Reply #31: I think, regardless of my FEELINGS... [View All]

[Kagemusha]

that the courts would have been committing an act of rebellion against the United States of America were they to have attempted to unilaterally place President T Roosevelt under arrest or place a restraining order on him with the aim of preventing him from accomplishing his lawful duties as the elected head of the executive branch.

Besides that, just speaking from the POV of reality, not constitutional law theory in isolation, unitary executive theory is less about preventing the divestment of power, than the accumulation of it to begin with, in the name of preventing the divestment of power. It's like invading a country for self-defense. It's not what it's described as for PR purposes. It's grabbing power in the name of preventing those OTHER branches from grabbing power, or seizing power improperly so that they can't keep ill-gotten power.

Here's the bottom line. If Roosevelt assembled too much power, it was not the place of the Supreme Court to issue an injunction against the entirety of the presidency. The sole remedy to actually bring a President down was, is, and shall continue to be, impeachment. It's impeachment or bust.

My FEELINGS have not one tiny bit to do with it. And neither, quite frankly, do yours or anyone else's. Not for this. A lot of other things, yes. But not for this.