Sign into an existing account

Hopefully someone smarter than I am can chime in with better facts.

My simplistic understand of the US Constitution created 3 branches of government that are co-equal with regards to laws.

First, Congress makes laws, then the President signs or vetoes the laws based on "constitutionality" and then lastly the judicial can rule on the constitutionality of the laws when challenges spring up.

What I am seeing is that the (((judiciary))) is starting to overstep by intervening when there are no "laws" to judge.

Congress creates the laws and then the Executive enforces the laws, many times as they see fit, and within the scope of the Executive branch - which is where Executive Orders come in.

Some of the legal challenges do seem legit, such as the spending conditions - were those conditions contained in the law when the budget was passed? If there were no conditions, then it seems like the budget is just a pot of money that the Executive can dole out as they see fit, including adding conditions for receipt and stipulations for spending.

Where I find it hard to decipher is when the (((jewdicial))) branch tries to thwart a totally enclosed Executive Branch power - such as hiring and firing workers. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any law about hiring and firing, and especially the union bullshit - yet the courts try to jump in all the time and tell the Executive HOW to do their job.

Telling another branch HOW to do their job is not a power delegated to the other branches.

Where is the SCOTUS ruling on how Congress makes a law? The Executive also totally leaves Congress alone to do their business. Yes, there are talks, etc, but in following the example set the by the judiciary, the Executive should be able to walk into the Halls of Congress and force everyone to follow some arbitrary rule.

What the jewdicial overreach has sparked in me is an actual process whereby the Executive can actually influence courtroom behavior - fair is fair right?

The most fantastic test case would be the James Younger, where his description of (((family court))) is so corrupt that the Executive should actually be compelled to act. No recordings allowed, the transcripts altered to make all testimony fit the biased courts, no FOIA requests for transcripts or evidence, etc.

The Executive should be all over this shit and crush the jewdical corruption, all while giving a healthy dose of "eye for an eye".