3 ms·
All your questions presuppose an executive branch that is bound by the decisions of the judicial branch. This one isn't, or certainly doesn't feel that it is.
by ajross 2y ago
All your questions presuppose an executive branch that is bound by the decisions of the judicial branch. This one isn't, or certainly doesn't feel that it is. So the answer is practical, not legal. The control they can exert is the control they can get away with exerting without undue cost. That might involve accepting the results of law suits from disgruntled employees, or it might not. Certainly right now they seem disinclined.
- ethbr1 2y agoThere is a point about timescales. The judicial is, by design, retroactive: transgressions are made, cases are litigated, decisions come down, and then redresses are made [0] The executive is, by design, immediate: decisions are made and implemented, then can be legally challenged The gray area between the two is judicial restraining orders, where the facts of the case and/or the possibility of unredressable outcomes support the immediate nullification of an order, while the case is being litigated. [0] https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-5293078/a-constitutional-stress-test-trump-executive-orders-are-challenged-in-court https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-5293078/a-constitutiona...
- ajross 2y agoAgain this presupposes compliance by the executive. So far they haven't, maybe they won't. But I can all but guarantee that at some point this administration is going to start, likely with great fanfare and applause from its partisan media and the libertarian set here on HN, simply ignoring restraining orders it dislikes. And then where will we be?