Summary
JD Vance faced backlash for claiming judges cannot limit executive power after a federal court blocked Elon Muskās 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 judgeās impeachment, labeling him ācorrupt.ā
Legal experts warned Vanceās stance suggests the administration may ignore unfavorable court rulings, raising concerns about respect for judicial oversight and the rule of law.
Vance is, strictly speaking, correct. The key word there is legitimate. The problem is that heās trying to confuse the issue; heās implying that everything Trump is doing is a legitimate exercise of executive power, when itās very clear from law and precedent that the power being exercised is supposed to be held by Congress.
Donāt you remember? The supreme court decreed that any āofficialā presidential action is immune from prosecution. Anything trump does as president is āofficial,ā therefore anything he does is legal.
Thatāsā¦ 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 overāsuch as criminal actions related to trying to shut down the Dept. of Educationāhe would explicitly not have immunity from criminal prosecution.
And yet heās already locked federal employees out of four departments. If thereās no enforcement thereās no law. Lawsuits donāt mean shit to him and theyll get tied up until they hit the Supreme Court, who will likely side with him, and in the meantime heāll keep doing the same thing.
Yeah, now THAT is a problem. The executive branch is in charge of enforcement of laws and court rulings; if Trumpās administration flatly refuses to enforce court orders, then no, nothing is going to happen. At that point, Congress gets to make a choice as to whether or not they wish to exercise their authority to impeach and remove a president. If Congress fails to act, then itās time for the people to exercise their second amendment rights, or hope that there will actually be elections again. But such a hope seems vain, if Trumpās administration refuses to follow court rulings, wouldnāt you say?
Yes, but do you remember who gets to interpret what an official act is?
Other than courts?
The president doesnāt get to determine whatās an official act and what isnāt, any more than Michael Scott saying, āI declare bankruptcy!ā makes it so.
The corrupt as hell supreme court is who would make the determination.
I think that you might find that SCOTUS has conflicting interests here. Yes, the conservatives (Thomas, Alito, Goresuch, Kavanaugh, Barret, and mostly Roberts) are generally supportive of Trump. But weāre now seeing Trump flout judicial rulings, and that cuts into SCOTUSā power; the justices are likely going to want to preserve that in the rulings that they make.
I donāt hold a lot of hope though.