Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 10, 2025

US Vice-President JD Vance has suggested the power of US judges is beginning to reach its limit, as the White House responds to a flurry of lawsuits that aim to stall its agenda. "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," he wrote on X.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

J.D. Vance must've thought he was scoring points by saying "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," but of course controlling abuses of that power is exactly what Federal Judges must do -- and what Judge Engelmayer did in this very case. search.app/hHJJWzMXS2f2 ...

[image or embed]

-- Laurence H. Tribe (@tribelaw.bsky.social) February 9, 2025 at 6:25 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Liz Cheney, a former Republican House representative who campaigned in the presidential election against Trump, snapped back at Vance.

"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," Cheney wrote on X.

"You don't get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That's tyranny."

.

"Tyrant Trump"... has more than a ring of Truth to it.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-02-10 11:16 AM | Reply

Also, Mr Musk?

www.nbcnews.com

... [Jamal Greene, a professor at Columbia Law School] pointed out that others in Trump's orbit, including Musk, have floated ignoring court orders.

On Saturday, Musk reposted a post on X from a user who wrote, "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." ...



#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-10 12:16 PM | Reply

 

My question ...

If Pres Trump does break the law and ignore court orders, then what?

SCOTUS gave him an immunity blanket with few holes in it to let in the sunlight.


#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-10 12:18 PM | Reply

One of the things they've floated is the supposed quote from Andrew Jackson that, "the Court has decided, now let them enforce it".

My observation would be that Jackson's Military Brass didn't hate him the way they do DJT.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2025-02-10 12:43 PM | Reply

 

@#4 ... One of the things they've floated is the supposed quote from Andrew Jackson ...

An Independent Judiciary
teachdemocracy.org

... Politics and the Judiciary

Ever since the time of John Marshall, the judiciary has been embroiled in political squabbles, some that have threatened its independence. In fact, the famous case of Marbury v. Madison itself began when President Adams tried to appoint a loyal federalist party man to a judgeship, and the new president Jefferson rejected the appointment favoring judges from his own political viewpoint.

President Andrew Jackson quarreled with Chief Justice Marshall over the court's decision in the case of Worcester v. Georgia. Jackson reportedly said, "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Though it is likely that Jackson never really used these words, the statement illustrates one of the real limits on judicial power. It must rely on the other branches of government to enforce its rulings. ...


#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-10 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Democrats try to claim a highly political justice of the peace level judge owned by Dems should have power to supercede Presidential decision. We need to establish some sense in this practice and ban this policy. It should take the SCOTUS to reverse Presidential decisions.

#6 | Posted by Robson at 2025-02-10 08:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

lmao.... in Trump World, Fed Judges, some of them Trump appointed, are 'justice of the peace' level.

Who ties your shoes for you, Robby Bobby Baby?

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2025-02-10 08:16 PM | Reply

@#6 ... The Democrats try to claim a highly political justice of the peace level judge owned by Dems should have power to supercede Presidential decision. ...

... ignoring the Trump-appointed Judges that have rules against Pres trump.

What else your AI Bot got?

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-10 08:27 PM | Reply

Saw a hilarious clip from Fox Gnus.... Trump is asked about Vance succeeding him as President, and he practically yells, "NO!" at the top of his voice.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2025-02-10 08:31 PM | Reply

OK, I went to the Way-Back Machine to find my post where I wrned about Pres Trump back in the summer of 2016. I'm still looking, but I did find this excerpt from history ...

Why Mainstream Republicans Fear to Dump Trump (August 2016)
web.archive.org

...
" ... This is the Death of the Republican Party. And its downright hilarious. ... "

" ... Mean while Hillary had Sanders taken out and now it's coming out that she had Seth Rich taken out as he was on his way to the FBI, At least Sanders just got paid off and is still alive. ..."

" ... The ignorant right thinks it is ok to make horrible false accusations as long as they are directed at Hillary Clinton. Shameless cowards. ...



#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-10 09:11 PM | Reply

Wow, also this ...

