[fach]

> This isn't true at all. > > The main way the President is stopped is through the courts, which is already underway, but Trump has actually prevailed in several decisions (e.g. right to cancel government contracts, right to fire probationary employees) while blocked other (e.g. birthright citizenship).

It is absolutely true. The judiciary has no mechanism to _enforce_ laws. Enforcement belongs to the executive branch. Therefore, if the judiciary makes a decision, and the president chooses to not follow the court's order, there is little the courts can do. It can certainly threaten fines and contempt of court to executive officials and even the president, but the president has control over both the DOJ/law enforcement to carry out the ruling as well as having blanket pardon powers.

> Impeachment is a very high bar which is usually reserved for serious violations of the law or process. We aren't anywhere close to that.

The current sitting president lead an insurrection against the United States and was not convicted in Congress. We've already crossed the threshold and gone well past the point of Congress acting to hold the executive branch accountable. Now given Musk's threats of financially backing primary candidates against dissenters, there is no incentive to act.

[refurb]

> It is absolutely true. The judiciary has no mechanism to _enforce_ laws. Enforcement belongs to the executive branch.

A few issues with that statement.

First, law enforcement can defy the President in order to follow the law or court orders (which they are required to do).

Second, enforcement isn't always through law enforcement. If the courts decide that an agency can do X, then they can go ahead and do X. No FBI involvement needed. Same if the issue ends up being something the state execute on.

> The current sitting president lead an insurrection against the United States and was not convicted in Congress.

That's because he was never charged. Why was he never charged? It's kind of hard to claim insurrection when nobody was armed and didn't actually have the ability to commit insurrection.

A person trying to break down a door was shot and killed and that ended things pretty quickly.

[insane_dreamer]

He wasn’t charged because SCOTUS ruled that acts committed while president were immune from prosecution and because the senate didn’t have the guts to impeach him and by the time he won the presidency he fired those working on the case against him.

If you’re actually defending the events of Jan 6 as not an insurrection then you are part of the problem and we have nothing more to debate.

[fach]

> First, law enforcement can defy the President in order to follow the law or court orders (which they are required to do).

Any law enforcement officer defying the president or attempting to enforce a court order against the executive branch can and will be removed by the president. You say "which they are required to do" but again, the executive branch is the enforcement mechanism when they don't which is at the discretion of the president.

> Second, enforcement isn't always through law enforcement. If the courts decide that an agency can do X, then they can go ahead and do X. No FBI involvement needed. Same if the issue ends up being something the state execute on.

I have no idea what this means. The courts can certainly decide whether or not the executive branch has broken the law. But again, there is no enforcement mechanism in the judiciary branch.

> That's because he was never charged. Why was he never charged? It's kind of hard to claim insurrection when nobody was armed and didn't actually have the ability to commit insurrection.

He was impeached, for a second time, in the House for "incitement of an insurrection" and acquitted in the Senate. Are you conveniently forgetting this?