> Phyllis Fong was heading up an investigation into Elon Musk's Neuralink.
> Last Friday, President Donald Trump purged several agencies of their inspectors general, demanding that at least 17 people in the role immediately turn in their work laptops and ID badges. One of those IGs, Phyllis Fong at the US Department of Agriculture, decided not to leave, believing the order to be illegal. According to a report from Reuters, she was escorted from the building today by security.
Never mind a long four years, it’s been a long two weeks. Unfortunately, the law is too slow dealing with things like this. And even if it was ruled illegal, who’s going to enforce it. The White House?
This is the real danger of where we’re at right now. We are currently at a point where the President has a stacked Supreme Court that had already showed they’re willing to take his side almost no matter what. There is now effectively no check against the executive branch because of that. Papers are already running stories about how Congress is just letting him loose, with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight.
> even if it was ruled illegal, who’s going to enforce it
The court that ruled it such. She would not only be entitled to back pay, anything her replacement does wouldn’t have legal force. That means anything they do can be challenged by anyone who doesn’t like it.
We’re seeing the limits of Congressional checks on the executive. But we still have an independent judiciary. (If that collapses it will be a good time to be a billionaire in America.) The judiciary’s advantage is its patient; it can exact consequences after 2028 in a way the executive and even the Congress cannot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the courts essentially powerless to enforce? If memory serves, the judicial branch merely interprets the law and Constitution, but they lack an enforcement mechanism - it is up to the Executive Branch (the president) to administer and enforce the law. If they decide they don't feel like listening to the courts, it's unclear anybody could actually do anything. (Other than impeachment perhaps? But of course that isn't going to happen anytime soon.)
Besides, even if they did have the power to enforce the law, I can't say I exactly trust the Supreme Court to even try reining in Trump (except in minor ways) based on their recent track record. But who knows.
Readit News
> Last Friday, President Donald Trump purged several agencies of their inspectors general, demanding that at least 17 people in the role immediately turn in their work laptops and ID badges. One of those IGs, Phyllis Fong at the US Department of Agriculture, decided not to leave, believing the order to be illegal. According to a report from Reuters, she was escorted from the building today by security.
Never mind a long four years, it’s been a long two weeks. Unfortunately, the law is too slow dealing with things like this. And even if it was ruled illegal, who’s going to enforce it. The White House?
This is the real danger of where we’re at right now. We are currently at a point where the President has a stacked Supreme Court that had already showed they’re willing to take his side almost no matter what. There is now effectively no check against the executive branch because of that. Papers are already running stories about how Congress is just letting him loose, with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight.
From what I can tell, the IGs do serve at the pleasure of the President. The only thing he didn’t do is notify the Congress. Is that true?
Why with this kind of setup, absolutely no-one to stop them, would they step aside in 1450 days if voters have their say?
Past 10 days have been an absolute railroad of undoing past 100 years.
Imagine 1000 days from now the chaos and nobody can change anything for any reason.
The word tyranny seems to fit and I wouldn't have used that with Bush/Cheney or even Reagan.
The court that ruled it such. She would not only be entitled to back pay, anything her replacement does wouldn’t have legal force. That means anything they do can be challenged by anyone who doesn’t like it.
We’re seeing the limits of Congressional checks on the executive. But we still have an independent judiciary. (If that collapses it will be a good time to be a billionaire in America.) The judiciary’s advantage is its patient; it can exact consequences after 2028 in a way the executive and even the Congress cannot.
Besides, even if they did have the power to enforce the law, I can't say I exactly trust the Supreme Court to even try reining in Trump (except in minor ways) based on their recent track record. But who knows.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment