carsonjonesfiance:

lindstromm:

carsonjonesfiance:

“This thing is legally dubious and therefore technically unenforceable.” Is not a “useless liberal gotcha” it’s how legalism works in this country. Tying up stupidly worded EOs in court is the quickest way to keep them from being implemented. It is the definition of “doing something.” But it doesn’t usually involve much tweeting so of course a certain type of leftist feels obligated to mock it.

#challenging an EO in court keeps it from being implemented for a very long time and that’s a good thing#not only does it *not get implemented* for usually at least a year as it gets appealed over and over again#it also distracts conservative resources from going full steam ahead because they have to dedicate resources to defending their bullshit in#and the dumber their bullshit is the longer it takes to defend and the less they can get done#this is materially good so yes saying ‘this EO is poorly worded and can be interpreted to mean that all people are now female’#is a valid point to make

op’s tags were worth preserving

I get that it’s not exciting or theatrical but lawyers holding up pieces of paper and saying “umm you can’t do that?” Is genuinely how several major civil rights victories were achieved.

• Brown v Board of Education
• Loving v Virginia
• Griswold v Connecticut
• Obergefell v Hodges
• Roe v Wade protected abortion rights for 50 years and was only just overturned as a result of Lawyers Holding Papers

Lawyers Holding Papers and Saying “Um You Can’t Do That” is, in essence, the intended design of our system of checks and balances and our largest check on Executive Power as civilians.