File:JD Vance on limiting power of federal judiciary.png

Outrage after JD Vance claims judges are not allowed to check executive power

Vice-president accused of threatening constitution after saying judges have no right to restrain president’s agenda

Via The Guardian / February 10, 2025

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/10/jd-vance-judges-trump

Article III of the US constitution confers a power known as judicial review, which gives federal judges the authority to rule on cases involving the president, as well as other branches of government.

Vance’s comments drew widespread criticism.

Daniel Goldman, a Democratic representative from New York, responded on X: “It’s called the ‘rule of law’. Our constitution created three co-equal branches of government to provide checks and balances on each other (‘separation of powers’).

“The judiciary makes sure that the executive follows the law. If you do, then you won’t have problems.”

Quinta Jurecic, a fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank, told the New York Times: “What Vance’s wording suggests is that the executive could potentially respond to a court order by saying to the court, ‘You’re unconstitutionally intruding on my authority and I’m not going to do what you say.’

“At that point, the constitution falls apart.”

~

Programming Alert: America Under Siege

By Jim Acosta / February 10

In one revealing social media post, Vice President J.D. Vance somehow managed to upstage his boss, who spent this past weekend attending the Super Bowl, seizing control of the Kennedy Center and abolishing the penny, by issuing a performative decree on the propaganda platform of his other superior, Elon Musk, insisting that the White House need not adhere to rulings from federal judges.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power,” Vance posted.

Vance, who is a graduate of Yale Law School, is saying the riot part out loud. Presidents cannot violate rulings from the courts, unless of course, the Constitution is rendered null and void. Such an action would, for all intents and purposes, amount to something of a non-violent insurrection, executed from inside the government. To that end, Trump’s critics would note this is not his first rodeo. The idea that “judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power” may be the view of the most ardent conservatives on the Supreme Court. But it’s hard to imagine Chief Justice John Roberts holding such a view. Though one can imagine a lot these days.

Over the weekend, MAGA-world was howling after a federal judge temporarily blocked Musk’s government efficiency team, DOGE, from having access to the Treasury department’s highly sensitive federal payments system. Trump responded to the ruling, calling it a “disgrace.”

Trump’s actions since the start of his second administration raise serious questions about what his intentions would be, moving forward, if the guardrails of a judicial branch are tossed aside. His pardons and commutations for January 6th rioters, his stripping of the security details for outspoken ex-government officials like former national security adviser John Bolton, his move to tear down USAID and the Department of Education, not to mention his erratic fixation on acquiring Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal all call for bright red lines curtailing Trump’s executive powers. After the last couple of weeks, this is no time to remove any constitutional restraining bolts.

🌎