‘Read the Constitution’: Vance schooled on rule of law
‘Read the Constitution’: Vance schooled on rule of law
The vice president’s response to a federal judge blocking DOGE from accessing sensitive payment systems spurred an intense reaction online.
Summary
JD Vance faced backlash for claiming judges cannot limit executive power after a federal court blocked Elon Musk’s DOGE from accessing Treasury payment systems.
Critics, including Rep. Daniel Goldman and DNC Vice Chair David Hogg, reminded Vance of the constitutional separation of powers.
Musk called for the judge’s impeachment, labeling him “corrupt.”
Legal experts warned Vance’s stance suggests the administration may ignore unfavorable court rulings, raising concerns about respect for judicial oversight and the rule of law.
Isn't Vance an attorney? If so, this ought to be grounds for disbarment.
He knows the law, he doesn’t care.
His position is going to rapidly transition from ignoring subpoenas to "You and what army?" To "the bar association are traitors" to "we'll set up an executive branch element with tribunals" and his whole job is to bark these things behind Trump's leash to make the courts treat the cabinet with kid gloves.
It's possible that this is a threat to judges. I read it as "Resist us and be removed".
That's exactly what it is, plain as day, they are not hidding it
Well if the richest man in the world wants something, he's gonna let everyone know
So the judges shouldn't have stopped Biden from eliminating student debt?
"Well... let's not go CRAZY!"
He playing stupid, c'mon. He knows.
Gotta play stupid to pander to the stupid
i hate this fake ass fake appalachian profiteering on my people's pain
Maybe, but it doesn't matter. They want the outrage, cement trust in the flock
Vance is, strictly speaking, correct. The key word there is legitimate. The problem is that he's trying to confuse the issue; he's implying that everything Trump is doing is a legitimate exercise of executive power, when it's very clear from law and precedent that the power being exercised is supposed to be held by Congress.
Don't you remember? The supreme court decreed that any "official" presidential action is immune from prosecution. Anything trump does as president is "official," therefore anything he does is legal.
That's... Not how that decision was worded. Although that was the conclusion that was drawn by certain pundits. The president has absolute immunity for official acts in areas that Congress has no authority over, e.g., commanding the military, issuing pardons, etc. So if the President committed a crime in an area that Congress has direct control over--such as criminal actions related to trying to shut down the Dept. of Education--he would explicitly not have immunity from criminal prosecution.
So, if Judges aren’t there to evaluate and limit the laws signed by the President, then what purpose do they serve? Does Vance think the Judges are there reading all those bills for their health?
Vance reminds me of that one kid who says he loves punk music, but only knows about Blink182.
Vance is s Theil sock puppet. He wants to dismantle Democracy like his master does.
The mantra is that judges are there only to uphold the law and strictly punish the common people and all who stand in "maga's" way.
Vance thinks the judges serve whoever appointed them.
Akshully, I think you need to read the case law, Marbury v. Madison, on that one, and not just the Constitution.
Um.....to be fair, "case law" doesn't override the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave themselves power not explicitly granted to them in the Constitution, and the rest of the country has just been going along with it since.
It is somewhat hypocritical to say that Trump can't just grant himself new powers out of thin air, then use a case where the Supreme Court just granted itself new powers out of thin air as justification.
When fElon talked about putting USAID through the shredder, he should have really said he just put the Constitution through the shredder.
Why would he bother when the one organization that has total editorial control over the document is ideologically copacetic?
