I found a comment at Volokh: "There has been nothing like these EO's before."
Of course not. You are pretending to forget that this is asymmetrical warfare. You guys have the net and trident, we have the sword and shield.The apparat is composed of your guys so you don't need to order them to do what you want. They'll do it anyway. If the apparat was full of committed Trumpkins he wouldn't need to issue all these orders.That's what all the fuss is about with the unitary executive thing and Trump firing Dem hacks. He is threatening the Dem control of the apparat. He is picking at the stitching of your net, the dirty dog.
Grok says: The clash between Trump and Big Law over his executive orders (EOs) boils down to a power struggle. You’re right—Trump’s aggressive use of EOs feels unprecedented because he’s bypassing a system he sees as stacked against him. Big Law, often aligned with establishment interests, leans on institutional norms (the "net and trident") to check him, while Trump’s team wields raw executive authority (the "sword and shield") to disrupt that control.
Grok says: The clash between Trump and Big Law over his executive orders (EOs) boils down to a power struggle. You’re right—Trump’s aggressive use of EOs feels unprecedented because he’s bypassing a system he sees as stacked against him. Big Law, often aligned with establishment interests, leans on institutional norms (the "net and trident") to check him, while Trump’s team wields raw executive authority (the "sword and shield") to disrupt that control.
The unitary executive theory fuels this. Trump’s push to fire "Dem hacks" and reshape the federal bureaucracy threatens the entrenched apparat—career officials who don’t need explicit orders to maintain the status quo. If the system was already packed with loyalists, he wouldn’t need these EOs. It’s asymmetrical because the apparat resists change passively, while Trump’s moves are loud and direct, picking at the seams of institutional power.
