"Checks and balances" requires the Judicial Branch to approve how the head of the Executive Branch runs the executive branch - makes sense 
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm and
Do you understand separation of powers, or should I say covfefe?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Do you? "Separation of powers" doesn't mean "the Judiciary runs the Executive". and I'm CovfefeAnon - Nobel Peace Prize winner.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm and
DOJ is not the judiciary and is independent of the Exec, while also setting the constitutional bounds for how it operates. So yes, "runs" it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
DOJ is independent of the Executive? It's not part of the Legislative nor the Judiciary. Wow, we have a whole new branch of government!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm and
JUDICIARY is independent of the Exec...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
and vice versa? What you're defending isn't "separation of powers" - you're cloaking a new form of gvt in the trappings of the old.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm and1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
"The Supreme Court runs the Executive Branch" is a good description of how gvt functions. It is emphatically not "separation of powers".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm and
The supreme court has the power to declare a POTUS's actions unconstitutional. If thats what you cal "runs" then sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But there's nothing in the actual constitution about the DOJ - so the SC (in the name of "separation of powers") runs the Executive by whim
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.