Hacker News Reader

Comment by handoflixue | Hacker News Reader

"No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law"

Any employee obeying a SCOTUS ruling is in violation of this EO, unless the President agrees to that ruling.

No EO may say that SCOTUS can override them, but no other EO blocks federal employees from obeying SCOTUS.

View on HN

"Any employee obeying a SCOTUS ruling is in violation of this EO, unless the President agrees to that ruling."

You forget the entire framework for EOs. No EO has "except when a court says otherwise". The EOs are subject to checks and balances, such as judicial review. If the EO exceeds its authority (not based on congressional or constitutional means) then it won't be valid. Meaning you can't grant yourself powers that you don't have the authority to grant under the framework. There's case law you can go look at for a history on it.

You should still be very alarmed by the President trying to claim that authority.

Sure, EOs have been a scourge for decades, not just this one. They are commonly used to contradict what is written in law or extending their powers, such as choosing not to enforce. This is nothing new.

You forget the VPOTUS is openly doubting the courts’ authority to rule on these things.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp

A court can't issue an order to an army to surrender. A court can't force the president to nominate someone to be a federal judge.

There are some powers the executive has that can't be overruled by the courts. Now the question is - what?

In the case of OEs, there's a long history that they are subject to judicial powers if they are not based in law or constitutional powers. In the case of this specific EO, it's likely to stand but the rules coming out of it are likely to be challenged if they overstep the authority in law.

The examples in that article are legitimate examples. The more concerning part in that article is the suggestion of not following court rulings such as the myth of Andrew Jackson's SCOTUS quote.

With enough gumption, audacity, charm, ... (or str, dex, int, wis...?) a USA president, say, could do whatever they wanted, with impunity; we all do whatever we choose, caring to various degrees about the potential consequences.

Anyone can do whatever they want regardless of the rules. However, presidents do not have impunity. Presidents and their EOs can be held accountable by Congress and the courts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com