> checks and balances bad > my party in power forever and ever good what i'm not seeing here is anything approaching an argument about the fact that the framers wanted a system in which checks and balances prevent a president from establishing an unqualified cabal of officials whose pliancy and loyalty are their chief virtues.  > he would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that ... of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure. this is literally a total and direct condemnation of exactly what trump wants to do kek.
United States