[The TikTok EO orders the Attorney General](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/application-of-protecting-americans-from-foreign-adversary-controlled-applications-act-to-tiktok/) "to issue a letter to each provider stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct that occurred" in the 75-day window.
Anyone worthy of being AG would resign before carrying out such a lawless order.
It's one thing to claim authority to refuse to enforce a statute without arguing that it's unconstitutional (this is the problem with section 2(a)).
But section 2(c) is *ordering* the AG to put in writing that, as a matter of law, 2+2 = banana. How could you claim any credibility if you acquiesced?Courts tend to have a measure of respect for government lawyers. Mostly because government lawyers tend to know their business; not because they are noble, true blue, and staunch champions of justice.
But today in Seattle a judge said, in reference to this EO:
“Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the Bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” Coughenour said. “It just boggles my mind.”And here’s the AG being ordered to, as the professor said, say that 2 + 2 = banana. Which should not be any comfort to any company subject to the fines imposed by the statute. But it sure does harm the DOJ.
The fish rots from the head….
Government by schadenfreude is not sustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment