This is incoherent. It would be useful for the New York Times editorial board to lay out which of these executive actions they specifically think Biden shouldn't have done. That they don't bother to do so is telling. 
The closest they get is this paragraph about how protections for DREAMers would be more durable if they were legislated. No shit, that's why that's included in Biden's immigration plan. Should he not have done this in the interim? They don't say.
The Times doesn't say that any of these executive actions exceeded Biden's authority, and indeed most of them are repealing previous Trump EOs. Why would the proper mechanism for doing that be legislation?
Why would reversing the ban on trans service members be better settled by legislation? Military composition is an executive function. DADT and its repeal were both via executive action. Truman didn't pass legislation to integrate the armed forces, he did it by executive order.
"No no no, can't allow trans people to serve in the military unless you can get 10 Republican senators to sign off on it" -- The NY Times editorial board
Anyway Steve Doocy loved the editorial so congrats folks, real nice work.
Amerca's Newsroom also appreciated it, getting mentioned seconds before "Ben Shapiro had a great monologue on this on his podcast yesterday."
The Times editorial board opposed Trump EAs on:
Leaving Paris nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opi…
Muslim Ban nytimes.com/2017/01/28/opi…
Wall emergency nytimes.com/2019/02/15/opi…
DACA nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opi…
Trans military ban nytimes.com/2018/03/28/opi…
But reversing via EA also bad for... reasons?
Leaving Paris nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opi…
Muslim Ban nytimes.com/2017/01/28/opi…
Wall emergency nytimes.com/2019/02/15/opi…
DACA nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opi…
Trans military ban nytimes.com/2018/03/28/opi…
But reversing via EA also bad for... reasons?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
