> executive branch tends to have power of discretion in what to enforce and how

No, it doesn’t. Plenty of lawsuits are around laws not being adequately enforced (and courts forcing such enforcement).

The president takes an oath to see that the laws are enforced

Serious question, how does that compel the president to enforce laws?

You would need some party with standing to ask a court to intervene

But say through some process a court intervenes. There's no actual way for the court to compel him to do anything.

> no actual way for the court to compel him to do anything

PAFACA was written (I didn’t name it) to command the operators of app stores and hosting companies. They’re the ones accruing liability. The President can ignore the law, but Apple and Google will accrue liabilities until the statute of limitations starts voiding them.

But the accrued liability means nothing if the president agrees he won't prosecute them, right?

> the accrued liability means nothing if the president agrees he won't prosecute them, right?

No.

One, our country has a rich tradition of third parties suing to compel the enforcement of laws. Two, we also have a rich tradition of successive presidents enforcing laws their predecessors didn't.

But again, how does a lawsuit compel the president to do anything? They can’t arrest or fine him. Ignoring the lawsuit is legal according to the Supreme Court decision in July.

And as for the next president, well, he would just have to tell byte dance what his price is to allow them to operate.

> how does a lawsuit compel the president to do anything? They can’t arrest or fine him

Courts can compel the app stores to de-list. The President doesn’t need to personally enforce every law in the land.

But the court isn't going into a server room somewhere and pressing a button to take TikTok off the app store. Apple would take it down because they would incur some sort of retaliation if they didn't. But that retaliation would never come because Trump controls the enforcers, and he has directed them to ignore noncompliance with the law. So how would the court compel this behavior from Apple?

> that retaliation would never come because Trump controls the enforcers

Federally, only today. And federally, the judiciary has its own enforcement powers. (To say nothing of private liability caused by wilful lawbreaking, even if encouraged by the President.)

It’s why Apple and Google, informed by the most-expensive lawyers in the world, have for now de-listed TikTok.

In the end, as long as congress won’t do their job, the president is a king.