"It's called the 'rule of law' @jdvance. 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."

Who?

Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power

This is undeniably true. Why would anyone be bothered by this?

This is undeniably true. Why would anyone be bothered by this?

Because Vance deems every act by Trump to be legitimate.

Don't judges decide what Trumps legitimate power is?

That is how it is supposed to work.   Ultimately resolved by the SCotUS.

No John, the Constitution does.

No John, the Constitution does.

A judge's job is to interpret law and the Constitution. It's one of the legitimate checks on the Executive branch's power.

Because Vance deems every act by Trump to be legitimate.

Which does absolutely zero to negate the accuracy of his statement.

I am not suggesting that what Vance said is inaccurate.  His politically correct statement is entirely accurate.   So, not the point.

Vance has placed the word "illegitimate' in that statement.   That gives him the means to come back, with his entirely accurate politically correct statement, and argue that Trump's action was legitimate.   

Do you think that Vance will ever side with a judge ruling against Trump?   Do you think that when this statement is placed before Vance in an interview that he will admit Trump did something wrong or will he claim that the judge was wrong because Trump's actions was 'legitimate'?

I can hear him saying it now based on his past interviews:

"No Dana, I stated that judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power, but this IS a legitimate power."

Vance has placed the word "illegitimate' in that statement.   That gives him the means to come back, with his entirely accurate politically correct statement, and argue that Trump's action was legitimate.

Why would you expect the Trump Administration to operate any differently than every previous administration?

Any sane person in any other time would expect any vice president to defend the president and argue on behalf of their policies.

FFS, Kamala swore up and down that Joe wasn't senile and then said she couldn't think of anything she would do differently.

Biden argued for Obama, Gore for Clinton, etc, etc, etc.

But all of a sudden this normal, expected, standard behavior becomes some sort of constitutional crisis when Trump is involved. *eyeroll*

Why would you expect the Trump Administration to operate any differently than every previous administration?

Where do I suggest this is unique?

Apparently you now see my point so now you invent a strawman to argue instead.

But all of a sudden this normal, expected, standard behavior becomes some sort of constitutional crisis when Trump is involved. *eyeroll*

Advocating for ignoring court orders is normal now?

You have been defending Trump here for years. Stop beating around the bush.

Advocating for ignoring court orders is normal now?

No but actually ignoring them is in the world of leftists.

Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’ - WSJ

Where do I suggest this is unique?

So we've established that Vance is correct, and that the Trump Administration's actions are not unusual.

Excellent.  

So why is this story news?

Advocating for ignoring court orders is normal now?

Where does anyone say that?

You have been defending Trump here for years. Stop beating around the bush.

You've been accusing anyone who fails to set their hair on fire and join you in Trump hysteria of "defending" him.  

So we've established that Vance is correct, and that the Trump Administration's actions are not unusual.

Again with your sophistry.

I never claimed that Vance's statement was incorrect or unusual.   I claimed that his statement intentionally included 'legitimate' as a qualifier and predicted that if a judge ruled against Trump that Vance would defend Trump and use 'legitimate' as his wiggle room.

As I already clearly described @3.1.6:

TiG@3.1.6 ☞  Do you think that Vance will ever side with a judge ruling against Trump?   Do you think that when this statement is placed before Vance in an interview that he will admit Trump did something wrong or will he claim that the judge was wrong because Trump's actions was 'legitimate'?  I can hear him saying it now based on his past interviews: "No Dana, I stated that judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power, but this IS a legitimate power."

No Dana, I stated that judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power, but this IS a legitimate power.

Again with your sophistry.

I don't think you understand what that word means

I never claimed that Vance's statement was incorrect or unusual.

Excellent.  Then we have established he was correct and that the Trump Administration's actions are not unusual.   We agree.

 I claimed that his statement intentionally included 'legitimate' as a qualifier

Well It's a damn good thing.  It wouldn't have been an accurate statement without that, now would it?

and predicted that if a judge ruled against Trump that Vance would defend Trump and use 'legitimate' as his wiggle room.

Yes.  Of course.  He will defend Trump the same way Harris backed Biden, Biden backed Obama, Cheney backed W, and Gore backed Clinton. 

So, in fact, we are in agreement and have matching expectations that the VP will do his job. 

Then we have established he was correct and that the Trump Administration's actions are not unusual. 

I have never stated otherwise.   Nothing to establish.

It wouldn't have been an accurate statement without that, now would it?

And you miss the point ... intentionally, since you have no rebuttal.

Yes.  Of course. 

So why are you arguing with me?

So, in fact, we are in agreement and have matching expectations that the VP will do his job. 

And again your sophistry.   I have not suggested Vance would not do his job, indeed I have stated that he will be the loyal VP and will never agree with a judge who claims that Trump did something wrong.   That Vance, if pressed on his statement, will claim that Trump's action was legitimate:

As I already clearly described @3.1.6 :

TiG @3.1.6 ☞  Do you think that Vance will ever side with a judge ruling against Trump?   Do you think that when this statement is placed before Vance in an interview that he will admit Trump did something wrong or will he claim that the judge was wrong because Trump's actions was 'legitimate'?  I can hear him saying it now based on his past interviews: "No Dana, I stated that judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power, but this IS a legitimate power."

No Dana, I stated that judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power, but this IS a legitimate power.

So why are you arguing with me?

I keep talking about how we agree and you won't take yes for an answer.

I have not suggested Vance would not do his job, indeed I have stated that he will be the loyal VP and will never agree with a judge who claims that Trump did something wrong.

How does this deviate from every other VP?  What example do we have of a VP contradicting the president?  

I keep talking about how we agree and you won't take yes for an answer.

You state agreement as if you have persuaded me to your point.   I restate that to be accurate - that on this point we have not disagreed.

How does this deviate from every other VP?  What example do we have of a VP contradicting the president?  

It does not.   It would be very unlikely (although it has happened ... even as recently as Cheney and Bush if we disregard Pence and Trump) that a VP would contradict the PotUS.   I have not suggested that Vance would contradict Trump.   In fact, the notion that he would never contradict Trump is fundamental to the point I made.    And that is that Vance established the framework for arguing against judicial decisions adverse to Trump.    That he can now use this publicly (e.g. in interviews) to try to persuade the public that this is all about bad anti-Trump judges ruling to suppress legitimate executive powers.

You state agreement as if you have persuaded me to your point.

Oh FFS.

It does not.

Then WTF are we talking about?  We're somehow supposed to be concerned that Vance might act like every other VP?  

That he can now use this publicly (e.g. in interviews) to try to persuade the public that this is all about bad anti-Trump judges ruling to suppress legitimate executive powers.

I presume you're posting that unironically and don't actually recognize how utterly feeble it is.

Then WTF are we talking about? 

Vance's public statement (directed to the public) which states the obvious fact that a 'legitimate' executive action cannot be overruled by a judge.   The argument has been well documented in this seed so I am not going to repeat it all again.

I presume ...

You can presume that I recognized your 'nuh-uh' response.

Vance's public statement (directed to the public) which states the obvious fact that a 'legitimate' executive action cannot be overruled by a judge.

So what, precisely, is wrong with this statement of obvious fact?

Nothing is wrong with it; as I have repeatedly noted.

Sorry, Sean, but I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable of American Law so can you answer a question for me?  If Trump, using his "executive's legitimate power", should require that he is entitled to serve a third term and both the House and Senate agreed, would the SCotUS agree with Trump if a Constitutional challenge be brought before it?

ould the SCotUS agree with Trump if a Constitutional challenge be brought before it?

Only if a constitutional amendment is passed. 

No judge is trying to control a legitimate exercise of power - just the illegitimate ones.

But some are trying to allow illegitimate exercise of power (among other things).   I give you 'judge'  Aileen Cannon.

