J.D. Vance to Chief Justice Roberts: The Judiciary Must Check Its Own Excesses

[excalibur]

Fact!

John Roberts demand respect for inferior court judges who overstep their bounds. But only the one Supreme Court is in Article III, all inferior courts are mere creations of Congress and can be dissolved by Congress.

So, Roberts believes inferior court judges are coequal to the President, a Constitutional office? That would thus mean they are also equal to the Supreme Court.

Vice President J.D. Vance sat down for an interview with Ross Douthat. They cover much ground, but I wanted to flag this exchange concerning Chief Justice Roberts:

Let me just make one final philosophical point here. I worry that unless the Supreme Court steps in here, or unless the District Courts exercise a little bit more discretion, we are running into a real conflict between two important principles in the United States.


Principle 1 of course is that courts interpret the law. Principle 2 is that the American people decide how they're governed. That's the fundamental small-d democratic principle that's at the heart of the American project. I think that you are seeing, and I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people. To be clear, it's not most courts. But I saw an interview with Chief Justice Roberts recently where he said the role of the court is to check the excesses of the executive. I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment. That's one-half of his job. The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch. You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for. That's where we are right now.


We're going to keep working it through the immigration court process, through the Supreme Court as much as possible.

Vance is exactly right.


I think the Chief Justice largely lives in a bubble where everyone is afraid to challenge him. He sees himself as a singular force of good to save the rule of law. In Roberts's mind, he can take a shot at the incoming Vice President in his end-of-year address, and everyone will simply submit to his will. No. Vance is fighting back. Roberts thinks he can lecture the President that no judge, even members of the Supreme Court can be impeached; we the people simply have to take it. No. Vance is fighting back.


And, I think, lower court judges are starting to fight back as well. Judge Ho made this same point in his concurrence yesterday, which subtly responded to Chief Justice Roberts:

It is not the role of the judiciary to check the excesses of the other branches, any more than it's our role to check the excesses of any other American citizen. Judges do not roam the countryside looking for opportunities to chastise government officials for their mistakes.

Yet Roberts does exactly that. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.


There is a storm brewing on the horizon, and I don't think the Chief quite sees it. As I will explain in a forthcoming essay, Roberts's two decades on the bench have rendered him utterly unqualified to deal with what lies ahead. The arc from NFIB to AARP does not bode well for the future. Here is a preview:

It is often repeated that we have three, co-equal branches of government. But that simply isn't true. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as the "least dangerous branch." Unlike the Congress, which has the power of the "purse," and the President who wields the power of the "sword," the courts have "merely judgment." Yet, it has been deeply ingrained in our national consciousness that the foundational role of the courts is to balance the power of the elected branches. Indeed, Chief Justice John Roberts boasted that the courts must "check the excesses of Congress or the executive." But who will check the excesses of the judiciary? The greatest check on the courts can only be the widely held belief that the Court is not ruling based on politics. But if people believe the judiciary is simply a mediator that weighs political compromise, then the courts cannot long endure.

Roberts's colleagues should, sooner rather than later, cut the tether and listen to Justices Alito and Thomas. These national treasures should not retire, as they are the only ones speaking sense.​

J.D. Vance to Chief Justice Roberts: The Judiciary Must Check Its Own Excesses

Vice President J.D. Vance sat down for an interview with Ross Douthat. They cover much ground, but I wanted to flag this exchange concerning Chief Justice

reason.com

 

[ElmerMudd]

Fact!

John Roberts demand respect for inferior court judges who overstep their bounds. But only the one Supreme Court is in Article III, all inferior courts are mere creations of Congress and can be dissolved by Congress.

So, Roberts believes inferior court judges are coequal to the President, a Constitutional office? That would thus mean they are also equal to the Supreme Court.

