News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Judges have zero recourse to enforce judgements against the executive branch. All previous executives who have obeyed an order given by a judge have obeyed it voluntarily. The only recourse would be for congress to impeach and convict the president, which of course will not happen. It's tempting to call this an oversight by the Founders, but it seems to me that this is by design. As long as there is not a congress that will convict the president, the courts cannot truly tell the president what to do.
I would argue there's a Constitutional duty for all sworn officers to be willing to impose a judge's order if it's lawful/constitutional (if ordered). That's how warrants and seizure orders work, for example.
The question I'm afraid to see tested is what if any judge tells an officer to do one thing and the president tells her to do something else?
I mean, I was taught that this was specifically an executive check on judicial power in school 25 something years ago.
But again that sort of implies that it "would only be used for good" by an executive against an out of control supreme court. It didn't really account for a fascist just telling the courts to go fuck themselves just because.
I agree with much of what you say, but I was confused because the judge blocking the executive order isn't the same as trying to make the administration do a thing; it's more like telling the people at the NIH "ignore what that guy just said, business as usual (for now, at least)". If that's the case, I'm unclear on why things are still blocked up at the NIH. Because of this, I took the radical step of reading the linked article.
In many ways, it didn't help; I suppose it makes sense that one of the harms of someone willfully breaking the rules is that it becomes harder to discern what those rules actually are (were?). However, one of the lawyers quoted in the article suggests that the NIH officials who are currently carrying out the blocked order may be in contempt of court. This makes sense to me, based on the understanding I outlined above. But wait, there's more.
After the block continued to be de facto in place despite being blocked de jure, the judge issued another ruling to try to force the Trump administration to rescind the order. This is concerning because as you highlight, this Judge has no recourse to enforce this judgement. Whereas before, the blocking of the order was the Judge speaking to the NIH officials, those top officials have seemingly gone "no, we're not listening to you, we're listening to him". As I have said, they may be in contempt of court by doing this, but that's not relevant when we're looking at urgently ensuring that years of research isn't ruined by this. By issuing a new ruling to try to force Trump to rescind the order, the judge has been forced to step outside of normal procedure in a way where they're doomed to fail; it's fairly obvious that Trump will go "no, make me", and then fuck knows what the judge is going to do.
I think the judge knows this too, but what the fuck can they do (in their role as a judge) in this situation? Oh man, it's so fucked.
Sounds like the founders were slave owning pieces of shit!
Sounds like that's irrelevant