This whole discussion is a red herring. By positing the use of a judges power to nullify a general, Vance builds a nice little strawman to which he will point when another, different case is brought. He will say that since the one argument holds the other must also, which is a fallacy, and also incorrect. He knows that linking these arguments thusly is contra-logical and probably contra-factual, but hey, what are a few alternative facts between friends? 

So why didn't Biden abide by the Supreme Court rulings against the renter moratorium and his student loan debt forgiveness program?

Or does abiding by judges decisions regarding illegitimate presidential powers only apply to Republicans?

Democrats/leftist always guilty of what they accuse Republicans of.

So why didn't Biden abide by the Supreme Court rulings against the renter moratorium and his student loan debt forgiveness program?

He did.  He stopped pursuing using the HEROES act and proposed using the HE act of 1965.

ogletree

Note, that I disagree with Biden on this forgiving of student loan debt.   But he did indeed abide by the SCotUS ruling.

On the renter's moratorium, Biden ignored the initial SCotUS warning but abided by the SCotUS ruling.

npr

Basically…what TiG said.

Presidents and legislators get turned back by courts all the time, but they still have their agenda. So, they go back to the drawing board and try to find a legal way of doing what they want to get done.

Also, I’m not a Democrat, and like TiG, I oppose the forgiving of student loans.

I also support making government more efficient. But I insist that it be done according to the law, and with transparency.

J.D. Vance Says Trump Can Ignore Judges

Where did he say this? 

Playing the feeble literal game?:

The vice president   wrote   on X, “ 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 also shared a   post   by Adrian Vermeule, professor of constitutional law at Harvard, who wrote, “Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the separation of powers.”

He holds that Trump's acts are ALL legitimate and thus claims that judges cannot interfere with what Trump does.

Trump obviously wants to circumvent the law. Otherwise he would have stayed within it.

laying the feeble literal game?:

Yes, words matter. Are you saying they don't,  or on the next seed will you claim  words matter to attack Trump when it suits you? 

The reality is neither of those quotes are in any way out of the mainstream, nor do they suggest Vance said "Trump can ignore Judges."  

The headline is a lie. 

 Vance literally said that judges are not allowed to control the president's power

ally said that judges are not allowed to control the president's powe

did you miss a word there? 

If the President vetoes a Congressional bill raising wages to 10 million per congressmen does a judge have the power to rule that veto illegal? 

Yes, words matter.

It is a pathetic game to pretend that there is only one syntactic way to express a particular meaning.   That a paraphrase is necessarily wrong because it (of course) does not use the same words.

The headline is a lie. 

Do you think that Vance would ever publicly deem anything Trump does as illegitimate?   Of course not.   So if a judge rules against an act by Trump, Vance will call that judicial interference.

t is a pathetic game to pretend that there is only one syntactic expression for an element of meaning.

It is really pathetic game to  subvert the obvious meaning of a statement into its opposite to fuel partisan conspiracy theories.

So if a judge rules against an act by Trump, Vance will call that judicial interference.

Now you are moving the goalposts. Instead of ignoring a Judge's ruling, you claim Vance will criticize a Judge's ruling. 

Let's test your claim  that Vance believes " Trump's acts are ALL legitimate and thus claims that judges cannot interfere with what Trump does."

Here's Vance responding to a federal Court blocking the birthright citizenship order:

  And a federal judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan temporarily   blocked the order   Thursday, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." Vance said he disagrees, noting that the issue will be litigated, which he said is "the nature of our constitutional system."

cbsnews

Oh, the horror! Another perfect encapsulation of how our system works. 

Now you are moving the goalposts.

These endless dishonest tactics ... it is disgusting.

Here's Vance responding to a federal Court blocking the birthright citizenship order

As I noted, he will side with Trump:  cbsnews

Vice President JD Vance defended President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship Saturday, arguing in his first interview since taking office that "just because we were founded by immigrants, doesn't mean that 240 years later that we have to have the dumbest immigration policy in the world."

Clearly Vance is claiming that Trump's act is legitimate.   As I noted.   The fact that he did not in that interview claim judicial interference does not mean he will not do so later.   Watch what happens when Trump is shut down.   You think Vance will just shrug his shoulders and accept the judgment?    

He will deem it judicial interference (albeit not necessarily in that exact syntax).

He holds that Trump's acts are ALL legitimate and thus claims that judges cannot interfere with what Trump does

Does he really say that though TiG?  In the passages you provided he was talking about the president's legitimate powers, for example as commander in chief.  And he agreed with another legal scholar who was talking specifically about "legitimate acts of state" or other internal functions relegated to the executive branch by the Constitution, specifically citing separation of powers. 

How does any of that indicate that Vance thinks that ALL acts of the President are "legitimate" AND should not be checked by the other branches of government including the Scotus? 

Clearly Vance is claiming that Trump's act is legitimate.

The first part of his answer in that interview was:

So, I obviously disagree with that judge and these things- some of them will be litigated. That's the nature of our constitutional system.

And he went on to describe why he sides with Trump on that particular matter.  So yeah I agree that he feels that Trumps action in that matter is legitimate for the reasons he cited, but he understands that a matter such as this will be litigated, and clearly could fail on the basis of the current 14th Amendment.  

Do you think that Vance would ever publicly deem anything Trump does as illegitimate?   Of course not

Another....."he might do something but I don't know what it is....but he might do it" moment. 

Yes, I believe he would speak out if he believed so. Remember, he criticized Trump heavily before he became his VP candidate.

You probably believed Pence would also not speak up....but if you did....you were wrong. 

you are just descending into conspiracy level arguing now.  You've made your position non-falsifiable.  Vance made the most anodyne, routine statement after Trump lost the birthright citizenship case and that's just evidence that Vance will ignore a judge's ruling "later."  

Look at how  easy the left is being manipulated into hysteria. Vance makes two matter of fact statements that are impossible to disagree with substantively.  One of these "inflammatory" statements consisting of a  post by a con-law Professor at Harvard.  The horror!  Harvard law!  As anti-maga an institution that exists. 

Then, we get a chance to look at what happens when Trump loses a case. Did Vance, as you divined using your mind reading powers  from these innocuous statements claim that "judges cannot interfere with what Trump does" and did the administration ignore the Court?  No, Vance reacted the way every VP whose administration lost a case has the last 100 years did. In fact, if I spent the time, I'd bet I'd find quotes from the Biden and Harrises of the world reacting much more strongly to losing a case. 

Nothing has changed since the first Trump admin. Democratic media seizes on perfectly normal claims to incite a panic among the less informed that lasts for a day or so and is quietly forgotten as it's ridiculousness is exposed to reality. The point is to generate negative headlines and stoke fear until the next reason to panic can be manufactured.  

In fact, if I spent the time, I'd bet I'd find quotes from the Biden and Harrises of the world reacting much more strongly to losing a case. 

You don't need to look far. Biden specifically said he would ignore the SCOTUS ruling on college loan bailouts. 

The point is to generate negative headlines and stoke fear until the next reason to panic can be manufactured.  

I think the left wing media is even more frantic now since they realize Trump is far more popular now than he was during his first term, and could very well keep going up in popularity throughout his term.

Their lemmings eat up the " he was very clear during the campaign what he wants to do, and now we are mad he is doing what he promised. "

The melt downs are daily.

Biden specifically said he would ignore the SCOTUS ruling

Seriously you can't use Biden, he was senile or suffering from dementia, there is no denying this fact among thinking people, the true tragedy is the same people who voted for Kamala would have voted for an incompetent, mentally handicap candidate before trump, that tells you all you need to know.

Fully agree. I understand there was a tweet in his name put out that said he would essentially ignore the SCOTUS ruling on loan forgiveness.