​

​

Vice President J.D. Vance sat down for an interview with Ross Douthat. They cover much ground, but I wanted to flag this exchange concerning Chief Justice Roberts:​

​

​

​

​

Vance is exactly right.​

​

​

I think the Chief Justice largely lives in a bubble where everyone is afraid to challenge him. He sees himself as a singular force of good to save the rule of law. In Roberts's mind, he can take a shot at the incoming Vice President in his end-of-year address, and everyone will simply submit to his will. No. Vance is fighting back. Roberts thinks he can lecture the President that no judge, even members of the Supreme Court can be impeached; we the people simply have to take it. No. Vance is fighting back.​

​

​

And, I think, lower court judges are starting to fight back as well. Judge Ho made this same point in his concurrence yesterday, which subtly responded to Chief Justice Roberts:​

​

​

​

​

Yet Roberts does exactly that. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.​

​

​

There is a storm brewing on the horizon, and I don't think the Chief quite sees it. As I will explain in a forthcoming essay, Roberts's two decades on the bench have rendered him utterly unqualified to deal with what lies ahead. The arc from NFIB to AARP does not bode well for the future. Here is a preview:​

​

​

​

​

Roberts's colleagues should, sooner rather than later, cut the tether and listen to Justices Alito and Thomas. These national treasures should not retire, as they are the only ones speaking sense.​

J.D. Vance to Chief Justice Roberts: The Judiciary Must Check Its Own Excesses

Vice President J.D. Vance sat down for an interview with Ross Douthat. They cover much ground, but I wanted to flag this exchange concerning Chief Justice

reason.com

The Judicial is to check the power of the legislative and executive branch. The biggest constraints on ther judicial branch is to change law and the Constitution bu legislative and administrative branch.

Read your history

 

[excalibur]

The Judicial is to check the power of the legislative and executive branch. The biggest constraints on ther judicial branch is to change law and the Constitution bu legislative and administrative branch.

Show me where it says that in Article III.

And inferior courts, created by Congress and which can be dissolved by Congress, are not coequal. They sure aren't coequal to Article III which names the one Supreme Court, so they cannot be coequal with Article I or Article II either, only SCOTUS can lay claim to that.

 

[Hellokitty]

The Judicial is to check the power of the legislative and executive branch. The biggest constraints on ther judicial branch is to change law and the Constitution bu legislative and administrative branch.

Read your history

So what can the Judicial do if their rulings are simply ignored by the Executive/Legislative?

 

[TimFitz]

Fact!

John Roberts demand respect for inferior court judges who overstep their bounds. But only the one Supreme Court is in Article III, all inferior courts are mere creations of Congress and can be dissolved by Congress.

So, Roberts believes inferior court judges are coequal to the President, a Constitutional office? That would thus mean they are also equal to the Supreme Court.

​

​

Vice President J.D. Vance sat down for an interview with Ross Douthat. They cover much ground, but I wanted to flag this exchange concerning Chief Justice Roberts:​

​

​

​

​

Vance is exactly right.​

​

​

I think the Chief Justice largely lives in a bubble where everyone is afraid to challenge him. He sees himself as a singular force of good to save the rule of law. In Roberts's mind, he can take a shot at the incoming Vice President in his end-of-year address, and everyone will simply submit to his will. No. Vance is fighting back. Roberts thinks he can lecture the President that no judge, even members of the Supreme Court can be impeached; we the people simply have to take it. No. Vance is fighting back.​

​

​

And, I think, lower court judges are starting to fight back as well. Judge Ho made this same point in his concurrence yesterday, which subtly responded to Chief Justice Roberts:​

​

​

​

​

Yet Roberts does exactly that. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.​

​

​

There is a storm brewing on the horizon, and I don't think the Chief quite sees it. As I will explain in a forthcoming essay, Roberts's two decades on the bench have rendered him utterly unqualified to deal with what lies ahead. The arc from NFIB to AARP does not bode well for the future. Here is a preview:​

​

​

​

​

Roberts's colleagues should, sooner rather than later, cut the tether and listen to Justices Alito and Thomas. These national treasures should not retire, as they are the only ones speaking sense.​

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/2...-the-judiciary-must-check-its-own-excesses/[/

No, Vance needs to go back to high...nd the Constitution. Not to watch the polls.

 

[wamose]

How can I say this delicately, Roberts is a fucking egotistical, power-hungry asshole. Maybe we could get rid of him if we found out what he was doing on Epstein's list

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Watch SCOTUS put the VP in his place.

Go preside over the Senate and shut up.

