CNN —
The Democratic Party’s favorability rating among Americans stands at a record low, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, fueled in part by dimming views from its own frustrated supporters.
With many in the party saying publicly that their leaders should do more to stand up to President Donald Trump, Democrats and Democratic-aligned independents say, 57% to 42%, that Democrats should mainly work to stop the Republican agenda, rather than working with the GOP majority to get some Democratic ideas into legislation.
The survey was taken March 6-9, days before 10 Democratic senators — including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — voted with Republicans in the chamber to advance a GOP-authored spending bill to avert a government shutdown, much to the chagrin of many other Democratic lawmakers and progressive critics.
The majority’s desire to fight the GOP marks a significant change in the party’s posture from the start of Trump’s first term. A September 2017 poll found a broad 74% majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners saying their party should work with Republicans in an attempt to advance their own priorities, and just 23% advocating for a more combative approach.
His email made me think of an important piece from the Atlantic about how Hitler used Germany’s laws to dismantle the rule of law in just 53 days.I think if there’s one thing people need to know now is that this is happening very fast. It could be over in months or even weeks, if it isn’t already over now. Whatever people are saving up for the 2026 elections they need to throw it all in now. To drive up his negatives and pray a handful of Republicans really starts pushing back.
You see, the Nazis had ideas about the unitary executive, too. When they first took power, they had only a bare plurality: They held 37 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, which was enough to give them 51 percent of the ruling coalition government. Hitler believed that this plurality entitled him to total and absolute control of the government:Hans Frank served as Hitler’s private attorney and chief legal strategist in the early years of the Nazi movement. While later awaiting execution at Nuremberg for his complicity in Nazi atrocities, Frank commented on his client’s uncanny capacity for sensing “the potential weakness inherent in every formal form of law” and then ruthlessly exploiting that weakness. Following his failed Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923, Hitler had renounced trying to overthrow the Weimar Republic by violent means but not his commitment to destroying the country’s democratic system, a determination he reiterated in a Legalitätseid—“legality oath”—before the Constitutional Court in September 1930. Invoking Article 1 of the Weimar constitution, which stated that the government was an expression of the will of the people, Hitler informed the court that once he had achieved power through legal means, he intended to mold the government as he saw fit. It was an astonishingly brazen statement.
“So, through constitutional means?” the presiding judge asked.
“Jawohl!” Hitler replied.
In claiming this executive authority, Hitler believed that he should be allowed to rule by“37 percent represents 75 percent of 51 percent,” he argued to one American reporter, by which he meant that possessing the relative majority of a simple majority was enough to grant him absolute authority.
He believed that an Ermächtigungsgesetz (“empowering law”) was crucial to his political survival. But passing such a law—which would dismantle the separation of powers, grant Hitler’s executive branch the authority to make laws without parliamentary approval, and allow Hitler to rule by decree, bypassing democratic institutions and the constitution.4
When the delegates reconvened at 6:15 that evening, the floor was given to Otto Wels, the Social Democratic leader, who had returned from his Swiss exile, despite fears for his personal safety, to challenge Hitler in person. As Wels began to speak, Hitler made a move to rise. Papen touched Hitler’s wrist to keep him in check.
“In this historic hour, we German Social Democrats solemnly pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism,” Wels said. He chided Hitler for seeking to undermine the Weimar Republic, and for the hatred and divisiveness he had sowed. Regardless of the evils Hitler intended to visit on the country, Wels declared, the republic’s founding democratic values would endure. “No enabling act gives you the power to destroy ideas that are eternal and indestructible,” he said.
Hitler rose. “The nice theories that you, Herr Delegate, just proclaimed are words that have come a bit too late for world history,” he began. He dismissed allegations that he posed any kind of threat to the German people. He reminded Wels that the Social Democrats had had 13 years to address the issues that really mattered to the German people—employment, stability, dignity. “Where was this battle during the time you had the power in your hand?” Hitler asked. The National Socialist delegates, along with observers in the galleries, cheered. The rest of the delegates remained still. A series of them rose to state both their concerns and positions on the proposed enabling law.
The Centrists, as well as the representatives of the Bavarian People’s Party, said they were willing to vote yes despite reservations “that in normal times could scarcely have been overcome.” Similarly, Reinhold Maier, the leader of the German State Party, expressed concern about what would happen to judicial independence, due process, freedom of the press, and equal rights for all citizens under the law, and stated that he had “serious reservations” about according Hitler dictatorial powers. But then he announced that his party, too, was voting in favor of the law, eliciting laughter from the floor. . . .
The entire drama—from Hitler’s first swearing in to passage of the enabling law, which destroyed the German constitution—took 53 days.The next morning, U.S. Ambassador Frederic Sackett sent a telegram to the State Department: “On the basis of this law the Hitler Cabinet can reconstruct the entire system of government as it eliminates practically all constitutional restraints.”
Didn't "the law" actually rule on that?Rule of law no longer applies in the USA Trump is immune from prosecution does that mean he can ignore the next election results?
Where is the outrage?
Crickets…
It must suck being a Democrat politician. Just imagine having to please those schizo Karen's.It would seem that despite all the calls about Trump Musk, and all the others on the right hand side of US politics being spawn of the devil, Naziz, destroyers of Democracy yada yada yada, such evilness and sin has not translated into a surge in Democrat popularity.
From CNN Poll
Support fro Democrats has been steadily declining since those heady days in 2008 when they had a 50% approval rating, the decline in the last six months has been steep and deep.
View attachment 195569
However, despite such low numbers, that does not necessarily drive a support for Trump.
CBS Polling shows that
View attachment 195570
American voters are jittery, deeply divided, and have a distinct SOL analysis of their own country.
Mick
Rule of law no longer applies in the USA Trump is immune from prosecution does that mean he can ignore the next election results?
Where is the outrage?
Crickets…
Didn't "the law" actually rule on that?
Democrats played that game during Biden. Biden ignored judges rulings as well I thought.
Nah my understanding is that a judge ruled against deportation as there was no due process I know there are no sympathies for the gang members but this is what deep state politics looks like.
They are arguing there is already a law (Alien Enemies Act) in place. DOJ has already came out and said that this judge(who is an activist by the way with a history) does not have the jurisdiction.Nah my understanding is that a judge ruled against deportation as there was no due process I know there are no sympathies for the gang members but this is what deep state politics looks like.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?