More than likely it was not him. He probably did not even know what a tweet, or an X was.

But some here still defend his every move and swear he was as sharp as a tack. 

How does any of that indicate that Vance thinks that ALL acts of the President are "legitimate" AND should not be checked by the other branches of government including the Scotus? 

With all you know of Trump and what you have seen of Vance on the campaign trail where he defended everything Trump said, do you realistically envision a situation where Vance will publicly admit that something Trump has done is not legitimate?

My point is that he will never publicly admit that Trump did something illegitimate and will continue to defend every move Trump makes as legitimate.

The focus is on what Vance will claim as legitimate vs. illegitimate.   I expect him to continue to be consistent and thus nothing Trump does will be deemed, by Vance, as illegitimate.

My point is that he will never publicly admit that Trump did something illegitimate and will continue to defend every move Trump makes as legitimate.

You state this as if it is fact. It is not because you don't know. If you had stated "My opinion" instead of "my point", it would have some legitimacy. 

The focus is on what Vance will claim as legitimate vs. illegitimate.   I expect him to continue to be consistent and thus nothing Trump does will be deemed, by Vance, as illegitimate.

And that may very well be the case as he is Trump’s VP, it is likely that he will side with him on a great many things.  However, I was addressing the part of your statement:

and thus claims that judges cannot interfere with what Trump does.

I don’t believe that Vance has made that claim, but rather in fact has stated that such things can and should be litigated as that “is the nature of our Constitutional system.”

I don’t believe that Vance has made that statement, but rather in fact has stated that such things can and should be litigated as that “is the nature of our Constitutional system.”

Freewill, I am well aware of what he said.   He is being politically correct.   He has no downside by saying this since he has engineered his out by his qualification of "legitimate".   

When a judge shuts down a Trump action, will Vance admit that Trump was wrong or will he claim the judge is wrong ... the equivalent of judicial interference?

I am suggesting that, based on Vance's history and the demands that Trump places on his minions, he will NOT shrug his shoulders and say "the judge has spoken" but rather side with Trump.   I am saying that he will now exploit the word "legitimate" that he used and deem that this was improper judicial action because Trump's actions were legitimate.

When a judge shuts down a Trump action, will Vance admit that Trump was wrong or will he claim the judge is wrong ... the equivalent of judicial interference?

bingo

When a judge shuts down a Trump action, will Vance admit that Trump was wrong or will he claim the judge is wrong ...

He will more than likely feel that the judge is wrong for reasons he will enumerate, as he did in that interview.

…the equivalent of judicial interference?

Well, IMHO that is not the equivalent of claiming it is judicial interference.  It is part of the Constitutional process as he himself pointed out.  So it really doesn’t matter whether he feels Trump’s action was “legitimate” or not, what matters is the Constitutional process and the end result of that.  He can disagree all he wants but the result of the process will govern.

I have to wonder if, God forbid, the converse were to happen and a judge or the Supreme Court were to agree with one of Trump’s actions, would the inevitable claims of illegitimacy in that case be met with the same level of scrutiny or even charges of judicial impropriety?

I will be on the road for the next 12 hours.  Happy to discuss more when I get back TiG.  Thanks for the discussion!

Because Vance, when pressed, could not answer yes or no to the direct question, "Did Trump win the 2020 election?"  You will notice that all of the nominees were asked point blank and how many statements of truth did you here following the question? I don't believe that there were any statements other than prevarications about how Biden was inaugurated.

These people are enthralled or worse, enslaved.

Vance will never answer the question, "Did donald trump lose the 2020 election?" with a "Yes." That is all it takes. Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. This is a fact. None of the nominees could just say "Yes. He lost" Not one of them that I heard did. Until they can admit this basic fact, none of them deserve to be in office because they cannot be trusted to observe facts as they exist but to see things only in the way that their dear leader does.

This just out from Kirschner.   He includes the point I have made.

To the extent that Trump is ignoring court orders to stop freezing funds that have already been appropriated by Congress, as described by Mr. Kirschner, I agree with Liz Cheney when she says:

"If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don't get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That's tyranny."

That goes for other matters that a Federal judge might deem to be unconstitutional, or not consistent with the separation of powers, as well.  The proper process must be followed regardless of whether the Administration feels they have a good case or good reason for their actions.  And this applies to ANY President or Administration whether their party or supporters think their position is justified or not.  One can disagree with a Court decision, or appeal it, but one must respect it and abide by it as part of the Constitutional process.  

Fully agree. We see how the left is slap happy that left wing judges are temporarily blocking Trump’s EOs but if a conservative judge or even the SCOTUS overturns those rulings, we will hear the never ending screeching of how the judge is a Trump stooge or that we need to stack the SCOTUS with left wing lunatics because……….but Trump. 

We see how the left is slap happy that left wing judges are temporarily blocking Trump’s EOs...

Can you provide any evidence all these judges are left wing? I know more than one have been reported to be appointed by Republicans. 

The proper process must be followed regardless of whether the Administration feels they have a good case or good reason for their actions. 

Indeed.

One can disagree with a Court decision, or appeal it, but one must respect it and abide by it as part of the Constitutional process.  

So when a court decision is made, the Executive branch cannot merely claim that the act was a legitimate use of power and ignore the ruling.

Fully agree.

You agree with Freewill (and Liz Cheney and Glenn Kirschner) regarding following the ruling of judges, ...

We see how the left is slap happy that left wing judges are temporarily blocking Trump’s EOs but if a conservative judge or even the SCOTUS overturns those rulings, we will hear the never ending screeching of how the judge is a Trump stooge or that we need to stack the SCOTUS with left wing lunatics because……….but Trump. 

... yet speak of rogue judges blocking Trump's EOs.

Which is it?   Do you agree that Trump must abide by rulings regarding his EOs or that rulings should be ignored because they came from "left wing judges"?

Attempt to not think in partisan terms and consider instead what we are talking about:   the separation of powers and checks & balances of the CotUS.

‘Can you provide any evidence all these judges are left wing?’ 

well, being i never said all, i don’t need to prove anything. If i remember correctly, there is one Trump appointee

I never said he should ignore the rulings. I stated, clearly, that the hypocrisy and double standards of the left when it comes to approval or disapproval of judicial rulings based on if they win or lose. 
However, to stop you from asking the same question over and over, he should appeal and let the Supreme Court handle if it needs to go that far.

’Attempt to not think in partisan terms and consider instead what we are talking about: ’

I’ll think about it if you can follow your own advice.

‘Can you provide any evidence all these judges are left wing?’ 

and because they lean left, that is how they came to their decisions ?

I think nOT

You fully agreed with Freewill yet your comment veered off into partisanship and spoke of left wing rogue judges.   At a minimum your comment was fundamentally confused.

... he should appeal and let the Supreme Court handle if it needs to go that far.

Correct.

well, being i never said all, i don’t need to prove anything.

So now you're clarifying? 

If i remember correctly, there is one Trump appointee

So, if this guy isn't a 'Trump Stooge', as you put it, AND he's blocked a Trump EO - then perhaps you might want to stop and think that maybe the issue at hand is more Trump and less left wing?

perhaps you might want to stop and think that maybe the issue at hand is more Trump and less left wing?

AN IMPOSSIBILITY FOR SOME

I stated, clearly, that the hypocrisy and double standards of the left when it comes to approval or disapproval of judicial rulings based on if they win or lose. 

That is so obvious in this case for anyone that can look  at it objectively.  I would say anyone that issues an executive order thinks it is legitimate use of their power.  When the court says otherwise they almost never say they now agree it was an illegitimate order, they say the order was legitimate and the court got it wrong and then try to look for a legal workaround.  Welcome to American politics

But because it is Trump doing the same thing (unless proven otherwise) they need something they can scream constitutional crisis over.

