A major purpose of the Constitution was to design a system with independent components that would jealously guard their power against the others. This has been eroding for decades, and has now spectacularly failed.

The patience of waiting for "their guy" to be given 3 posts to SCOTUS in one term was the ultimate pay off. It just so happened that "their guy" has got to be one of the most malleable to anyone's position as he has no position of his own other than being "the guy".

I really wonder how history will view DJT -- surely one of the most flawed yet consequential figures in American history -- who nonetheless had the good fortune of two untimely deaths (Scalia & Ginsburg) and some arm-twisting (Kennedy) which he parlayed into fantastic 'success' in the SCOTUS. This includes primarily the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, and the incredible Presidential Immunity doctrine, which is essentially legislation via judicial decision.

The falsity of how the SCOTUS was captured by the executive branch was ultimately rooted in lies. Trump's three nominees all lied about their position on Roe v. Wade during their confirmations.

As a case in point, consider Justice Brett Kavanaugh who wrote that Roe was "wrongly decided" in a concurring opinion on Dobbs (2022). Yet in his 2018 confirmation hearing he testified that Roe v. Wade was "important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times" and went on to discuss the importance of judicial precedent. Of course the Kavanaugh hearing was an utter circus in every sense, but it was obvious that he had lied during a number of exchanges with senators.

Let's not forget that just a few months ago in a decision, it was Kavanaugh who gave us the 'Kavanaugh stop' which is a law enforcement practice in the United States in which federal agents can stop and detain a person based on their perceived ethnicity, spoken language, and occupation. This doctrine reset what constituted 'reasonable suspicion' for any police stop.

> I really wonder how history will view DJT -- surely one of the most flawed yet consequential figures in American history

History is written by the victors, so that depends who gets to write the legislation controlling which version of early 20th century history is allowed in universities in 2100.

regardless of future winners, DJT will have a significant impact in the historical timeline whether you do or don't like him. There's the potential for ending the democratic experiment, or there's potential of being just the most significant test for its survival. either way, there will be more discussed than presidents 8 - 15 combined.

> All three parts are controlled by the same party, so of course it collapses to a unitary executive.

I don't think that's necessarily to be the case. As far as I understand how my country is supposed to work, Congressman and Judges are only responsible towards their own conscience and maybe the constitution. They are supposed to and do control each other, regardless of which party they are in. Just because people are in the same party doesn't mean they are now agents of the same power. That's not called party, that would be called a cult.

Granted this is not what seems to happen in the USA right now.

I mean, machine politics means that Congressmen who want to stay Congressmen fall in line.

The problem was never the system, the problem is always that the electorate actually wants this. The system is there to prevent a king from emerging if the people do not overwhelmingly want a king. Right now, we have a president and congress and judicial system in place that were all put there by people who actually want this stuff. The fact that that electorate is often unsophisticated or don't actually vote is ultimately the problem, and there's a real chance it could lead to civil war.

Obviously this is all terrible, but the American left have spent nearly three generations putting all their faith in the judicial branch to just "take care of it" because passing legislation became "too hard" because they didn't want to get rid of the filibuster. Now those chickens are coming home to roost. We have a judiciary that is saying "we need legislation more than the assumption of rights" and the American left just isn't willing to actually force through legislation when they have power.