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

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Backatcha

Work on critical thinking.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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

Co-equal branches, excalibur. The judiciary adjudicates what they law says, not the executive.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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

We ae soon to find out.
We beak the seperation of powers we break our nation as set up by our founding fathers. We will be heading to what they feared, tyranny.

 

[excalibur]

... where each branch had the power to limit the actions of the other two, ensuring a balance of authority and preventing tyranny.

How does the Executive (the President) limit the power of the courts?

 

[ElmerMudd]

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

You dumbass. It does nothing of the kind.
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.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

How does the Executive (the President) limit the power of the courts?

By refusing to follow their orders.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

What are you talking about
Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government, specifically the Supreme Court and any inferior courts that Congress may create. It defines the judicial power, including the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdiction. The article also outlines the definition of treason, the conditions for conviction, and the power of Congress to declare punishments for treason.

 

[excalibur]

You dumbass. It does nothing of the kind.
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.

They said the judiciary was the weakest of the three branches.

I won't sink to using an ad hominem as you are fond of doing, showing your incivility.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

They said the judiciary was the weakest of the three branches.

I won't sink to using an ad hominem as you are fond of doing, showing your incivility.

Alexander Hamilton said that, in that it operated on moral authority.

All three are co-equal in their sphere.

You are one of the more unethical posters here because of your twisting of narratives and facts to arrive at otherwise unsupportable conclusions.

 

[ElmerMudd]

They said the judiciary was the weakest of the three branches.

I won't sink to using an ad hominem as you are fond of doing, showing your incivility.

Wow, you are using some big fancy words that most MAGA lemming have no idea what they mean.

 

[ElmerMudd]

They said the judiciary was the weakest of the three branches.

I won't sink to using an ad hominem as you are fond of doing, showing your incivility.

You and MAGA want to weaken judicial but the founding fathers did not see it that way
The three branches of the U.S. government (legislative, executive, and judicial) are intended to be equal. The Constitution establishes them as separate but equal, with each having distinct powers and responsibilities. This separation of powers, combined with a system of checks and balances, ensures that no single branch becomes too powerful. Each branch has the ability to limit the power of the others, maintaining a balanced government

 

[Care4all]

How does the Executive (the President) limit the power of the courts?

The executive appoints the federal judges and justices.

 

[scruffy]

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

Judges are not allowed to make law.

They're not allowed to tell the President what to do.

Period. End of story.

 

[Hellokitty]

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

Realistically? Constitutionally the Executive was given the power to enforce.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Good God, you can't read.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Overturned? Possibly.

But every court OTHER Than the SCOTUS can be deleted by the Congress.

The Congress and also restrict their jurisdiction and authority.

 

[martybegan]

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

Did Roberts really think he could lob bombs at the elected branches and face nothing in return?

reason.com

We need Vance to do this song in front of the SC

 

[Marener]

Realistically? Constitutionally the Executive was given the power to enforce.

The Judiciary was given the power to determine if the executive exceeded the power given to them by the laws and Constitution.

If the Executive decides the Judiciary don’t actually have that power, and if Congress doesn’t do anything to stop them, then the Constitution is meaningless.

 

[Hellokitty]

The Judiciary was given the power to determine if the executive exceeded the power given to them by the laws and Constitution.

If the Executive decides the Judiciary don’t actually have that power, and if Congress doesn’t do anything to stop them, then the Constitution is meaningless.

Who checks the Judiciaries power? Funny you have no issue with Congress not do anything to stop the overreach of the Judiciary.

 

[Marener]

Who checks the Judiciaries power? Funny you have no issue with Congress not do anything to stop the overreach of the Judiciary.

Easy. Either pass a legislation or an amendment.

Of course, modern conservatives don’t like that idea since they’d rather rule by executive authoritarianism.