Thread by @stevenmazie

A lot of people are upset by this NYT editorial chiding Biden for signing too many executive orders.

They're right to be upset. It rests on faulty reasoning.

nytimes.com/2021/01/27/opi…

Three problems:

1. Four years from now, NYT says, another president can issue more executive orders & reverse Biden's. Sure, that's true. So should Biden sit tight with the Muslim ban, stay out of the Paris accord, etc., just bc four years from now these things may be undone?

2. NYT acknowledges that some of these EOs are necessary, as they erase Trump's "excesses." OK, you're onto something. See previous tweet.

3. NYT poses a false choice between issuing EOs and hammering out agreements with Congress.

Either/or?

No: both/and.

4. NYT implies that Biden has no legislative agenda and is trying to recover from the pandemic, from economic calamity and from frayed trust through EOs alone.

That's false.

5. NYT presents EOs as ephemeral and legislation as "permanent"—as if new congressional majorities or Supreme Court majorities have no capacity to rescind or review acts of Congress.

6. Worst of all, the editorial DOES NOT GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BIDEN SHOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED.

So what, exactly, is the point?

In sum, yes, that's a very bad editorial. [END]