I’m a bit confused here. Sauer doesn’t make that claim in the text. Sure, 14th Amendment issues are in play, and if Trump wants to do an end-run, that in a roundabout fashion gets to the hed, but I’m not taking away from the story anything that backs up the assertion in the display copy.
BULLSHIT!
I think cases like this are a great look at the internal thought process of trumps team. Like, this isn’t them developing a masterful plan and executing on it. This is the first fucking idea that someone in the room proposed after a few drinks.
Like, they don’t understand the laws they’re bumping in to, or even if someone understands it, they’re pretending they don’t so they can tell the boss that they have a plan to make the thing happen. It’s trumps method of running an organization failing because the incentive structure is to tell the boss you can get him what he wants, even if what he wants isn’t possible. So they keep wasting their time and resources chasing stupid plans.
Isn’t that corporate structure overall?
It’s a pattern across a lot of dysfunctional organizations, when a leader doesn’t accept “not possible” for an answer. Doesn’t care about the dissent presented by subordinates and dismisses it as disloyalty. If you don’t want to get fired, you just go along with the boss and never present him with the reality.
The real messes occur when this kind of behavior scales. When the subordinates of the leader start doing the same to their own subordinates. When people start lying to their superiors about what is happening because they know the boss doesn’t want bad news or to be told their idea didn’t work. You get a game of telephone where information is distorted as it moves up the chain.
“Can’t be done” and “That’s not a good idea” have been job-killers for me in the past. I’m not paid to stroke my boss’ ego, and if that’s what they want, I’ll put them through the conversation of needing more money if that’s been suddenly added to my job description.
And then quit. I don’t countenance that bullshit. We really don’t need this at the federal level.
The problem is that this is how fascism ferments, it’s not about planning, it’s about taking action. So what if it doesn’t pass through the courts? For trump and his supporters that’s just evidence that the courts are against him. That the courts are not equipped to deal with today’s problems. That we don’t need courts, we just need to give someone enough power to get the job done.
it is the nature of personalist authoritarian regimes. Anything that presents them with information or outcomes that don’t serve the leaders goals gets turned in to an enemy, even if it’s the dumbest strategic choice possible.
They have an incredibly favorable Supreme Court, and rather than working with it to consolidate power, they are throwing rocks at it for not letting them do what ever they want.
If we can’t use the Constitution as a shield, he can’t use it as a sword.
8647
