I'm not a fan of this court - but what thing that was 100's of years of precedent was torn down by this court?

Yes, they've refused to do certain things until lower courts rule, but I dont see that as a huge incongruence.

> If Dems don't try to do something about to represent 50% of the country that is panicking then they're complicit.

Uh. What are they supposed to do with a Republican trifecta? Do you mean "win votes in future elections so they can govern?"

> There are laws that created departments that the president does not have the power to destroy.

That's true but what you're leaving out is that those laws were passed by Congress to give their authority away to these agencies and give the management of them away to the executive branch.

Congress is wholly at fault for all of the power they've ceded to the executive.

Trump has the authority, granted by Congress, to appoint the people in charge of those agencies and has the authority to dictate their agenda (by appointing someone who will carry it out).

> One study estimates that the Supreme Court will be "conservative"

First of all, "one study..." isn't a great way to make a point but, regardless, "conservative" justices doesn't mean politically conservative, it means judicially conservative and that is a completely separate concept.

Trump has been ruled against several times already on judicially conservative grounds.

> One study estimates that the Supreme Court will be "conservative" [1] for at least the next 100 years.

Not really. A party needs 2/3 majority to impeach a judge. There’s a possibility Democrats can have that majority after next midterms. But the problem with Democrats is that they almost always follow laws and aren’t radical lunatics like republicans. Even after last election, HN felt pretty Red leaning, so that stupidity fever caught a lot of otherwise sane people.