Vance says it out loud - we are above the law

The American taxpayer doesn't want to pay for goverment employees expensive subsrictions. The majority of Politico’s federal revenue came from government employees purchasing Politico subscriptions on the U.S. dime. Those are two facts.

 

I disagree actually - I think if he ignored the supreme court, that would be a step too far, but i think if he ignores lower courts the republicans in the house and senate are too terrified and self interested to do anything about it.
The problem is - how does something get to the supreme court if he doesn't appeal? If the lower court order is just left standing, and he ignores it, why would the supreme court even take it up? Maybe there is a legal pathway I am ignorant of or they could just choose to take it up, I don't know. I'm not well versed in constitutional crisis.

 

Brilliant.

You mean like ....... maybe Politico, or any other news site that sells subscriptions....

....would be getting federal revenue from, well, any source besides the, ummmm, federal government?

 

This is dumb. Kind of depends on the job I’d say. People at policy level, or in spokesperson/media roles I bet have many subscriptions. It’s part of their job.

A doctor at the VA or NIH may get subscriptions to certain medical journals or research services covered by the hospital, exactly as they might in the private sector.

Some low level desk jockey on the other hand probably doesn’t need and doesn’t have any subscriptions paid for.

 

Not that I’m “MAGA” but I think a lot of folks here would associate me with MAGA, so I’ll take a shot.

I need more information about the context of the tweet. Can the judicial branch operate as a check on the executive branch? Absolutely. That’s one of its most fundamental duties.

Can the judicial branch stop the Presidency from performing its basic Constitutional duties? No.

That’s the problem with legal discussions on Twitter. The devil is in the details and all of the details get lost in small soundbites like that.

In essence, the Power of the Presidency is limited and is checked by the Judiciary, but the Judiciary’s power to check the Presidency is also limited.

 

you just talked in circles. The executive branch is not entitled to ignore the lower courts. They can’t pick and choose. They can appeal but not ignore. If the executive branch can convince the justice dept to pick and choose which court decisions to uphold and ignore we fundamentally don’t have a functioning judicial branch. This is exactly why loyalty to a person over loyalty to the system is so dangerous.

 

I’m not “picking and choosing.”

Im saying the Presidency doesn’t have the authority to do whatever it wants without being checked by the courts. And the courts don’t have the power to impede the President on anything and everything just because they have the power to check the President. It depends.

Do you disagree?

 

What does it depend on? Checks are checks, I mean that's the American system isn't it?

 

if the courts make a ruling the executive must accept that ruling until it is overturned. Period.

 

The point is that the WH has chosen to ignore lawful rulings of lower Federal courts over the shutting down/stopping funding by DOGE. Poster has stated his belief is that Executive may object to Judicial rulings and may appeal but it is unlawful to ignore them. It is not relevant how often or how disruptive the WH feels this is. Essentially yes, the Judiciary is REQUIRED to impede the Executive on anything and everything that they deem unlawful/ unConstitutional.

 

Okay, what does that have to do with Vance’s tweet? He was just referring to the legality of certain judicial actions and the scope of judicial authority.

 

Mostly the Constitution.

But of course the natural Constitutional dilemma here is that the same body tasked with interpreting the Constitution is tasked with interpreting the scope of its own authority to check the other branches.

 

Vance doesn’t get to determine what the courts can or can’t do. He shouldn’t even be saying anything about that. If a court makes a ruling he must abide by it until appealed. Courts interpret and then uphold the laws of the land as set forth by the legislature the executive is left to organize the federal government within the rules of law to enforce the laws. If the executive has an opinion by all means the justice department can appeal but they don’t get to determine on their own what is or is not constitutional.

 

FEMA official ignores judge's order, demands grant funding freeze

Tons of articles out there like this. I know people don’t want to admit it but this is a huuuuge problem for our country if our federal government starts ignoring the law and just makes it up as they go.

 

Democrats, including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were screaming bloody murder when the Courts overturned Roe.

I care very little about what you or the Democrats think JD Vance should or shouldn’t say about what the courts have the legal authority to do.

The issue isn’t that he’s questioning the order. The issue is whether he’s right. And I think that’s a good question.

If it were up to me, and stare decisis was not to be take under consideration, I think Congress controls the spending, that does not mean the President can effectively control the spending by withholding the disbursement of funds.

But my opinion is irrelevant. It’s a genuinely good legal question.

What’s a separate question even, is if SCOTUS can effectively do the President’s Constitutional job for the President via court order.

 

It’s a false equivalency barely worth addressing. Dems were mad at the courts they didn’t ignore them. Regardless the executive branch should not be allowed to ignore a court order they disagree with. They can appeal. Once we start working outside of our system of laws the whole thing can come tumbling down.

 

1) I was addressing your point about what Vance should and shouldn’t “say” in drawing the Roe comparison, not the subsequent action.
2) Can SCOTUS effectively do the President’s job for him simply by issuing court orders?

 

1. ok
2. The courts provide the guardrails. President can do anything he wants within those to carry out governing with the money and mission Congress has provided. There is even room for interpretation. But if the president goes to far afield the courts can bring it back. If that is ignored the legislature is the last line of defense before we enter dictator territory.

 

You didn’t answer 2.

I didn’t ask if the courts can check the President. I asked if the courts can do the President’s job for him.