Let the nit picking continue, it is amusing.

So when a court decision is made, the Executive branch cannot merely claim that the act was a legitimate use of power and ignore the ruling.

That is correct.  They must prove that it is a legitimate use of power in a court of law, and ultimately that it is Constitutional, consistent with the very design of the Constitutional process.  In the meantime they must honor the lower  court order until such time as an appeal is heard and the order is overturned.  This certainly seems to be understood at least by Vance who has indicated that such disagreements must be litigated as part of the Constitutional process.

The question is, can or will he convince Trump that this process must be followed?  Frankly I do not understand Trump’s rush on this stuff. His administration can still prove that some of the funds may have been improperly handled or distributed without freezing the whole lot that has already been appropriated by Congress, so why not immediately comply with the order to halt the broader freeze and simply continue the investigation into where the money is going?

So when a court decision is made, the Executive branch cannot merely claim that the act was a legitimate use of power and ignore the ruling

Who has done that in the last three weeks?

Vance of course understands this.   This is so obvious that there was no need for Vance to make his statement.    

I suggest that he made his statement to enable the word ‘legitimate’ to be used as the foundation for a rebuttal.   That an EO blocked by the court can be argued as judicial overreach on the grounds that Trump’s actions were legitimate … and Vance will (re)define ‘legitimate’ for his purposes.

Let the nit picking continue, it is amusing.

I was just listening to Erick Erickson, probably one of the more moderate conservatives on the radio, play a montage of close to 2 minutes of the left wing media, from 2017-2018, scream "It's the beginning of the end", "Constitutional crisis", "the walls are closing in", etc, etc. Absolutely nothing they were screeching came true.

Now we are going through those times again, with the exception now they are saying what Trump is doing with DOGE is a "coup", along with the standard "Constitutional crisis". I even heard a couple say the other day that it was worse than Watergate.

These dumb asses don't learn. 

o, if this guy isn't a 'Trump Stooge', as you put it, AND he's blocked a Trump EO - then perhaps you might want to stop and think that maybe the issue at hand is more Trump and less left wing?

Apparently, you did not read 4.1.31

I never said "all"

I suggest that he made his statement to enable the word ‘legitimate’ to be used as the foundation for a rebuttal.   That an EO blocked by the court can be argued as judicial overreach on the grounds that Trump’s actions were legitimate … and Vance will (re)define ‘legitimate’ for his purposes.

Yes, and?  Unless he is talking about ignoring and implementing what would those purposes be other than to whine or make Trump like him more?  

Unless he is talking about ignoring and implementing what would those purposes be other than to whine or make Trump like him more? 

He can use this as an argument defending Trump’s ignoring of a ruling.   He could also use it, as you note, to defend Trump and spin that Trump is right and the Judicial branch is wrong.

Obviously.

I suggest that he made his statement to enable the word ‘legitimate’ to be used as the foundation for a rebuttal.

And?  As long as it is made as a rebuttal in a court of law in a proper Constitutional manner what difference does it make how HE defines the meaning of  “legitimate”?  Certainly any President will feel his EO’s are/were legitimate even after a court says they aren’t.

  That an EO blocked by the court can be argued as judicial overreach on the grounds that Trump’s actions were legitimate … and Vance will (re)define ‘legitimate’ for his purposes.

Sure, but he has to prove that it is judicial overreach in a Federal court, just as Liz Cheney stated in her reaction to all this, and that Vance clearly understands.  That is obviously the process that must be followed, so I guess I’m not clear as to why Vance calling Trump’s EO’s legitimate (as any President or VP might) makes any difference unless he, or they, use that as a reason to completely ignore a Federal court order.

If the Trump Administration moves, or continues to move, in that direction then they are indeed out of line and Vance knows it.  They need to follow the court order on the funds freeze and plead their case in a higher court, and I will expect to see them do that as they have so far in other challenges to Trumps EOs.

He could also use it, as you note, to defend Trump and spin that Trump is right and the Judicial branch is wrong.

Yes, spinning to try and make it something it may not be.  Happens every day all day in politics and cable news.

This is just more of the same.  No big deal.

As long as it is made as a rebuttal in a court of law in a proper Constitutional manner what difference does it make how HE defines the meaning of  “legitimate”?  

It will not be made in a court of law.  It will be the court of public opinion.   His target audience are Trump supporters.  

Certainly any President will feel his EO’s are/were legitimate even after a court says they aren’t.

I do not find that to be a certainty.   I think that a rational PotUS would tend to defer to the ruling of the Judicial branch.   Not every PotUS is so arrogant as to presume they know better than the professionals on matters of law and the CotUS.

Sure, but he has to prove that it is judicial overreach in a Federal court, ...

See above.   I believe Vance's target audience is the court of public opinion.   I am sure he realizes he cannot redefine 'legitimate' as a legal argument in a court of law but he most certainly could do so in the court of public opinion.

I do not find that to be a certainty.  

I find that to be naive

I think that a rational PotUS would tend to defer to the ruling of the Judicial branch. 

Probably, that does not mean they agree with it. 

Not every PotUS is so arrogant as to presume they know better than the professionals on matters of law and the CotUS.

Assuming they went through white house lawyers I think they are plenty arrogant enough to believe they are on solid ground

I am sure he realizes he cannot redefine 'legitimate' as a legal argument in a court of law but he most certainly could do so in the court of public opinion.

Just as every politician does.  I refer you to daily white house briefings of any president or the Joe is OK spin(including the vice president at the time).

Of course a VP or 98 % of the same party is going to back the president. 

So why is this such a big deal again?

I find that to be naive

So you think that every PotUS is so arrogant that they will think they know better than professional jurists?   

Probably, that does not mean they agree with it. 

You cannot possibly know what it means because every circumstance is different.    Details matter.

Assuming they went through white house lawyers I think they are plenty arrogant enough to believe they are on solid ground

Trump certainly is that arrogant.   An attorney cannot guarantee solid ground.   They can only make educated guesses on the ruling.   And when an adverse ruling occurs, the attorney will typically explain this to the PotUS.   Attorneys typically understand the difference between a legal opinion and associated odds of prevailing and an actual ruling by a judge.

Just as every politician does. 

Glad you realize this.   It is not a rebuttal, but it is good you know this.

So why is this such a big deal again?

Why do keep trying to argue with me ... especially with such feeble rebuttals?   Figure that out first.

So why is this such a big deal again? Try responding without the attempt to deflect and make it about me, a sure sign the argument is weak at best.

So why is this such a big deal again?

You keep wanting to talk about this while whining about making a big deal about it.    

See 4.1.50

Or maybe not. You already pretty much answered .

If the Trump Administration moves, or continues to move, in that direction then they are indeed out of line and Vance knows it.  They need to follow the court order on the funds freeze and plead their case in a higher court, and I will expect to see them do that . . . .

Emphatically. As to the ending of that sentence, I am not sure the Trump Administration is abiding by court rules (either).

It will not be made in a court of law.  It will be the court of public opinion.   His target audience are Trump supporters.

Honestly I do not understand what that has to do with the potential "Constitutional crisis" (failure to heed court orders) we were discussing.  What impact can Trump supporter's opinions have on the outcome of this matter between the Administration and the Federal Courts at this point? 

I do not find that to be a certainty.   I think that a rational PotUS would tend to defer to the ruling of the Judicial branch. 

Perhaps, but any President who signs an EO must initially feel it is legitimate, or within his powers to pursue.  They might end up deferring to the Judicial branch, but they likely still feel that their effort was legitimate (Biden's student loan forgiveness efforts, for example).    I suspect that even Trump (being the arrogant ass that he is) will indeed need to defer on both this withholding of appropriated funds issue and the birthright citizenship issue at some point.   If he does not, or ignores court orders, I believe it will be fertile grounds for impeachment.

