[jtc331]

> What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch?

It’s fairly obvious on its face the concern of the EO is not judicial review but about agencies that nominally are past of the branch the President heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires.

And, it does genuinely seem weird to have an executive branch where the head of that branch doesn’t actually control things.

The negative reaction is entirely because of the current executive head, but no one would bat an eye if this were Barack Obama reigning in some executive agency interpreting, say, immigration law in opposition to DACA.

[paulryanrogers]

> ...heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires.

Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity?

Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?

[lmm]

> Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity?

It's not their job to be the expert, it's their job to be the decisionmaker. That's why you have a head. If two federal agencies want to interpret the law differently, it's more important to pick one interpretation and apply it consistently than to get it perfectly right.

> Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?

Checks and balances are important but so is the ability to actually do things occasionally. Independence for the court system is good. Independence for every individual federal agency isn't.

[twoodfin]

The Constitution is explicit that all executive power is vested in the president.

Article III courts can “sort out all legal nuance”, but the power remains with the president.

[disgruntledphd2]

Sure, but an executive basically just implements the laws, not decide what they are. Given the US system this is important, as it's quite possible for the President not to have a majority in the legislature.

[svnt]

So you are saying that we are meant to believe the problem is that people (who exactly?) were formulating and acting on their own interpretations of the law, independent of either the executive or judiciary branches of government? Hmm. If the problem is so immediate it requires an EO, there must be some salient examples you can point me to.

I would react the same way to anyone who had announced we would never need to vote again, who had previously pardoned felons convicted in an attempted coup, and who was now centralizing governmental oversight and power. There is no comparison to another president in the last 150 years or more.

[tsimionescu]

> And, it does genuinely seem weird to have an executive branch where the head of that branch doesn’t actually control things.

It's not weird at all, and it's not true that the head of the executive doesn't have control over those agencies. The head of the executive names their leadership - that is a huge amount of control. And it is enough control - the government isn't some top-down system serving at the pleasure of the president. It is a system for implementing the rules set out by Congress and the courts (subject to the President's judicial review powers), that the president coordinates.

The very title of "president" was chosen by the founding fathers to evoke the largely bureaucratic role they had in mind. It's not supposed to be a position of prestige or control like a dictator or ruler, it's similar to the role of a committee president: someone who oversees the functioning of the committee, and steer the general agenda, but who doesn't otherwise get to decide for the committee.

[zimpenfish]

> no one would bat an eye if this were Barack Obama reigning in some executive agency

Obviously a counterfactual we can never truly know but I'd remind you that the right were offended when Obama wore a tan suit and was using Dijon mustard. I'm pretty sure they'd "bat an eye" if he were attempting even 1% of the shenanigans that Trump is pulling.