"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.” Isn’t this premise just blatantly wrong though? A judge is to uphold the law, and aren’t there laws governing how the military operates that, if violated, could be have legal consequences?
At least, isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?
(Edit: I’m genuinely asking because I’m questioning my understanding of how these things are supposed to be balanced without giving absolute authority, as if in a dictatorship)
As a child in elementary school, I recall the teacher describing balance of power and thinking it seemed like the president had too much power. I later learned some of the intricacies of the system, but am no expert and still recall not grasping how the checks and balances would actually play out if a nefarious individual were to infiltrate the system.
At this point, I’m thinking either my naive younger self was right, or these people that made it to power didn’t understand any better than my elementary knowledge and genuinely believe they have this power.
Or they know what they’re doing and it’s a blatant attack in the USA.
In any of these situations, there’s no clean way out when nearly half the population actually supports it.