Not every PotUS is so arrogant as to presume they know better than the professionals on matters of law and the CotUS.

Unless said POTUS is being 'shepherded' with steps to take. . . .

Honestly I do not understand what that has to do with the potential "Constitutional crisis" (failure to heed court orders) we were discussing. 

Where were we discussing a constitutional crises?   I have never suggested that.   Trump violating the Judicial branch could lead to a constitutional crisis of course, but that has nothing to do with my point.

My point is this:

• Given:   Vance will never admit that any action by Trump is wrong (evidence from the campaign and the fact that he will not even acknowledge Biden legitimately won in 2020)
• Given:   Vance made a technically correct statement that the Judicial branch has no authority over legitimate acts by the Executive branch
• Given:   There is no need for Vance to state the obvious except to lay a foundation for future disputes in the public sector

Hypothesis:  I believe that Vance made this statement so that he has a framework to argue against judges blocking EOs.   His argument, to the public (not to a court where he would be laughed out), will allege that the judge over-stepped his bounds because Trump's EO was a legitimate act by the Executive branch.

This will play well in the court of public opinion because it is tragically incredibly gullible right now.   So when Trump is shot down, his loyal VP can defend his honor using the typical Trump style of discrediting anyone who opposes Trump in any way.

Perhaps, but any President who signs an EO must initially feel it is legitimate, or within his powers to pursue. 

For most any other PotUS (Nixon comes to mind as an exception) I would agree with you.   Trump, however, pushes past the envelope; that is how he operates.   He tries to see where the real blocks are to his power.   Just as he did in the private sector.   I do not believe he cares what is legal;  just what he can get away with.   (Key case in point:  his attempt to steal the 2020 election.)

They might end up deferring to the Judicial branch, but they likely still feel that their effort was legitimate (Biden's student loan forgiveness efforts, for example).

I think Biden believed it was the right thing to do.   The Judicial branch does not determine if something is 'the right thing to do', that would be a call of the Executive branch.   So when Biden was shot down 'not the legal thing to do', he looked for an alternate legal way to accomplish what he thought was right.   The key here is legal.

I sense we are very much off track here.   Your mention of constitutional crisis bothers me since that is well beyond the point I made; among other clues.    So just to be clear:

I believe Vance made a (blatantly obvious) true legal statement as a foundation so that he can be the loyal VP and help save face for Trump in the public sector.   That, in a nutshell, is the only point I have made.   And if this plays out like I think it will, when Vance claims that an illegitimate act is really legitimate (executing his planted wiggle room by him deciding what is legitimate) he would in effect (logically) be arguing that Trump can (or maybe should) ignore judges (even though he will never use language like that).

I am not following.  Who do you think is shepherding Trump in this matter?

I suspect that even Trump (being the arrogant ass that he is) will indeed need to defer on both this withholding of appropriated funds issue and the birthright citizenship issue at some point.   If he does not, or ignores court orders, I believe it will be fertile grounds for impeachment.

Friend Freewill, impeachment by whom? Where are the votes in the senate? Where were they last time? Furthermore, Trump does not RESPECT the impeachment process. . .it is 'beneath' him to be done so (again).  Sadly, barring some detour off a certain pass. . .our nation is being SETUP . . . as 'players' do with the power they possess in Chess pieces are 'falling' in place.

Thinktanks, higher ups off-records, legal 'beagles' in high places who are 'down' with that agenda, and yes I do include some members of SCOTUS whom have made it clear they are not neutral when it comes to holding up a conservative worldview. Chief Justice Roberts is on record as being down with the 'unitary president' theory of government. . . now then the only question (for me) is "How down" is that?

Where were we discussing a constitutional crises?   I have never suggested that. 

That is what your Kirshner video was all about, was it not?  I assumed that your posting of that video was summarizing your concerns on this topic, but forgive me if that was an erroneous assumption.  Nevertheless, I agree that we can't let Trump or Vance lay the groundwork for any denial of court orders relative to his many EO's.

So when Biden was shot down, he looked for an alternate legal way to accomplish what he thought was right.   The key here is legal.

Indeed, a very good point.  Better than handling it the way AOC had suggested.  And we are in agreement that we don't want Trump ignoring court orders either. 

I sense we are very much off track here.   Your mention of constitutional crisis bothers me since that is well beyond the point I made; among other clues.

No I don't think so, I was just confused about why you brought the court of public opinion into this, but now I understand it a bit better with your last post.

Although when you say about Vance:

...he would in effect (logically) be arguing that Trump can ignore judges (even though he will never use language like that).

The result of him empowering Trump in that manner of course puts us in the realm of the Constitutional crisis that Kirshner and others here have alluded to.  And that is where I thought we were logically heading with this discussion, but I am sorry if my previous comments were bothersome in any way.   We are on the same page as far as not wanting to see this come down to such a crisis, and not being the least bit interested in anyone helping Trump save face.

That is what your Kirshner video was all about, was it not? 

I posted that video because he included my point.    He included all sorts of points.   The video was not a substitute for the point that I have articulated here, just a backup.

The result of him empowering Trump in that manner of course puts us in the realm of the Constitutional crisis that Kirshner and others here have alluded to.

As I noted (and as Kirschner noted) this could indeed turn into a constitutional crisis.   But that would be a result of Trump defying the Judicial branch in a big way.   It would not surprise me a bit, but I am not predicting that will happen.

As I noted (and as Kirschner noted) this could indeed turn into a constitutional crisis.   But that would be a result of Trump defying the Judicial branch in a big way.   It would not surprise me a bit, but I am not predicting that will happen.

Understood, and agreed.

"Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the separation of powers."

And that's it. Trump has a team of pretty knowledgeable and experienced lawyers who are advising him. Liberals have always turned to activist judges to attempt to get their way. Trump is forcing them, by appealing, to seek a higher courts ruling, up to the Supreme Court if need be.

Do you think that Vance would ever publicly deem anything Trump does as illegitimate?   Of course not.   So if a judge rules against an act by Trump, Vance will call that judicial interference.

Putting aside the left's ability to read minds and take words to mean the opposite of their meaning, Trump lost  cases at the Supreme Court in his first term. Which rulings did he ignore? 

thebulwark

Oy. Where even to begin with this?

Let’s start with the reason for Vance’s tweet. President Donald J. Trump had a  rough week in the courts . As of Saturday, he had already been slapped with eight injunctions halting actions that he had taken since his second inauguration, including: his unconstitutional attempt to undo the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship; his attempt to freeze upwards of $3 trillion in government spending appropriated by Congress under its Article I authority; the “Fork in the Road” email sent to millions of federal employees, with its supposed offer of “deferred resignation”; his firing of inspectors general and other officers who are supposed to be legislatively protected from termination without cause; his coldhearted transfer of transgender women to men’s prison facilities in contravention of the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment; and the threat of his making public the names of FBI agents associated with his retaliatory purge of those who participated in investigations of the crimes committed on January 6th. (And that’s not even counting the actions taken by courts to rein in Elon Musk and his DOGE crew.)

Vance is undoubtedly setting the stage for the inevitable: Trump’s flouting of federal court orders, which, given Congress’s obsequious fecklessness, is the last bulwark against Trump’s assaults on the rule of law and constitutional order.

FOR NON-LAWYERS, or for anyone else who hasn’t thought about high school civics for a while, the notion that courts shouldn’t butt into the president’s business might seem to make sense. Federal judges aren’t elected; they are appointed for life. The president, though, is the nation’s top law enforcement official, and appoints the attorney general, who decides which cases to prosecute and which to decline. Judges get to hear those cases when they make their way to court, but have no business telling prosecutors which people to prosecute and which should get a pass. To allow courts to interfere in such business, Vance cynically suggests, is intolerable and unconstitutional judicial overreach.

