alt Hacker NewsThis EO says nothing about the Judicial branch and presents a perfectly reasonable policy statement about how legal decisions and interpretation should be made within the executive branch. What specific language in this EO do you have a problem with?
I’m no fan of Trump, but this pattern of people hallucinating that Trump said something he didn’t and then freaking out about their nonexistent hallucination, is getting very tiresome.
Replies
I'm not sure what hallucinations you're talking about, given that this whole catastrophe has been one big "I told you so" thus far. By a bit of inductive reasoning we can predict that it will continue. (And it's not like it requires any special predictive abilities given that they told us during the campaign what they were and are planning to do.)
“So, through constitutional means?” the presiding judge asked.
“Jawohl!” Hitler replied.
Imagine finding absolutely no issue with an EO that uses phrases like “so-called independent regulatory agencies”.
This is what Germans must have felt like in 1933.
Consider this hypothetical: a federal judge rules against the Trump administration's firing of the inspectors general and must offer the fired employees their positions back. The Attorney General says the judge overstepped his constitutional power and calls the ruling invalid. What should the person who would've rehired the employees do?
Continue that hypothetical further: the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, who agrees with the federal judge. The executive branch continues to ignore the order. The Attorney General is held in contempt of court and fined a large amount of money. Who's going to collect it? Any executive branch employee trying to carry out that fine would be violating this executive order, and be dismissed. So the fine would never happen.
Considering the president and vice president's recent disdain for judicial rulings against them, this may happen.