Enjoyed this conversation Josh but I must confess Matt Bevan showed a lack of balance in his arguments, I get that Trump crossed many lines but your argument around 1 hr 12 minutes in relating to Trump or Albo showing interest in how the electoral office conducts itself is disingenuous as free and safe elections are in the purview of the country’s leaders
In addition Matt didn’t really discuss the Republican arguments for electoral fraud, rather he dismissed them as being without basis. Because of thr importance of the subject material the required burden of proof should be a high bar to pass but that doesn’t mean that the democrats are squeaky clean. There are enough conservatives out there that want to hear the other side of the arguments to justify you finding another person to interview.
It really is a struggle for Australians to understand American federalism. Why would the federal government administer elections? They're only supposed to even exist for things like national defense and building interstate highways.
Centralization of power in the federal government is one of the worst things about the current state of America already. The idea that having some massive federal bureaucracy deciding what does and does not count as a vote is horrifying.
The confusing thing is the Republicans generally argue for small less centralised US federation but currently want to put all the power in the hands of the president.
However, Republicans were also quite effective in getting conservative legal scholars on the Supreme Court (though justices themselves are not Republicans), which has proved to be a significant check on presidential power for both parties, albeit maybe too little too late.
I feel like the overlooked aspect of the presidential immunity decision is that it put the power in the court. Rather than it be a basic assumption underlying the system as it has been since 1789, it is the court that now must decide on the limitations of presidential power.
Deciding the limits of presidential power is the fundamental reason to have a supreme court. The original vision was three “co-equal” branches of government. If the supreme court couldn’t decide the limits of presidential power, what else would it be doing? Ideally, the Court should be identifying areas where the executive has overstepped its bounds and is doing legislature (which is what the Chevron doctrine was, among other examples) and should be kicking power back to (gulp) Congress.
How is it coherent to argue that an election outcome is extremely difficult if not impossible to manipulate, but then to propose that should Trump win this time, he will be in a position to manipulate future elections?
Also not convincing is the argument “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”. At least let’s hear the nefarious mechanisms that republicans imagine could have lost Trump the election.
Good conversation. I will take a polite and minor issue with Josh's assertion that Donald Trump is a "master" at staying on the right side of the legal line. He's actually terrible at that--he confesses to crimes all the time! Trump gets away with his malfeasance not because he's too clever, but because he's given cover. Aileen Cannon's been in the bag for Trump from the start, issuing strange and oft-overturned legal rulings that have the clear effect of frustrating and delaying the prosecution. The Supreme Court recently drew a map that tells Trump, should he be reelectd, exactly what he needs to do to be un-proscecutable, and if you have read their opinion, you know he doesn't have to do much. Merrick Garland dragged his feet investigating Trump, and Juan Merchan refused to sentence him in a timely fashion--heaven forbid a convicted felon's career plans be imperiled by, you know, the consequenes of his lawbreaking.
In short, nobody's gotten Trump because nobody's really been permitted to go after him.
Enjoyed this conversation Josh but I must confess Matt Bevan showed a lack of balance in his arguments, I get that Trump crossed many lines but your argument around 1 hr 12 minutes in relating to Trump or Albo showing interest in how the electoral office conducts itself is disingenuous as free and safe elections are in the purview of the country’s leaders
In addition Matt didn’t really discuss the Republican arguments for electoral fraud, rather he dismissed them as being without basis. Because of thr importance of the subject material the required burden of proof should be a high bar to pass but that doesn’t mean that the democrats are squeaky clean. There are enough conservatives out there that want to hear the other side of the arguments to justify you finding another person to interview.
Matt dismissed Republican arguments just as NEARLY EVERY JUDGE did--without basis. You can't discuss both sides when one side is arguing nonsense.
It really is a struggle for Australians to understand American federalism. Why would the federal government administer elections? They're only supposed to even exist for things like national defense and building interstate highways.
Centralization of power in the federal government is one of the worst things about the current state of America already. The idea that having some massive federal bureaucracy deciding what does and does not count as a vote is horrifying.
The confusing thing is the Republicans generally argue for small less centralised US federation but currently want to put all the power in the hands of the president.
The Imperial Presidency is a bipartisan concern.
However, Republicans were also quite effective in getting conservative legal scholars on the Supreme Court (though justices themselves are not Republicans), which has proved to be a significant check on presidential power for both parties, albeit maybe too little too late.
I feel like the overlooked aspect of the presidential immunity decision is that it put the power in the court. Rather than it be a basic assumption underlying the system as it has been since 1789, it is the court that now must decide on the limitations of presidential power.
Deciding the limits of presidential power is the fundamental reason to have a supreme court. The original vision was three “co-equal” branches of government. If the supreme court couldn’t decide the limits of presidential power, what else would it be doing? Ideally, the Court should be identifying areas where the executive has overstepped its bounds and is doing legislature (which is what the Chevron doctrine was, among other examples) and should be kicking power back to (gulp) Congress.
Important chat… but so grim
How is it coherent to argue that an election outcome is extremely difficult if not impossible to manipulate, but then to propose that should Trump win this time, he will be in a position to manipulate future elections?
Also not convincing is the argument “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”. At least let’s hear the nefarious mechanisms that republicans imagine could have lost Trump the election.
Good conversation. I will take a polite and minor issue with Josh's assertion that Donald Trump is a "master" at staying on the right side of the legal line. He's actually terrible at that--he confesses to crimes all the time! Trump gets away with his malfeasance not because he's too clever, but because he's given cover. Aileen Cannon's been in the bag for Trump from the start, issuing strange and oft-overturned legal rulings that have the clear effect of frustrating and delaying the prosecution. The Supreme Court recently drew a map that tells Trump, should he be reelectd, exactly what he needs to do to be un-proscecutable, and if you have read their opinion, you know he doesn't have to do much. Merrick Garland dragged his feet investigating Trump, and Juan Merchan refused to sentence him in a timely fashion--heaven forbid a convicted felon's career plans be imperiled by, you know, the consequenes of his lawbreaking.
In short, nobody's gotten Trump because nobody's really been permitted to go after him.
O my goodness