GP didn't say the US is an autocracy; they said that the top-level comment implied a US autocracy. In this case, yes, the courts intervened.

An executive in conflict with the courts is an unstable government and an autocratic tending executive.

What? No. That's the point of the system. It's the checks and balances part.

Or are you arguing Obama was an autocrat because his decisions were struck down by the Supreme Court?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-sup...

On the contrary, if the courts are powerful protectors of rights they'll inevitably come into conflict with the executive. I'd like to see a touch fewer conflicts than American presidents tend to get into, but if I saw no conflicts I'd conclude that the courts just have no power to stop the executive from doing what he'd like.

The Executive Branch of the USA has always held the power to direct the nation’s relationships with foreign powers.

If you feel that that’s autocratic, then your beef is with the folks back in 1776.

The Constitution says the Senate has confirmation powers for Ambassadors (consider Weld), it has consent on treaties and Congress declares war.