lower courts.
A plain reading of the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, which the administration is nullifying left and right.
Avoiding a collision? Provocation? Santi’s request to be civil holds me back from saying what I really think of that ridiculous misrepresentation of the facts. The administration is breaking laws with impunity, including in its conduct to the courts. Please reacquaint yourself with the actual events that have occurred and actions the administration has taken.
Court packing was a completely legal thing that had not very distant precedent at the time. He attempted to do it by passing a law, the law did not pass. He did not do it. There was nothing coercive about it whatsoever.
Just because some guy says the President is more powerful than a king doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously as a legal theory. Maybe SCOTUS will rectify it later, but right now the operating philosophy of the executive branch is so untethered that the Constitution is no longer in effect.
If the President can impound funds, why is Congress even there? This might seem rhetorical, but with the filibuster around genuinely why bother having them? They’re probably pretty expensive, so DOGE could save some money by just moving on from the farce.
I liked your separation of DOGE vs rest of the administration, and it seems that many of the (more enraged) responses still lump them together. Important to separate them, nonetheless.
I agree that this is a nice distinction, though it's one that both the administration and DOGE discourage. No one in the executive branch who is aligned with the President presents themselves as in disagreement with DOGE. DOGE, meanwhile, barely presents itself at all. This leaves us with Musk, who, while transparently more a part of DOGE than the government claims in filings, is even more transparently not only part of DOGE, as he campaigns for WI elections and tried to influence foreign policy and judicial review.
The upshot? The administration wants people to think its will is bound up in DOGE, and DOGE actively discourages any clear line on its area of responsibility. If DOGE and the administration are separable, it's not because they want to be.
I think you've totally missed the point of the first comment. It's not a matter of "legal disputes," it's a matter of whether the rule of law exists at all. Maybe the Trump administration and Elon back away from a fully fledged confrontation with the courts, but I don't understand how anyone could be sanguine about the outcome here.
The Mao comment was amazing because your whole piece reminds me so much of the convoluted efforts to make it seem like Mao's catastrophic rule had some logical and moral basis. The plain facts of DOGEs efforts to defeat rule of law, destruction of auditing, firing of inspector generals, random breakage, fork-in-the-road threats to FAA operators, cancelling of programs that kept millions alive and protected the USA from epidemics (thanks for the TB, Elon), and general stupidity are hard to deny, but you've made a serious effort.
The Great Helmsman takes some more Ketamine and awards himself fat contracts and the cadres applaud.
Maybe a quick read of Simon Ley's essays on the cultural revolution would help out here,
US set to lose 1/2 $trillion/year in tax revenue as the vandals continue to loot the state and it's not responsible to pretend this looting is an attempt to reduce waste and fraud. As US allies are forced to cancel contracts for US weapons, the attack is weakening the military capacity of the USA along with the ability to collect taxes. The concurrent destruction of legal stability, people being shipped off to life in Salvadoran prisons, law firms targeted for representing unpersons, judges threatened -- if the USA had lost a war and was being occupied by conquering forces, this is exactly what we'd expect.
Appreciate you doing this. I was a fan of the piece since it was the first time I saw someone try to understand DOGE and its flaws/potential benefits. Really like to highlight your point on the New Deal and not knowing its effects in the moment. Now that doesn’t stop us from drawing early conclusions but I think it’s important to remember that as we parse through all the noise. I’m sure you’ll continue following this and I am excited for any updates.
Here’s another question for you: how would DOGE have looked different if Vivek was the one last standing? From my understanding he was more of the “tech optimizer” versus Elon’s “budget slasher” (and was the one who wrote that piece on it despite both signing it). Any info on this and his exit?
This is nonsense. The administration is already ignoring judicial orders in multiple areas. Who cares what they’ve “emphasized,” they are transparently a pack of liars. You are not calling balls and strikes, this is very obviously an enormous illegal power grab. The comparison with the New Deal is facile, and a Heritage talking point—everything FDR did, *including trying to expand the Court*, he did through laws passed in Congress. That is entirely different from simply trying to personalize the power of the entire executive branch, which is very clearly what is happening.
Do you really think that personalization has a great track record for improving state capacity or the ability of governments to make credible commitments? Is there anything in what is occurring that truly leads you to think either of those things could be improved by the actions being taken specifically?
Yes the vagaries of fate mean that “in the long term” almost anything is possible, but should that really stop you from drawing the obvious conclusion about what is plainly happening in front of our faces? This is all de-institutionalization, a hallmark of personalization, and manifestly NOT something that leads to high state capacity and a beneficial environment for STEM innovations.
I am well acquainted with the current events and our nation’s history. Thank you for sharing your emotions with us.
