“If the judiciary doesn’t trust the sincerity of the president’s oath and doesn’t have any…”
“If the judiciary doesn’t trust the sincerity of the president’s oath and doesn’t have any presumption that the president will take care that the laws are faithfully executed, why on earth would it assume that a facially valid purpose of the executive is its actual purpose?”
– Benjamin Wittes, Quinta Jurecic in The Revolt of the Judges: What Happens When the Judiciary Doesn’t Trust the President’s Oath
Reposted from http://ift.tt/2nxp45z.
Tags: politics, redacted, it's like punching richard spencer, or getting in spicer's face at the apple store, if someone is blatantly using the norms of civil society, as a point of leverage, by ignoring those norms, while counting on opponents to continue adhering to them, it creates a situation akin to asymmetric warfare, if the judiciary are redcoats standing in orderly lines, and they're being sniped at from behind stone walls, by an executive willing to try to bluster his way through life, asserting that what is good for him personally, is the only legitimate standard of goodness, then I think it's appropriate, for them to take cover and return fire, under the doctrine described in the linked-to item, under which his oath of office, does not actually carry the weight, or justify the deference, that our system of government normally gives it, because HE doesn't give it that weight, and that changes it from a legally meaningful vow, into empty words, I wish more people understood this, I'm trying to understand and apply it myself, but it's hard, i don't want to punch people, or hassle them at the apple store, but sometimes I think someone has to be willing to defend those norms.
