sj_zero on Nostr: That's just a fact though. There are 3 branches of government, and the executive is ...
That's just a fact though.
There are 3 branches of government, and the executive is supposed to execute the laws, and the legislature is supposed to write the laws, and the judiciary is supposed to adjudicate the laws.
It isn't the job of the executive to write laws or adjudicate laws.
It isn't the job of the legislature to execute the laws or adjudicate laws.
It isn't the job of the judiciary to execute or write the laws.
Now, there are places where these three roles do marginally intersect. Fair enough, but if an executive is saying that the executive has certain powers the judiciary has no power over, that's just a statement of fact, notwithstanding any mechanisms that directly slip into those roles for different reasons. If anything, it's a bad thing that we have so much of the government that wasn't elected to execute the laws trying to direct the execution of laws. Now, if the executive actions are unlawful, that's a different thing, but even within oversight the judiciary is only allowed to limit executive actions within the scope of the laws they have to work with.
If the action is legitimate -- meaning it is legal and constitutional -- and people disagree with it, then there are two methods to solve the problem. the first being legislative -- change the law to make it illegal, the second being political -- vote the bum out. In fact, the people did vote Trump out of office once already. He didn't like it, but they did.
If the action is not legitimate -- meaning it is not legal or not constitutional -- then the court has the power to do something about it. Trump already in his first term agreed to concede on issues the courts refused him on, such as his exectuive order on DACA or his executive order on the so-called "muslim ban", so it isn't like it's unprecedented. His executive lost lots of cases, and his executive abided by the decisions. We have examples from history that show the executive doesn't necessarily have to comply with court orders, the best example being FDR who ran roughshod over the supreme court to get his agenda blasted in.
The legal system isn't exactly like a math equation, but it does share some attributes like having rules that generally apply, and you have to keep those in mind when reading statements about the government because people can really make something that's just factually true sound scarier than it is. "In some geometries, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not 180 degrees." sounds pretty scary too until you realize you're just talking about non-Euclidean geometry.
There are 3 branches of government, and the executive is supposed to execute the laws, and the legislature is supposed to write the laws, and the judiciary is supposed to adjudicate the laws.
It isn't the job of the executive to write laws or adjudicate laws.
It isn't the job of the legislature to execute the laws or adjudicate laws.
It isn't the job of the judiciary to execute or write the laws.
Now, there are places where these three roles do marginally intersect. Fair enough, but if an executive is saying that the executive has certain powers the judiciary has no power over, that's just a statement of fact, notwithstanding any mechanisms that directly slip into those roles for different reasons. If anything, it's a bad thing that we have so much of the government that wasn't elected to execute the laws trying to direct the execution of laws. Now, if the executive actions are unlawful, that's a different thing, but even within oversight the judiciary is only allowed to limit executive actions within the scope of the laws they have to work with.
If the action is legitimate -- meaning it is legal and constitutional -- and people disagree with it, then there are two methods to solve the problem. the first being legislative -- change the law to make it illegal, the second being political -- vote the bum out. In fact, the people did vote Trump out of office once already. He didn't like it, but they did.
If the action is not legitimate -- meaning it is not legal or not constitutional -- then the court has the power to do something about it. Trump already in his first term agreed to concede on issues the courts refused him on, such as his exectuive order on DACA or his executive order on the so-called "muslim ban", so it isn't like it's unprecedented. His executive lost lots of cases, and his executive abided by the decisions. We have examples from history that show the executive doesn't necessarily have to comply with court orders, the best example being FDR who ran roughshod over the supreme court to get his agenda blasted in.
The legal system isn't exactly like a math equation, but it does share some attributes like having rules that generally apply, and you have to keep those in mind when reading statements about the government because people can really make something that's just factually true sound scarier than it is. "In some geometries, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not 180 degrees." sounds pretty scary too until you realize you're just talking about non-Euclidean geometry.