And the president in his own authority is able to change and write his own executive orders. We've seen that from the time he came into office. There is legal precedent that goes back to 2005 that the autopen is an appropriate legal device and that with the president, President Biden at the time saying that he talked about a lot of these issues publicly that these were his decisions.He has said that now repeatedly even since leaving office. Uh so those have the force of weight. Uh, President Trump has made ...

The president is also saying he wants to cancel all executive orders signed by President Biden's autopen. Can you give us the latest there. Well, again, the president in his own authority is able to change and write his own executive orders.We've seen that from the time he came into office. there is legal precedent that goes back to 2005 that the autopen is an appropriate legal device and that with the president, president Biden at the time saying that he talked about a lot of these issues publicly that the ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)The ultimate enforcers -- the police and perhaps ultimately the military -- will have to decide whether to follow "illegal" judicial orders or "illegal" executive orders. Right now they follow the judiciary -- but I don't know how much executive power the judiciary can usurp before the enforcers realize that it's now more often the judiciary issuing the illegal orders. ...

Legal & Judicial Analysis - The Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship cases is criticized for potentially creating a two-tiered legal system across the country [9] - The Supreme Court's decision is seen as limiting the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against unconstitutional actions [5][14] - The strategy involves pursuing class action lawsuits to challenge the government's position on birthright citizenship [6] - A proposal is made to establish a three-judge court to handle nationwide injunctions, aiming for fair-minded judges and fast-track appeals to the Supreme Court [8] Political Implications - The decision is perceived by some as an attempt to appease Donald Trump and undermine the power of equity in the courts [15] - Concerns are raised about the potential for rights to be taken away in states with right-wing Republican Attorneys General [11] - The administration is accused of avoiding the merits of the birthright citizenship case and attempting to rewrite the history of the 2020 election [4][7][22] - The firing of federal prosecutors who worked on the January 6th investigations is criticized as part of a "gangster state administration" [21] Historical Context - Birthright citizenship has been established in America since 1868 [7] - Historically, judges have only been impeached for bribery, income tax evasion, kickbacks, and political corruption, not for their opinions [18] - Donald Trump lost the 2020 election by more than 7 million votes (306 to 232 in the electoral college) [22]