 

[Marener]

So what can the Judicial do if their rulings are simply ignored by the Executive/Legislative?

Realistically? Nothing. But at that point we ceased having a constitutional republic.

 

[Darkwind]

The Judicial is to check the power of the legislative and executive branch. The biggest constraints on ther judicial branch is to change law and the Constitution bu legislative and administrative branch.

Read your history

There is one and ONLY one Judicial in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court.

All other courts are creations of Congress.

Please learn to read for comprehension.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There is one and ONLY one Judicial in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court.

All other courts are creations of Congress.

Please learn to read for comprehension.

Mother Mary, have patience. The Constitution authorized SCOTUS and Congress organized it and the districts. And SCOTUS and the subordinate courts administer the law, and Congress and the Executive abide by it.

 

[ElmerMudd]

There is one and ONLY one Judicial in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court.

All other courts are creations of Congress.

Please learn to read for comprehension.

Congress creates other courts but all of the lower court rulings can only be overturned by the Supreme court.

Why isn't Trump's congress overriding the lower courts. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. All courts ae part of the judicial system not the legislative branch.
You are incapable of critical thinking. The founding fathers counted on critical thinking to implement their new government.
Thick as a brick.

 

[Rawley]

The Judicial is to check the power of the legislative and executive branch. The biggest constraints on ther judicial branch is to change law and the Constitution bu legislative and administrative branch.

Read your history

Backatcha

 

[ElmerMudd]

Backatcha

Let me help you.

The Founding Fathers planned for separation of powers in the US government to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. They divided governmental authority into three distinct branches: legislative (Congress), executive (President), and judicial (Supreme Court), each with specific, non-overlapping responsibilities. This division was coupled with a system of checks and balances, where each branch had the power to limit the actions of the other two, ensuring a balance of authority and preventing tyranny.

 

[Rawley]

Why isn't Trump's congress overriding the lower courts.

Democrats

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. All courts ae part of the judicial system not the legislative branch.

Pssst. The Supreme Court is the Judicial branch. Every other court is a creation of the legislature.

 

[ElmerMudd]

There is one and ONLY one Judicial in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court.

All other courts are creations of Congress.

Please learn to read for comprehension.

The Founding Fathers planned for separation of powers in the US government to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. They divided governmental authority into three distinct branches: legislative (Congress), executive (President), and judicial (Supreme Court), each with specific, non-overlapping responsibilities. This division was coupled with a system of checks and balances, where each branch had the power to limit the actions of the other two, ensuring a balance of authority and preventing tyranny.

 

[Rawley]

Let me help you.

The Founding Fathers planned for separation of powers in the US government to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. They divided governmental authority into three distinct branches: legislative (Congress), executive (President), and judicial (Supreme Court), each with specific, non-overlapping responsibilities. This division was coupled with a system of checks and balances, where each branch had the power to limit the actions of the other two, ensuring a balance of authority and preventing tyranny.

Let me help you - see the above

 

[ElmerMudd]

Let me help you - see the above

Yes???????

 

[excalibur]

Congress creates other courts but all of the lower court rulings can only be overturned by the Supreme court.

Why isn't Trump's congress overriding the lower courts. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. All courts ae part of the judicial system not the legislative branch.
You are incapable of critical thinking. The founding fathers counted on critical thinking to implement their new government.
Thick as a brick.

So you assert that Congress, which created all the lower courts, can create something that is coequal to Article I, II, and III. Nonsense.

No lower court can be coequal.

 

[ElmerMudd]

So you assert that Congress, which created all the lower courts, can create something that is coequal to Article I, II, and III. Nonsense.

No lower court can be coequal.

It is not the complicated unless you are thick as a brick.

The Founding Fathers planned for separation of powers in the US government to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. They divided governmental authority into three distinct branches: legislative (Congress), executive (President), and judicial (Supreme Court), each with specific, non-overlapping responsibilities. This division was coupled with a system of checks and balances, where each branch had the power to limit the actions of the other two, ensuring a balance of authority and preventing tyranny.

 

[excalibur]

Their argument comes down to this: The courts rule all, that is their argument, and that isn't anywhere in the Constitution.