3 ms·
Well, he's flouted them. If by "with impunity", you mean that he hasn't been removed from office yet, then yes, he's done that. If you mean that he's succeede
by AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Well, he's flouted them. If by "with impunity", you mean that he hasn't been removed from office yet, then yes, he's done that.
If you mean that he's succeeded in making what he wanted happen despite the court order, then not so fast. We're still thrashing through the process of determining whether he will succeed in doing that.
I agree that he is dangerously close to running over the last remaining checks and balances.
- defrost 2y agoI'm an outsider with an allied interest. How many times can the Republicans "stop time" on appeals to executive orders? They've already done this once to stop dead appeals to the courts in regards the "emergency tariff" executive orders with a simple rider to declare that "Each day [..] shall not constitute a calendar day" and thus bypassing a constraint that demanded an appeal be heard within a fixed number of calendar days. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343 Is there no limit to checking the legal checks and balances and rendering them moot?
- rsynnott 2y ago> If by "with impunity", you mean that he hasn't been removed from office yet, then yes, he's done that. That ‘yet’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting, really. For practical purposes he can’t be removed from office. Like, at this point, it’s hard to come to any conclusion but that the system has failed.