There are serious questions about Biden's use of autopen. Obama set a precedent for use of autopen by staff when he signed something in DC while he was overseas on a trip. The practice became a norm without a judicial revuew. There is some limit to Biden's authority to delegate his power, but a court would have to say what it is.
Amuse on X wrote an article about this that was very well written in the past few days sometime.
Good thoughts but courts don't have any say at all over the executive Branch being that they are co-equal branch and there is no judicial superiority. They could certainly offer an opinion there is judicial review but there is not judicial security. In other words any Court opinion has no enforceable weight against the executive branch being as the executive branch was chosen by the founders as being the most powerful because it was the most directly elected by the people on mass at once and most recently every four years with its only check on power being the power of impeachment by congress.
Get this through your head the courts do not have superiority over the executive Branch and they're rulings do not have authority over the executive Branch anymore than the executive branch can go into the Supreme Court and tell them what to do and tell them to leave and tell them they can't do this and they can't do the other thing.
Ok well that's fine. IRL America has de facto judicial supremacy. The Constitution invests the entire executive in the President.
I actually searched about judicial supremacy the other day. They don't hide it. It's a principle of American practice. It could be itself unconstitutional. The main way, though, that judicial supremacy has been reinforced is that people are simply more willing to follow the ruling of a judge than the rule of the executive. You need to pick someone to have the final say when they disagree. If the people pick the judges without formal process then so be it.
So somebody has to decide whether he has to actually do stuff or whether he can delegate to aids who do it with his own force. Maybe they already decided 'yes.'
One way to look at it would be "well the President appeared to sign, and he never said 'no I didn't authorize that' so it's presumed valid."
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 3 points 1 monthMar 9, 2025 20:59:56 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 0 points 1 monthMar 11, 2025 07:15:53 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 1 point 1 monthMar 9, 2025 17:28:35 ago (+1/-0)
Amuse on X wrote an article about this that was very well written in the past few days sometime.
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes [op] 2 points 1 monthMar 9, 2025 17:48:32 ago (+2/-0)
Get this through your head the courts do not have superiority over the executive Branch and they're rulings do not have authority over the executive Branch anymore than the executive branch can go into the Supreme Court and tell them what to do and tell them to leave and tell them they can't do this and they can't do the other thing.
It's common mistake but we've got to stamp it out
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 1 monthMar 10, 2025 17:06:25 ago (+0/-0)*
I actually searched about judicial supremacy the other day. They don't hide it. It's a principle of American practice. It could be itself unconstitutional. The main way, though, that judicial supremacy has been reinforced is that people are simply more willing to follow the ruling of a judge than the rule of the executive. You need to pick someone to have the final say when they disagree. If the people pick the judges without formal process then so be it.
So somebody has to decide whether he has to actually do stuff or whether he can delegate to aids who do it with his own force. Maybe they already decided 'yes.'
One way to look at it would be "well the President appeared to sign, and he never said 'no I didn't authorize that' so it's presumed valid."
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes [op] 0 points 1 monthMar 9, 2025 17:13:44 ago (+0/-0)