Well, I think our Mr. Zurofsky could have done what I did upon seeing that post -- look at the keyboard, note that the J and N keys are adjacent to one another, and assume this was a typo. I always wonder about people who leap to the conclusion they are being insulted, when there is another fairly obvious explanation close at hand. [I also wonder about lawyers who write "Esq." after their own names -- this is very bad form. "Esquire" is a form of address, not a title one applies to oneself.] But I hope that InOBU's many mea culpas have been satisfactory, and we can move beyond this.

As for Executive Orders, Carol, my understanding is that an EO is intended to direct Executive branch members in matters that are within the purview of the Executive branch. They cannot legitimately be used to make new laws, or overrule either the Legislative or Judicial branches in matters that are within their purview. I don't doubt that this point has probably been "stretched" by the Executive from time to time, but that's my understanding of how these things are supposed to function.

Also Carol, I don't wish to belabor the point, but our society only really works if people in positions of authority have a backbone and a willingness to stand by their principles, even if they are concerned about some vague potential "consequences" down the road. This goes for Congressmen who may disagree with a popular President, and it also goes for lawyers who are expected to be zealous advocates for their clients. If your attorney told you that he was effectively willing to sacrifice your case so that he could avoid making the "old boy network" less hospitable in the future, you probably should have sought representation elsewhere.