> The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.
"The executive branch" includes the DoJ and the United States Marshals Service, who do all the actual boots-on-the-ground work for the judiciary.
This is an obvious lead in to "the President's interpretation is that the courts can go screw themselves", at which point the deciding factor becomes entirely whether law enforcement listens to the courts or listens to the bosses who pay them.
This EO has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the courts or their interpretation of the law.
This is entirely focused on aligning the executive branch, that’s it. This is the kind of confusion that comes with trusting a Reddit post instead of getting your news from a reputable source.
It’s bad because it’s an attempt at removing independence from certain independent organizations such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve, but it is not about claiming all legal authority rests with the executive. It will fail as an EO because the executive can’t violate the law, which has set out the independent nature of these organizations.
"Aligning" the executive branch by ordering everyone to obey the legal interpretations of the President and Attorney General, including the people who form the enforcement arm of the Supreme Court, very obviously has something to do with the courts.
> It will fail as an EO
It will fail as an EO if members of the executive branch follow the Constitution rather than the boss who pays them. The EO itself is explicitly ordering boots-on-the-ground federal law enforcement to follow the President instead of the courts.
There isn’t an enforcement arm of the Supreme Court. If you ever, at any point, thought the US Marshals mattered one iota in all of this, you completely misunderstood the role of the judiciary in the US government.
Congress has the power of the purse, the executive has the power of the sword, and the judiciary has… the hope that the other two branches will listen. Federalist 78 would be a good read for you now, if you think this has any relevance at all towards the judiciary’s ability to enforce anything.
> The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.
"The executive branch" includes the DoJ and the United States Marshals Service, who do all the actual boots-on-the-ground work for the judiciary.
This is an obvious lead in to "the President's interpretation is that the courts can go screw themselves", at which point the deciding factor becomes entirely whether law enforcement listens to the courts or listens to the bosses who pay them.