But given the context of what happened this week, Vance’s post is grossly misleading—if not patently false—and he knows it. He knows it because he learned about the proper role of the federal courts at Yale Law School in his first-year constitutional law class. (And if he didn’t learn it, he should ask Yale for a refund and maybe should mail back his diploma.)

As someone who teaches con-law to first-year law students, I can tell you that Vance, like every American law student, undoubtedly studied a landmark case called  Marbury v. Madison .

In November 1800, Republican Thomas Jefferson was elected to succeed Federalist John Adams as president. Late in John Adams’s lame-duck stretch, as Jefferson’s inauguration drew near, the Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. It sought to entrench Federalist control of the federal judiciary by creating sixteen circuit court judgeships and forty-two justice-of-the-peace positions. The idea was to facilitate last-minute court-packing by the Adams administration.

In the waning hours of his administration, Adams put forth names for these newly created positions and the Federalist-controlled Senate rapidly confirmed them. Among them was William Marbury, named a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. Adams signed Marbury’s commission, and his outgoing secretary of state signed and sealed it.

But a person ordered to deliver several commissions, including Marbury’s, before Jefferson’s inauguration failed to do so.  Once in office, President Jefferson declined to recognize Marbury’s or any other undelivered commission. (In 1802, Congress, now dominated by Republicans, repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, eliminating the new offices it had created.)

Marbury sought what’s called a “writ of mandamus” from the Supreme Court compelling Jefferson’s new secretary of state, James Madison, to deliver the commission. An earlier statute, the Judiciary Act of 1789, gave the federal courts the power to issue writs of mandamus.

Writing for the Court, Marshall held that the statute giving the court the power to issue mandamus was unconstitutional because the Constitution’s text did not contemplate that kind of power for federal judges. So the Court declined to issue the writ. Marshall presumably calculated that Madison would defy such an order anyway, thereby undermining the Court’s legitimacy. But in the same opinion, Marshall wrote that Marbury did have a vested right to his commission, meaning Jefferson should have recognized it. He also made clear that the question of whether Marbury had that right was a  legal  question, not a political one, and that it is up to the federal courts to decide whether the other branches act legally.

Vance’s tweet strikes at the very heart of the ruling in  Marbury . It signals Trump’s likely intent to take the very action that Marshall feared: thumbing his nose at a court order .  But the federal judges who have, so far, ruled against Trump did so after comparing his conduct against laws enacted by Congress and deciding that he has violated them. This is basic separation-of-powers stuff, and it’s a far cry from a judge directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute someone or ordering Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to take troops in battle.

In short, Vance’s tweet is obfuscation and distraction, and a dark warning. And it’s not a one-off; remember that Vance has been suggesting  since at least 2021  that a re-elected Donald Trump should defy the courts. It’s unconscionable for any lawyer to do this, let alone a lawyer who is the vice president of the United States.

A BRIEF FINAL NOTE: Article II the Constitution  says  that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

And on January 20, Donald Trump for the second time took an oath to “faithfully execute” the office of president and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

Faithfully executing  means complying with the law. When a president fails to follow the law, he is failing in that responsibility. And if a president were to then disobey the courts that point out that failure, he would be failing to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

And be Impeached ! Let's get it done !

By Whom? House and/or Senate under "kow-towed" republicans.  Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Thune, both, have already 'entered the fray' and assented to Trump's point of view:

RAJU: Should the White House comply if a federal court orders them to do something, such as destroying the records that they downloaded from the Treasury Department?

JOHNSON: Well, look, there are appellate processes and all of that. I haven’t followed the latest on the litigation, but obviously we have systems that have to work… We’re fully supportive of what the DOGE effort is doing and what the president is doing. It’s a very aggressive agenda that was promised to the voters. Remember, he’s delivering on campaign promises right now. We are going to be codifying a lot of these changes. And what they’ve uncovered is frankly, shocking… This is a good development. I wish the courts would allow the executive and the legislative branches to work.

Raju said he also asked Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) the same question.

“And he indicated that the courts have called balls and strikes,” Raju relayed. “He reiterated the importance of the role of the courts. He did not say directly that the White House absolutely should comply.”

mediaite

So it looks to be two branches of government against the third branch (the one unelected and considered to be the 'weakest' - though it is not - all parts being equal)

Something President Andrew Jackson is alleged to have state comes to mind and it has bee rendered moot (today):

Jackson was informed of the Supreme Court’s decision in an 1832 case, Worcester v. Georgia, which involved a complicated set of circumstances by which a missionary to the Cherokee Nation was imprisoned for violating a state law that he claimed was non-binding on sovereign Indian territory. Without bogging the reader down in details, Chief Justice John Marshall’s majority ruling in the case was quite inconvenient for Jackson, who was president at the time, and he was rather unfriendly to the prospect of having to wade in and impose on the state of Georgia.
And so, the quote goes, and whether apocryphal or not it almost surely conveys Jackson’s sentiments,

“Justice Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Meaning that without the assent of the executive branch to execute the decisions handed down by the judicial branch, the latter has no power.
As Stalin said in a far less esoteric discussion of political power, “How many divisions has the pope?”

One of the hallmarks of our system of checks and balances is that the various players on the governmental stage have to — or should have to — be somewhat careful of overstepping their bounds and going too far into the territory of other players, or else the stage tilts quite rapidly against them.
And that’s very clearly what is happening now as left-wing federal district judges around the country are attempting to stop President Trump and his team, including Elon Musk and his DOGE computer geniuses, from conducting the most detailed and consequential audit of federal government spending America has ever seen.
David Catron’s piece here at The American Spectator yesterday is a pretty good summation of the political effects of...

spectator

The nation was warned. . . and they elected "him" anyway. Your government as known to you is being 'throw down' as it was in the days of old, right before your faces. The courts will likely capitulate to the executive in this game of politics - because they are in the clutches of a conservative majority too. 

ustice Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it

There's no contemporaneous  record of Jackson actually saying that, and there's no reason he would as Marshall did not order the government to do anything. 

The meaning is evident (and I note that YOU chose to go with a deflection instead of dealing with its SUBSTANCE).

Since YOU did DEFLECT, I will point you to this in the COMMENT ABOVE: 

CB: Something President Andrew Jackson is alleged to have state comes to mind and it has bee rendered moot (today): . . . 

ARTICLE: And so, the quote goes, and whether apocryphal (look it up before you comment please) or not it almost surely conveys Jackson’s sentiments

r not it almost surely conveys Jackson’s sentiments

Why would he have "sentiments" to ignore a ruling that did not order him to do anything?

Again you are arguing something which is not the point:

The quote attributed to Andrew Jackson (who in the end did follow the court's opinion as befits an EQUAL branch of government) was spoken outloud by . . . J. D. VANCE below:

Yes, Vance Thinks Trump Can Defy the Supreme Court

I interviewed the vice president last year, and he didn’t mince words about wanting to provoke a constitutional crisis against the Supreme Court.

Vance’s most comprehensive statement of this radical position came in an interview I conducted with him in January 2023 for  a profile in POLITICO Magazine .

During the interview, I referred to comments that he had made  on a conservative podcast  in 2021 suggesting that Trump, if reelected, should “fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, [and] every civil servant in the administrative state … and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say:

‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”

I asked Vance if this was still his view.

“Yup,” he responded.

