[pyinstallwoes]

Your premise is false, exceeding is not the limit, because the limit is at the behest of any of the judges; given a judge exceeds their rational, then they exceed their rational ability to limit the executive branches power

[dpe82]

And if the judgement is in error, it will be appealed and overruled by a higher court. This is how our system works. We're only seeing it as a "problem" lately because the past few administrations have leaned increasingly heavily on unilateral executive action rather than legislation as the constitution designs, and as we'd been doing successfully for the previous 200 years.

[vannevar]

I'm not sure it's true that recent presidents have relied more on EOs---at least the numbers suggest that recent presidents have actually relied less on EOs than many of their predecessors (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1125024/us-presidents-ex...). Now, it may be the case that the scope of EOs has grown, so that they implement bigger policy initiatives. I'd be curious if anyone has done that analysis. It might also be that rising partisanship has led to more exaggerated reactions to EOs by the opposition, making it seem like a bigger problem than it actually is.

[stogot]

What penalty is there for continuous “errors”. Let’s say a judge was known to always apply an injunction for a certain party, can they be penalized or removed?

If I become biased or incompetent at my job I’m eventually get fired but do judges ever?

[slowmovintarget]

And yet what's going on is an exercise of the law as it exists, because Congress abrogated its responsibility.

Each Executive administration since W has reached further and further. Congress has ceded more and more, because while it is their responsibility to choose, doing so comes at a political cost they don't want to pay. So they hand it over to the Executive.

Time for some garbage collection in the law code. If you want a limited Executive, vote for a Congress that will take its power back. The Constitution gave tariff power to Congress, for example, and a few decades ago, they gave it over to the President. IIRC, the same goes for border policy and deportation rules. We keep assuming when we install all of this machinery in the Oval Office that no... no he wouldn't push that button, it would be indecent. Every President pushes more of the buttons at their disposal (with the possible exception of Joe, as it was his staff running things and not him), and this one is no exception.

[BLKNSLVR]

So it's effectively always been a dictatorship, it's just been dressed up to look like something else.

[freen]

There are places with absolute monarchs. You could live there you know.