Fair point but I think the argument is still that, even after, it is the judges job to say they are operating illegally and must therefore cease such operations and/or take the penalty, no?

As a child in elementary school, I recall the teacher describing balance of power and thinking it seemed like the president had too much power. I later learned some of the intricacies of the system, but am no expert and still recall not grasping how the checks and balances would actually play out if a nefarious individual were to infiltrate the system.

At this point, I’m thinking either my naive younger self was right, or these people that made it to power didn’t understand any better than my elementary knowledge and genuinely believe they have this power.

Or they know what they’re doing and it’s a blatant attack in the USA.

In any of these situations, there’s no clean way out when nearly half the population actually supports it.

"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.” Isn’t this premise just blatantly wrong though? A judge is to uphold the law, and aren’t there laws governing how the military operates that, if violated, could be have legal consequences?

At least, isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?

(Edit: I’m genuinely asking because I’m questioning my understanding of how these things are supposed to be balanced without giving absolute authority, as if in a dictatorship)

Yes 100%. They’re not giving them the keys to the financial systems without being certain they’re not going to abuse it. But they might pay them to find exploits in it. It’s all about being assessed for the job you’re being evaluated for.

While your sentiment is valid, the hiring practices for the sensitive information dealt with by individuals in government require intense scrutiny. The point you raise is true, but when someone finds a valid exploit, they can ignore it, report it to get fixed before someone exploits it, or they can exploit it themselves.

Regardless of how small the exploit, a person who does not choose to report it maybe doesn’t need any harsh penalties, but do you want them to have access to a database with your personal information including SSN, and the ability to freely access systems that control trillions in financial transactions?

Background checks for clearance purposes don’t simply look at your history and say no if you have anything on your record. They look at what is on your record, conduct interviews with you, your close contacts, identify where potential risks may lie. They compare those findings with the level and access you’d be granted and determine a risk level associated with granting you that access.

Bypassing those checks, for the systems in question, opens up the entire population to an unknown, unquantified risk, which has not been assessed. This means the risk must be assumed to be the highest level.

Seeing this posted right after reading this: https://apple.news/AulzFvgTVRTugNCCva61OjA New speaker of the (US) house thinks it’s best we cut back on climate funding.