“For me, this is not a limited-government thing — this is a democracy thing,” he continued when I prompted him to explain. “Like, you need the bureaucracy to be responsive to the elected branches of government. The counterargument is, you know, ‘Aren’t you promoting a constitutional crisis?’ And my response is no — I’m recognizing a constitutional crisis. If the elected president says, ‘ I get to control the staff of my own government ,’ and the Supreme Court steps in and says, ‘ You’re not allowed to do that ’ — like, that is the constitutional crisis. It’s not whatever Trump or whoever else does in response. When the Supreme Court tells the president he can’t control the government anymore, we need to be honest about what’s actually going on.”

politico

Well, I gave  some background to comment on and it appears a pass has been taken. Point made. 

I am still waiting for the pillow dude to come clean with the evidence of fraud in the 2020 election. I bet that will come out about the same time as Johnson's shocking discoveries.

Any day now.

He, and others like Giuliani, just blow my mind.   These guys had successful careers, were doing just fine, and then they blow up their livelihood, ruin their reputations, get ensnared in lawsuits ... all for what?    What is the power Trump has over people?

I hate to say this, but 'birds of a feather, flock together.' They let their true self be revealed in public after so many years (if many at all) be revealed once they reasoned they had made it. Situated next to real power (of the presidency) some people think they are untouchable and so they open up and let their (ugly and loathsome) truth out. . . for a long 'walk.' Evidence, plainly, that they were not what i, maybe we, once believed them to be at all. It was all a facade. (It really is 'impossible' to read people across the great distances. . . and through our television screens. Really hard. 

For instance (a bit off-topic, but will establish the point): Sean "Diddy" Combs - an alleged woman beater/sexual 'fiend,'; R. Kelly, Jussie Smollett; Michael Jackson; O. J. Simpson; Clarence Thomas; hand, so forth and so on. 

AOC: "The Biden Administration should ignore the court"

Compare the reaction to 

Vance quoting a Harvard Professor stating a truism....

AOC was wrong.

Vance made a technically correct statement that depends upon the word 'legitimate'.   

We shall see how Vance spins this when a judge shuts down Trump.   If an interviewer asks Vance if the shutdown by the judge means that Trump's act was not a legitimate use of power, Vance's response will be interesting.

I predict that he will never affirm that Trump did anything wrong ... that Trump did something that was NOT a legitimate use of power.   If pressed, I expect that he would claim that this was indeed a legitimate use of power and thus the judge was wrong.   But, of course, now he will be technically incorrect because it is the Judicial branch that determines if a power is legitimate or illegitimate, not the Executive branch.

All of this is so obvious.   Any notion that Vance will affirm any wrongdoing by Trump is patently ridiculous.   Trump's minions cannot even admit that Biden legitimately won the 2020 election and that Trump is wrong to insist it was stolen from him.   The idea that they would ever affirm that Trump did something wrong is absurd.   So for every challenged EO shut down by the judicial system we will never witness Vance or any other of Trump's team admit that this was ipso facto NOT a legitimate use of Executive power. 

AOC was wrong

Look at the reactions.

Vance states something innocuous, it's intentionally misconstrued into "Trump can ignore Judges" and it sets up the usual hysteria and gnashing off teeth of how this will destroy the Republic.

AOC literally says Biden should ignore judges and the same people say "she should be President." 

How many times do I have to state that AOC was wrong?   This discussion is not about AOC or her future offices.

Vance's statement was technically correct and also entirely unnecessary.   Nobody has claimed that the Judicial branch has a right to interfere with legitimate power of the Executive branch.   This is so patently obvious, it need not be said.

The wiggle room here is the word 'legitimate'.   And my view is that Vance made this correct statement to lay groundwork for future rebuttals.   I predict that Vance will (with some language) claim that a denied EO was an overstep by the Judicial branch because the executed power was 'legitimate' (and he, inappropriately, will be the one (re)defining the word 'legitimate' in this context).

Vance is basically saying that a judge could deem an order by Trump illegal but the concept is irrelevant because Trump would never make illegal order

Yes, I believe that is the claim for which Vance has set the groundwork.

He will never admit that Trump tried to execute an illegitimate use of power.   Everything Trump does will always be claimed as legitimate by his minions.   They have demonstrated this repeatedly.

( obviously )

He will never admit that Trump tried to execute an illegitimate use of power.   Everything Trump does will always be claimed as legitimate by his minions.   They have demonstrated this repeatedly.

You know we hear commentary day in and day out espousing the same shit. Being as how you seem to be somehow affected by this turn of events, just how in the fuck does it affect your daily life and those of your family and friends?

Most of my commentary has nothing to do with how things affect me personally.   I comment mostly on how things affect our nation and people in general.

You might view everything narcissisticly and only be concerned when you personally are affected, but not everyone has such a perspective.

 This discussion is not about AOC or her future offices.

No, the discussion is about Democrats hypocrisy. 

AOC, and other elected Democrats like Senator Wyden, have already  literally said what Democrats are now lying to claim Vance said in order to start a panic. Do you not see how insane that is? 

And my view is that Vance made this correct statement to lay groundwork for future rebuttals.   

So you imagine, in the future, Vance will just say what AOC and other Democrats already have to cheering from Democrats. And this argument, that only exists in your imagination, is somehow a threat to the Republic. But the same argument when elected democrats literally do it can be casually dismissed with "it's wrong no big deal" Instead, "let's move on and talk about the imagined threat and how scary that is" 

So you imagine, in the future, Vance will will just say what AOC and other Democrats already have to cheering from Democrats.

No.   Read what I write instead of making shit up.

o.   Read what I write instead of making shit up.

You should understand what you write. You imagine  Vance will advocate Trump ignore  a court order on the basis of it's claimed  illegitimacy. 

You know, the exact thing  AOC and Democrats were advocating biden do less than 2 years ago.

This, notion that one can 'bat down' (as a defensive position) the 'common' ignorance of one group of people to excuse the same or similar ignorance on the part of MAGA simply can' fly.  Here's why: Democratic party supporters are not all progressives, but coalitionists ("partners") to advance some cause or collection of causes. It can not be assumed (and we will not allow it to be taken for granted) that every "speaker's point of view" in the democratic party is supported by everyone who is in the coalition! JUST STOP WASTING TIME ON IT. IT WILL NOT WORK—NOT EVER!

This whole "issue" seems a bit dumb.  If a court rules against a president it does not become an issue unless the president ignores it and does it anyway.  In some cases it seems the president can legally work around the ruling as Joe seems to have done with student loan forgiveness.

Although Vance's statement left open the possibility of disagreeing with a ruling it is no different than any politician (or citizen) stating the court got it wrong.  Happens all the time with any ruling.

Until Vance or Trump actually ignore a court and don't have a legal workaround this is another attempt to make something out of nothing and add to the list of constitutional crisis they want to whine about..

In some cases it seems the president can legally work around the ruling as Joe seems to have done with student loan forgiveness.

A legal workaround is not an issue since that means the PotUS is abiding by the ruling.

I do not believe anyone holds that the Judicial branch can interfere with legitimate powers of the Executive branch.   That is the non-issue of this seed.   So why would Vance be speaking about something that most everyone who understands the basics of our CotUS already agrees with?   He is saying this in the context of Trump's EOs being blocked.   So is he affirming that the EOs are not legitimate acts of power or is he laying the groundwork to claim that the Judicial branch has overstepped its bounds and tried to deny a legitimate executive power?

The former would be entirely surprising and inconsistent with the way Vance, et. al. have affirmed Trump being correct on every point.

  laying the groundwork to claim that the Judicial branch has overstepped its bounds and tried to deny a legitimate executive power?

Just like everyone that has had a ruling against them.  As long as they don't try to implement the same thing anyway it is a total  non issue just like anyone else saying the courts got it wrong.

Like I said non issue unless something is actually done to make it an issue.

Where do you see 'everyone' claiming that a ruling against an EO was an overstep by the Judicial branch?

