“Attacked” what does this even mean? The courts have zero power in the first place, and never have. The judiciary, all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, has had to rely on the assent from the other branches that its rulings matter.
> and if it goes beyond the scope of executive powers, it will be curtailed or shut down.
The position of the executive order is that only the President can interpret laws, including executive orders about interpreting laws.
That is to say, if the courts try to stop it, Trump may try to say "the courts don't have that power" and order the DoJ and/or military to block anything they do.
> The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.
"The executive branch" includes the DoJ and the United States Marshals Service, who do all the actual boots-on-the-ground work for the judiciary.
This is an obvious lead in to "the President's interpretation is that the courts can go screw themselves", at which point the deciding factor becomes entirely whether law enforcement listens to the courts or listens to the bosses who pay them.
My concerns are;
a. Congress and Senate are wholly passive and unable to act.
b. The courts will be attacked, and so be unable to act.
c. If the courts act, by the time they act, it will be too late; the harm will have been done and will be irreversible.
“Attacked” what does this even mean? The courts have zero power in the first place, and never have. The judiciary, all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, has had to rely on the assent from the other branches that its rulings matter.
Rendered ineffective, and I concur with your observation regarding assent.
> and if it goes beyond the scope of executive powers, it will be curtailed or shut down.
The position of the executive order is that only the President can interpret laws, including executive orders about interpreting laws.
That is to say, if the courts try to stop it, Trump may try to say "the courts don't have that power" and order the DoJ and/or military to block anything they do.
That is not what the EO says. You’ve been misled by a Reddit post.
It seems extremely straightforward to me.
> The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.
"The executive branch" includes the DoJ and the United States Marshals Service, who do all the actual boots-on-the-ground work for the judiciary.
This is an obvious lead in to "the President's interpretation is that the courts can go screw themselves", at which point the deciding factor becomes entirely whether law enforcement listens to the courts or listens to the bosses who pay them.
3 replies →
>Trump may try to say "the courts don't have that power" and order the DoJ and/or military to block anything they do.
Perhaps we should refrain from calling the US a de facto dictatorship until that point then?
[flagged]
[flagged]
1 reply →
[flagged]