if the judiciary cannot be a check on the executive, who will be?
The problem that I see with this is what happens when the judiciary becomes corrupt so much that it targets an administration that was voted to do precisely what it's doing. There are many minor activist judges out there selected for political reasons, why should these lower court judges determine how the executive functions, which itself represents the will of the voters? The Supreme Court is a different matter, but even then, it appears the president has some leeway. For example, Joe Biden ignored the Supreme Court rulings against forgiving student loans, then he went ahead and did it anyway. Should he have abided by the court rulings?
"preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This is what he promised to do. It is what every president promises to do.
The founders of my country were not fools. They understood that times would bring conflict. They knew they could not foretell the future. The only thing that would stand between tyranny and representative government in all times was the Constitution.
There are ways around the judiciary. Ways around Congress. The government was designed with checks and balances. But the process is slow and deliberate. This is by design. No one person, no one entity, can decide the mechanism of government. Only the Constitution can do that.
Once the Constitution is broken, much like a glass vase, it can never be reconstituted properly again.
There is corruption everywhere and in all times. That is why the Constitution is so critical. It is a defense against the corruption of agencies and individuals. It is the one constant.
As for Joe Biden: Look closely. His student loan program was knocked down. He cancelled it. Then he instituted a new one, a different one, a program he thought would pass the Court's objections. He didn't ignore the Court. He bent to it, and tried to get around it, but he followed the law. It's irritating. It's slow, but it's the only thing that stands between us (the people of the United States) and one-man-rule, that stands between us and tyranny.
... and the right to bear arms. Extremely important point. Without arms to defend it, the constitution is just a piece of paper.
The result was the same though. While the technicalities differed, he ignored the principle of the ruling.
It is exactly the technicalities that matter. Process. Rule of law is all about process.
I wish it was so, but I've been around long enough to know better. 😉