Peaceful protest your way out of this one. I’m not lifting a finger until assurances of consequences for the administration, their enablers, and their supporters are guaranteed.
Federal courts, Barrett wrote, “do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
Right, right. We’ll just use all those other terrific and effective tools we have in place for limiting and penalizing an executive branch breaking the law, that definitely totally exist in reality, and are working great so far.
Who needs checks and balances, right? That’s not a thing we have in the U.S., right? Why would the Supreme Court uphold the principle of federal courts acting as checks on executive branch overreach? That’s just crazy talk.
🤮
Only tool I see remaining goes by 2A.