As long as they don't try to implement the same thing anyway it is a total  non issue ...

More accurately, as long as they do not defy the order it is a non-issue;  they can try to get similar/identical results through alternate legal means.   

Clear defiance will be another topic should it happen.

Where do you see 'everyone' claiming that a ruling against an EO was an overstep by the Judicial branch?

What do you believe they call it when the court rules against what they believed was a EO that was a legitimate use of power?  They got it wrong or the court got it wrong?  Is there really a difference between the courts got it wrong and the courts over stepped?  Remember Roe vs Wade?

Clear defiance will be another topic should it happen.

Exactly, until then, not so much.

What do you believe they call it when the court rules against what they believed was a EO that was a legitimate use of power? 

You suggested that everyone who has a ruling against them claims it was an overstep of judicial power.   That is of course ridiculous.

Most of the time they accept the ruling and seek alternatives.

You suggested that everyone who has a ruling against them claims it was an overstep of judicial power.   That is of course ridiculous.

 Is there really a difference between the courts got it wrong and the courts over stepped?    Remember Roe vs Wade?  Playing games with words is a sad attempt to make political points.

And in the grand scheme of things, what difference does it really make other than allow for some faux outrage?

It becomes an issue if they defy it, not before.

Is there really a difference between the courts got it wrong and the courts over stepped? 

Every time a district court stays something nationwide they overstep their authority, it is time the Supreme court shuts this practice down or give a definitive answer on injunctions.

Is there really a difference between the courts got it wrong and the courts over stepped?

Why are you opening up this tangent?

Yes, of course there is a fundamental difference.   The former is a mistake, the latter is intentional.

Clear defiance will be another topic should it happen.

Correct

[deleted][✘]

I hope you remember what you said here, even though you don't understand what you have said. 

How exactly can you know that I do not understand what I just wrote?  

If a PotUS pursues a path and that path is deemed illegal, then it is not wrong for that PotUS to pursue an alternate legal path instead.

Pursuing an alternate legal path means the PotUS is abiding by the ruling and is attempting to accomplish his goals through means that are actually legal.

Explain, specifically, what is wrong with that.

[deleted][✘]

So instead of justifying your insult, you offer an entirely vague one-word response.

Looks like your little stunt blew up in your face.

What special meaning are you trying to push for the word 'workaround'?

[deleted][✘]

I have never made such a claim.

But I do believe I have figured it out:  "Looks like your little stunt blew up in your face."

Your second utterly vague response in a row is further evidence.

[deleted][✘]

And here you go yet again with vague nonsense.   

Stand up tall and make a clear allegation and I will make my response.

[deleted][✘]

Make an allegation Drakk.   Short of that, this series of posts from you are simply intentional obnoxious behavior.

[deleted][✘]

Until Vance or Trump actually ignore a court and don't have a legal workaround this is another attempt to make something out of nothing and add to the list of constitutional crisis they want to whine about..

Well...

A federal judge said on Monday that the White House had defied his order to release billions of dollars in federal grants, marking the first time a judge has expressly declared that the Trump administration is disobeying a judicial mandate. 

nytimes

Trump's Truth Social post - (bolding mine)

Billions of Dollars of FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE, has already been found in the investigation of our incompetently run Government. Now certain activists and highly political judges want us to slow down, or stop. Losing this momentum will be very detrimental to finding the TRUTH, which is turning out to be a disaster for those involved in running our Government. Much left to find. No Excuses!!!

Trump is setting up for a constitutional crisis as he continues to lay the framework to ignore judicial rulings. Musk has already called for the removal of at least one judge that ruled against his illegal access to government records. 

Losing this momentum will be very detrimental to finding the TRUTH, which is turning out to be a disaster for those involved in running our Government. Much left to find.

Trump needs to explain why following the constitutional/legal process in this matter will result in the "loss of momentum".  The funds had already been appropriated by congress, so don't freeze the whole thing, distribute them and follow the money.  A broad freeze is not going to help him find more fraud, or the truth, as though that is really what he is interested in.

This is how the plan is crafted for the people to split and divide and began squabbling over some lie and nefarious 'boogey man of billions' that they can never know for certain exist. It's the 'ultimate' lie . . . just say it and watch it take on a life of its own. The whisper campaign begins. . . and a bru-ha-ha of billions missing (real money and 'hyped' imagined money) will stick in the minds of those whom wish to believe it is so. . . and so it will 'feed' them as people are casted out and demonized. 

Why? All because of lies, greed, and obviously life was so much better when politicians could be SHAMED. Take away shame and this is what you get!

"I don't like the precedent it sets when you defy a judicial ruling, but I'm just wondering what other options are these judges leaving us."

Perhaps following the law and not defying a judicial ruling would be the rational intelligent thing to do. But I guess if you're either a fucking moron, don't care about the law or constitution or just want to break the law so fucking bad because if you don't then you won't get your way, I guess you have "no option" but to defy the judicial rulings. I for one look forward to the day that Trump and his criminal cabal are arrested, tried and sentenced for their criminal activity. I would not be surprised if someday soon it looks a lot like the Nuremberg trials, and if any of the undocumented immigrants are intentionally harmed or killed during their internment in Guantanamo, Trump and his cronies deserve capital punishment.

Trump has presidential immunity. . . so the "cronies" would suffer the blunt of trial and/or punishment. Of course, then the thinking goes: Trump would pardon him/her/them.

Trump has presidential immunity. . . so the "cronies" would suffer the blunt of trial and/or punishment

Only enforced by the courts, and if Trump and his cronies can choose to defy judicial rulings, why can't the people decide that the things this President has done are too egregious and decide to defy judicial rulings and 'revoke' his immunity, permanently? They would be acting just as lawfully as Trump and his cabal of billionaire bandits, which is to say, not at all, but according to them, sometimes it takes a good guy with a "penchant for defying judicial rulings" to stop a bad guy with a "penchant for defying judicial rulings".

Only enforced by the courts, and if Trump and his cronies can choose to defy judicial rulings, why can't the people decide that the things this President has done are too egregious and decide to defy judicial rulings and 'revoke' his immunity, permanently?

The people can. Indeed, it is the "people" - at least 74 million "MAGAs" that are being that Trump and 'company' continue to recite (to us) are "making and agreeing" with everything this administration is doing, up to and touching, pushing the Court system out of its way.  Why? Why is Trump, his cabinet, republicans, and MAGAs pointing the FOCUS in the direction of their "MAGAs". . . because they are the ones with the cache of stowed guns. . . . Real talk.

This is the 'game' (of Intimidation?) being put forward. Trump is walking that walk and talking that talk . .

My question is this: America are you 'WOKE' yet?! How about that??!  How long will you continue to 'Sleep'?

I don't know if I missed reading it on the comments, but there is nothing already being violated here: A judge's or judges (as the case may be) order to suspend administration activities based on a judge's order. And, Trump and 'company' are NOT following it. . . instead they continue to act 'out' and argue against judges' right to tell the president what to do.

Dictator, he is describing a dictator. In America we were once a nation of laws.

The Supreme Court decided having a king or dictator is okay and completely out of reach from the law as long as we call him "President".

I hate to say " what if it was Obama" but come on!

MAGA would be out in the streets if the courts had handed him a true dictatorship like we are seeing now.

Constitutional laws are gone and over. I really can't wait until all the "law and order" Republicans see that our laws are gone if judges are unable to stick to our laws.

Are Republicans ready to retire and reduce their ranks in half or even just give up and go home? We could then just stop paying taxes altogether if Congressional and Senate salaries are gone. Neither side of the aisle seems willing to stand up for law and our Constitution so Democrats, Independents can go home too. I mean, why bother? It's flat out lawless Magaville now.