@nabet18.bsky.social
* Whether the rule of law is maintained here will depend on large numbers of people making clear that they reject the power of the President to (1) arbitrarily overrule congressional spending decisions (2) threaten independent journalism. reach!
May 2, 2025 at 2:10 PM
* Whether the rule of law is maintained here will depend on large numbers of people making clear that they reject the power of the President to (1) arbitrarily overrule congressional spending decisions (2) threaten independent journalism. reach!
Here are some insights:
* Everything about this order is inconsistent with the law (it's an Article One problem, for starters).
* Everything about this order is inconsistent with the law (it's an Article One problem, for starters).
May 2, 2025 at 2:04 PM
Here are some insights:
* Everything about this order is inconsistent with the law (it's an Article One problem, for starters).
* Everything about this order is inconsistent with the law (it's an Article One problem, for starters).
Here are some insights:
* This is an Executive Order, not the expected rescission legislation. This is a move of political desperation, as it appears that the President doesn't have the votes in Congress.
* This is an Executive Order, not the expected rescission legislation. This is a move of political desperation, as it appears that the President doesn't have the votes in Congress.
May 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Here are some insights:
* This is an Executive Order, not the expected rescission legislation. This is a move of political desperation, as it appears that the President doesn't have the votes in Congress.
* This is an Executive Order, not the expected rescission legislation. This is a move of political desperation, as it appears that the President doesn't have the votes in Congress.