56
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
56 points (88.9% liked)
Asklemmy
48783 readers
730 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Really? Tell me how a political party can police another party. The only actions congress, in particular, have is impeachment. Impeachment is effectively suing the defendant with no inherit repercussions.
Give me one example of an illegal action taken by this administration and what the Democrats could legally do to “block, stop, or reverse” it.
The Congress has WAY more tools than just impeachment to check illegal executive actions. Impeachment’s the nuclear option, but daily oversight is where real accountability happens. Let’s just take a look at a few tools dems could use.
Trump admin officials like Wilbur Ross repeatedly ignored subpoenas about the citizenship census question. Dems could’ve jailed officials for contempt ,like the GOP did to Lois Lerner, or sued for enforcement. They folded. Trump’s family separation policy violated asylum laws. Congress controls the purse. They could’ve defunded ICE/CBP’s ability to implement it. Instead, they funded it more. Trump’s emoluments violations (e.g., foreign govs. paying at his hotels). Pass a bill explicitly banning presidential self-enrichment. When Dems did act (e.g., suing over border wall funds), they won which proves that legal avenues exist.
Claiming "Congress can’t do anything" ignores history. When Bush pushed torture, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act. When Obama overreached on immigration, courts blocked him. Weakness is a choice, not a constraint. Even without majority control, minority parties have real power, which dems are not using. They can force subpoena votes, sue in court (like Dems did to block Trump's border wall funding), leverage Senate filibusters, and rally public pressure. Republicans proved this by stonewalling Obama's Supreme Court pick for 10 months with only Senate control. The tools exist, and the lack of oversight reflects political opportunism as opposed to institutional impossibility.
Yes. That's exactly my entire point. And this only works if the courts determine the act to not be legal. This is why, as I said, there are over 250 cases against the administration right now.
There's a lot going on right now which the public dislikes but that doesn't necessarily make an act illegal. If nothing else, Trump knows how to work the courts. He also disregards the courts and we're still waiting to see if there's any repercussions to that.
Trump is not Obama. Obama fucked up by caving to McConnell. Trump would not do the same. There is no comparison of this administration and any other. History is irrelevant at this point.
🤣
How does that work?
So you're admitting that you have no clue how the US legal system works?
Yes. Tell me how congress jails officials.
Google exists, spend some time educating yourself if you genuinely care about understanding the subject. If you'd like me to tutor you, then feel free to send a dm and pay me for the effort.
Gotcha. So you either you don't know or you do know this is not true.
Congress has no power to jail officials. They can hold an official in contempt and potentially have the US Attorney's office put them in jail. That's not happening with Trump. That's not happening with anyone in Trump's administration.
The point is they haven't even tried doing this. But you keep on braying here pretending like you have clue. It's adorable.
For what would they hold the administration in contempt and what does this do to block, stop, or reverse illegal actions?
It seems like you're lacking a basic understanding of how law and government work and it doesn't seem like you know what contempt means. And, to make up for that, you throw out witless insults in an attempt to derail the conversation.
You, "the internet", are far too emotional to consider the reality of these situations. Just because something makes you angry or someone does something you think should be illegal does not mean someone is not permitted to do that action.
There are absolutely actions that Trump has done that are illegal and many of those actions have been decided on while other cases are in court now. "The Democrats", I presume we're addressing Congress, are not explicitly the group responsible for holding the administration accountable for everything he does. Congress only has authority over a handful of things (mostly, but not limited to, money) with few options to do anything about them.
The point I am trying to make is; (1) what actions does OP suggest are illegal, (2) a court has to determined that action to be illegal, (3) Congress is not responsible for suing the president nor responsible for determining what is legal nor responsibly for jailing an executive officer, (4) this Republican Congress is not going to pass legislation (the main power they have) to block, stop, or reverse actions taken by this administration. And, finally, what the Trump administration is doing, legal or not, is largely what the United States voters voted for. So, the best way to stop these quote unquote illegal actions is to vote for Democrats in two years.
I literally explained all this to you in detail already. You're like a chat bot spewing nonsense that is grammatically correct, but lacks any actual meaning upon closer examination.