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.

  • RandAlThor
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    18 minutes ago

    I didn’t even hear of this executive order. That just lays it out clearly all the steps he’s taking to seize power in the US undemocratically.

  • skozzii
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Why so quick? I thought they would give him a few more terms before stepping in and trying literally anything…

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

  • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    How long is it going to take Bernie, AOC et all to walk out of the Democratic Party and start their own?

    That’s the only solution. Hopefully some moderate Republicans do the same (create their own party), and finally America will have a democracy…

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      How long is it going to take Bernie, AOC et all to walk out of the Democratic Party and start their own?

      Hopefully less than 2 years.

    • Turret3857@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      7 hours ago

      IMHO we won’t have one until we adopt a European style election where we have more than 2 viable parties and the electoral college is abolished.

        • skozzii
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Look at Canada, that’s the only reason Conservatives have had any control or power. We have one right wing party(Conservatives), and 3 on the left(liberals, new democrats and green party).

          It’s usually pretty close to a 35/65 split between right and left, but right wins half the time because of how fractured the left is… (currently there is a right fascist surge in Canada , just like the rest of the world, with Elons funding and Russia’s electronic warfare )

          It’s a garbage system the last government promised to reform and didn’t, which hurts them long term.

          *We also have a wild card party(BQ) that just represents one province Quebecs interest’s , which should be banned from federal politics, they will swap sides just to get the best deal for those specifically in their province and that goes against the spirit of the federal politics for a United nation *

  • Placebonickname@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    A) He’s following China’s playbook. B) there is shit in the Project 2025 document that outlines this sorta play, here is a link to the summary.

    https://blog.ucsusa.org/liza-gordon-rogers/how-project-2025-would-endanger-our-elections/

    If we get to the point where, “For the safety of America, we won’t have an other election until the Democrats are stopped!”, I won’t be surprised. The GOP Does not plan on turning over control now that they have it.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Worse in my opinion. They can openly manipulate the media and funding easier. The shots at the presses freedoms are going unchecked. If you make money off media/journalism and the offices are allowed to simply tell media outlets they can’t attend anymore they are going to fall in line or lose their income and die. Shit even that dumb Epstein document thing was clearly a shot at freedom of the press. They knew most of it was already given to the public previously, yet wanted to control how the media reacted to Trump being tied to it. So they specifically launched it via channels they knew would defend Trump no matter what.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Will, I don’t think anybody needs such drama, just that election will elect whom they need with 146% certainty. That’s a reference to the last Putin’s re-election.

      By the way, Putin’s re-elections have been proven mathematically to be falsifications through and through, say, Russian Central Election Committee obfuscated their “public” (scraping-protected webpages, say, dynamically shuffled fonts, with lines and lines of text) data, it was still deobfuscated, where they managed to hide moments of actually throwing in extra ballots, doing carusels or whatever, it was still mathematically proven that those dynamics do not belong to a normal election. But all those other violations were detected on scale in all recent elections in Russia.

      And nothing. Public outrage is not as powerful as mechanisms that react to it, if there’s no such - then no cinema.

      I think in US Trump is doing this the simple way, while in the EU both elections matter less and bureaucracies are already strong, but too regulated, so they want more surveillance and communications’ regulation - to be able to prevent those trying to use accountability mechanisms and organize from being heard, maybe even silently detaining\murdering such people, special services are always prepared for that kind of activity, and if there are no safe communications, a group of nations with institutions can turn into something as miserable as Russia very quickly, silently and conclusively.

      It’s a world tendency, I think. Even China before the last 10 years or so was, apparently (never been in China), a non-democratic state with some rule of law. Turkey was on the rise after a couple of decades of normal democracy after its last military dictatorship. In Iran people like Ahmadinejad were in visible posts and it seemed to be almost becoming democratic.

      In Russia in my childhood everyone around me just believed we’re past dictatorships and Putin will leave when his term ends.

      So - I think we live in an interesting time where the humanity once again learns the meanings of “common sense”, “natural law” and “human dignity”. And why sovcits are the wisest of political marginals.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 hours ago

    They should have protected democracy when they had a majority. Protecting the filibuster was more important.

    The filibuster that they aren’t using against trump’s agenda.

  • Deceptichum@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    How many years did I have to put up with hearing about checks and balances, because that was a damn lie.

    • Cyborganism
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Right? All you needed was one bully and his friends who don’t care about rules to simply do what they want and fuck everything up.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        All systems of government are like that. I’m not saying ours is perfect. It is far from it. However, all forms of government rely on specific people following a set of rules that a (usually) different group of people came up with. Once enough people ignore the rules there’s no way to fix the problem by attempting to enforce the rules that aren’t being followed. That’s what we’re seeing now.

        • Australis13@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          True, although the number of people that you need to break the rules before the system of government falls apart varies from system to system. In this case my impression is that the US requires relatively few people (once in power) to make those kinds of decisions.

          • Cyborganism
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Just stuff the Supreme Court judges with your allies and you’re pretty much set.

            I just don’t understand how everyone else is just complying with Doge blindly instead of just saying no. That’s what baffles me the most.

              • Cyborganism
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                56 minutes ago

                I don’t know man… I feel like there should be more resistance.

                • Sanctus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 minutes ago

                  There should be, but we just spent the last 50 years going down corruption lane. We should have burned down Citizens United when they first tried to buy an election. We should have instated anti corruption laws to keep corporations and political action committees out. Its too late now. There is going to be strife, and more if the people dont pull those two monstrosities out of office.

  • sik0fewl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It’ll be nice to see SCOTUS rule against elections and then we can stop the charade.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Hey, someone had to close that barn door. If we ever get another horse, it might leave too.