Thanks for your utterly substance free reply
What an evasive response. DOGE is a ketamine addled version of Trump's attack on the US Government. It has operated like the cadres of a conquering hostile power would and Vichyesque excuses don't have much traction.
I see no point in discussing serious issues with people who are emotionally distraught.
What you mean is that you don’t have the ability to answer and so resort to insults. I'm not emotionally distraught at all. Perhaps you are. In any case, there is no way to defend the operations of DOGE unless you are an enemy of the United States.
A plain reading of the US Constitution does not lead one to a government where the Judiciary is superior to the other two branches but that is what we have today. The Executive Branch is trying to avoid a head on collision with the Judiciary despite much provocation. It is past time for Congress to do its Constitutional duty ans better define the role of the lower courts.
A plain reading of the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, which the administration is nullifying left and right.
Avoiding a collision? Provocation? Santi’s request to be civil holds me back from saying what I really think of that ridiculous misrepresentation of the facts. The administration is breaking laws with impunity, including in its conduct to the courts. Please reacquaint yourself with the actual events that have occurred and actions the administration has taken.
What does the US constitution say about which branch of government makes laws and which is supposed to execute those laws?
Court packing was a coercive attempt to break institutional norms.
Court packing was a completely legal thing that had not very distant precedent at the time. He attempted to do it by passing a law, the law did not pass. He did not do it. There was nothing coercive about it whatsoever.
Adam, please be civil in my comments.
Removed the last sentence
Just because some guy says the President is more powerful than a king doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously as a legal theory. Maybe SCOTUS will rectify it later, but right now the operating philosophy of the executive branch is so untethered that the Constitution is no longer in effect.
If the President can impound funds, why is Congress even there? This might seem rhetorical, but with the filibuster around genuinely why bother having them? They’re probably pretty expensive, so DOGE could save some money by just moving on from the farce.
If Joe Biden made it illegal to say mean things about Joe Biden, no one would have to wait for a court to rule on if that violated the Constitution
I liked your separation of DOGE vs rest of the administration, and it seems that many of the (more enraged) responses still lump them together. Important to separate them, nonetheless.
I agree that this is a nice distinction, though it's one that both the administration and DOGE discourage. No one in the executive branch who is aligned with the President presents themselves as in disagreement with DOGE. DOGE, meanwhile, barely presents itself at all. This leaves us with Musk, who, while transparently more a part of DOGE than the government claims in filings, is even more transparently not only part of DOGE, as he campaigns for WI elections and tried to influence foreign policy and judicial review.
The upshot? The administration wants people to think its will is bound up in DOGE, and DOGE actively discourages any clear line on its area of responsibility. If DOGE and the administration are separable, it's not because they want to be.
I think you've totally missed the point of the first comment. It's not a matter of "legal disputes," it's a matter of whether the rule of law exists at all. Maybe the Trump administration and Elon back away from a fully fledged confrontation with the courts, but I don't understand how anyone could be sanguine about the outcome here.
As of now they're still very much ignoring Boasberg while simultaneously whipping up rightwing attacks on him in public
That Mao one is a pretty good conclusion
The Mao comment was amazing because your whole piece reminds me so much of the convoluted efforts to make it seem like Mao's catastrophic rule had some logical and moral basis. The plain facts of DOGEs efforts to defeat rule of law, destruction of auditing, firing of inspector generals, random breakage, fork-in-the-road threats to FAA operators, cancelling of programs that kept millions alive and protected the USA from epidemics (thanks for the TB, Elon), and general stupidity are hard to deny, but you've made a serious effort.
The Great Helmsman takes some more Ketamine and awards himself fat contracts and the cadres applaud.
Maybe a quick read of Simon Ley's essays on the cultural revolution would help out here,
US set to lose 1/2 $trillion/year in tax revenue as the vandals continue to loot the state and it's not responsible to pretend this looting is an attempt to reduce waste and fraud. As US allies are forced to cancel contracts for US weapons, the attack is weakening the military capacity of the USA along with the ability to collect taxes. The concurrent destruction of legal stability, people being shipped off to life in Salvadoran prisons, law firms targeted for representing unpersons, judges threatened -- if the USA had lost a war and was being occupied by conquering forces, this is exactly what we'd expect.
Appreciate you doing this. I was a fan of the piece since it was the first time I saw someone try to understand DOGE and its flaws/potential benefits. Really like to highlight your point on the New Deal and not knowing its effects in the moment. Now that doesn’t stop us from drawing early conclusions but I think it’s important to remember that as we parse through all the noise. I’m sure you’ll continue following this and I am excited for any updates.
Here’s another question for you: how would DOGE have looked different if Vivek was the one last standing? From my understanding he was more of the “tech optimizer” versus Elon’s “budget slasher” (and was the one who wrote that piece on it despite both signing it). Any info on this and his exit?