Secret Service Spoke to Trump Campaign About Remark (2016)
web.archive.org

... The Secret Service has spoken to Donald Trump's campaign about the remark he made at a rally about "Second Amendment people" stopping Hillary Clinton -- which has been widely condemned as a possible reference to assassination. "There has been more than one conversation" on the topic, a Secret Service official told CNN. Trump said Tuesday, "If she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." ...


Wow, so Pres Trump apparent encouraging of violence against his political opponents is not something new?


#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-10 09:16 PM | Reply

Trump will ignore the courts and Congress will allow him to do so. And, as noted by LampLighter here, apparently voters are all in favor of Trump's approach.

Not only do the voters not seem to care ...

CBS News poll -- Trump has positive approval amid "energetic" opening weeks; seen as doing what he promised
www.cbsnews.com

... With most describing him as "tough," "energetic," "focused" and "effective" -- and as doing what he'd promised during his campaign -- President Trump has started his term with net positive marks from Americans overall.

Many say he's doing more than they expected -- and of those who say this, most like what they see. Very few think he's doing less. ...
#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-10 07:56 PM

Perhaps Dems should take a page out of Trump's book if they ever regain control of two branches of government again. Put that presidential immunity to work.

#12 | Posted by censored at 2025-02-10 09:46 PM | Reply

@#12 ... And, as noted by LampLighter here, apparently voters are all in favor of Trump's approach. ...

Not all, but most.

And, even with that, this is concerning for Democracy.

How Hitler Won Over the German People (2008)
www.spiegel.de

... There were still many Germans who were skeptical of Hitler when he became chancellor in 1933. But Fhrer propaganda and military success soon turned him into an idol. The adulation helped make the Third Reich catastrophe possible. ...


#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-10 10:02 PM | Reply

Time to arm up and storm the White House.

Fat Boy's reckoning is at hand.

#14 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-02-10 10:05 PM | Reply

@#14 ... Time to arm up and storm the White House. ...

Is that what MAGA is hoping will happen?

MAGA seems to want to find some excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act Explained (2022)
www.brennancenter.org

... The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform. ...


#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-10 10:31 PM | Reply

That's what I'm hoping happens. Full out civil war, conducted using the best asymmetrical tactics.
None of them will know the day and hour.

#16 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-02-10 10:36 PM | Reply

I'm sure the hippie libs drum circle chanting "Free Vegan Palestine" would fare well in armed conflict.

#17 | Posted by censored at 2025-02-11 10:42 AM | Reply

Try me, MAGAT.

#18 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-02-11 12:41 PM | Reply

Try me, MAGAT.
#18 | Posted by LegallyYourDead

Assuming you're referring to me, I'm not a MAGAt. In fact, I've voted for the Dem against Trump at every opportunity, and probably more than many of the self-declared libs here who are now crying their delicious tears at the natural results flowing from their actions.

But please consider me suitably impressed by your Internet Tough Guy (tm) routine.

#19 | Posted by censored at 2025-02-11 01:21 PM | Reply

More on this from Politico:

www.politico.com

Basically, the DOJ (excutive branch) enforces decisions by the Supreme Court.

Also - the SC gave Trump a free ride to break the law.

See where this could go?

I hope Trump does give the finger to the SC and we have a crisis.

America needs that before it can return to (hopefully) normacly and norms.

#20 | Posted by brass30 at 2025-02-11 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here is a legal analysis of the issue Vance is raising:

" Did Vice President JD Vance set off a constitutional crisis with a recent tweet? Many journalists and law professors seem to think so. "If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal," Mr. Vance wrote. "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."

Mr. Vance's more alarmist critics assumed that the executive branch was preparing or threatening to defy court orders. But the more straightforward reading is that he was referring to legal doctrines of justiciability, reviewability, standing and the so-called political-question doctrine, which are themselves legal principles that courts apply in determining when they have jurisdiction to review executive action. All these principles are ultimately rooted in the constitutional separation of powers or in statutes embodying and implementing separation-of-powers considerations"

www.wsj.com

#21 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-12 11:18 AM | Reply

"If Pres Trump does break the law and ignore court orders, then what?"

Then there is no law.

Let the real Purge begin!

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-02-12 11:42 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort