Don't be the thread-clown @Timber Rattler
Two EO's open the spigots to reverse this treasonous Democrat positions. One on restoring fossil fuels, the other for flooding the country with uneducated people of color, while a corrupt AG and DHS chief look the other way.
Okay, I wish the phrase "Executive Order" had never entered the lexicon because people think a President can do anything via them. He can't, and many of those who have tried have seen them overturned, many times by an unfriendly judge entering an injunction. That happened to Obama, it happened to Trump, and it has happened to Biden.
A ton of the power in the Executive Branch resides in Administrative agencies going through various forms of rulemaking to make binding regulations. That is NOT the same thing as an Executive Order. There is a process of rulemaking that requires the government to give notice, give the public a specified time period on which to comment (the "notice and comment" period) and then you have to have agency action to back up the decision and implement it. The statutory Notice and Comment period is at least 30 days, and many statutes actually specify a longer minimum time period. Then you have to have additional agency actions and determinations based on the Notice and Comment period before a regulation can be finalized. On bigger issues, that often lasts 6 months or more. And if you try to shortcut that process, you leave the rule much more vulnerable to being overturned by the courts.
You may remember the Obama Administration "Clean Power Plan", which was something he tried to push through via regulation rather than legislation because the GOP wouldn't support it. It was challenged by Republicans through various court actions, and after a
seven year battle, eventually tossed by the Supreme Court. Here's a blurb on it:
What the Supreme Court's Ruling on the 'Clean Air Act' Means for Carbon Emissions
On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that will hamstring the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. The outcome of the case is a big deal for tackling climate change going forward, particularly because the Biden Administration had set ambitious goals for reducing emissions, including reaching 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035.
In a 6-3 vote, the conservative-majority court sided in favor of the plaintiffs who brought the West Virginia v. EPA case some seven years ago—primarily a group of Republican state attorneys general who believed that the federal agency was overstepping its authority after it issued a plan to curb power plant emissions. During those years, however, as case was moved through the justice system—rendering the EPA’s plan unenforceable—the power sector’s emissions declined anyway. The question now is whether emissions will continue to fall given that the energy industry has certainty that the federal government can’t impose future regulations.
The case has a convoluted history, but stems from a policy that former President Barack Obama unveiled back in 2015. Known as the Clean Power Plan, its goal was to reduce power sector emissions from 2005 levels by about a third by 2030. Before the policy could have its day in court, however, a new administration moved in, and, in 2019, then-President Donald Trump repealed the Clean Power Plan entirely. (Even though the policy never went into effect, the case against it continued; the Supreme Court was tasked to determine whether the EPA had broad powers to regulate emissions under the decades-old Clean Air Act.)
Two years later, Trump issued his own EPA policy directed only at coal-fired plants. More lawsuits were brought against that policy, this time from a coalition of predominantly Democratic states. A federal court struck it down, clearing the way for incoming President Joe Biden, who made clear that he would not revive the Clean Power Plan, and would instead craft a fresh plan of his own....
https://time.com/6192800/supreme-court-epa-emissions-ruling/
Point is, the idea that Trump can just issue a bunch of Executive Orders on day one to fix everything is simply
laughable to anyone who understands how the legislative and rulemaking process actually works. But things like "Executive Orders" become a buzzword, and people who have no idea what the f*** they are talking about wave it around like some talisman as if they actually have a clue.
That's one of my big issues with Trump. His complete, almost deliberate indifference and ignorance to learning how the damn government actually works. He's like a two year old screaming for his popsicles when mom just put them in the freezer 10 seconds ago. If you want to run the country, you have to take the time to learn and understand this crap so you can actually get crap done instead of just being a loudmouth ranting about it. But Trump didn't, and still hasn't, put in the work necessary to learn about that, so he remains a buffoon unlikely to accomplish anything that lasts longer than a fart in a high wind.
/rant.
You're damned right I'm okay with that. How the hell did we get to this point?? Executive Orders, because it sure wasn't voted upon.
Yeah, and saying "Executive Order" three times in a row while looking at a mirror summons Barack Obama....Here's a hint -- just because something wasn't voted upon doesn't mean it came about due to an Executive Order. That's American Government 101 if you paid attention in class.
And yes, I know this post makes me sound like a condescending douchenozzle, but sometimes, that's appropriate.
