> Vice-President JD Vance has suggested judges do not have authority over the Trump administration's executive power, 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.
For those unfamiliar -- the quote is from Andrew Jackson, and his stance on the court's invalidation of the US state of Georgia's policies that led to the Trail of Tears.
Not a positive model to emulate.
AFAIK the only other time this has been done was during the US civil war.
If the court cannot have an opinion more valid than the issuer of the EO, then on what authority can they invalidate it? The issuer can always say: that isn't how the law is meant to be read.
First they marginalize, then they alienate, then they never have to take the extreme action that people like you would recognize as a problem.
> "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
If the President orders the exec branch to ignore the courts on this argument, he hasn’t ordered the judges to do anything, but he is fucking with their power nonetheless.
Today? It’s no longer a given. Trump, Vance, and Musk have all indicated a willingness to ignore court orders. Whether they will go they far is yet to be seen.
It's not even hypothetical, they've already refused to follow court decisions. For example, when Trump seized funds already allocated by Congress, and ignored a court-order declaring it was unlawful.
“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
They are openly contesting the authority of the courts in various statements.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp
> Vice-President JD Vance has suggested judges do not have authority over the Trump administration's executive power, 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.
For those unfamiliar -- the quote is from Andrew Jackson, and his stance on the court's invalidation of the US state of Georgia's policies that led to the Trail of Tears.
Not a positive model to emulate.
AFAIK the only other time this has been done was during the US civil war.
If the court cannot have an opinion more valid than the issuer of the EO, then on what authority can they invalidate it? The issuer can always say: that isn't how the law is meant to be read.
First they marginalize, then they alienate, then they never have to take the extreme action that people like you would recognize as a problem.
Doesn't the EO apply specifically to the executive branch? How is this marginalizing the judicial branch?
In the famous Frost/Nixon interviews:
> "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
If the President orders the exec branch to ignore the courts on this argument, he hasn’t ordered the judges to do anything, but he is fucking with their power nonetheless.
Pre-2016, you’d be correct
Today? It’s no longer a given. Trump, Vance, and Musk have all indicated a willingness to ignore court orders. Whether they will go they far is yet to be seen.
> indicated a willingness
It's not even hypothetical, they've already refused to follow court decisions. For example, when Trump seized funds already allocated by Congress, and ignored a court-order declaring it was unlawful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/trump-unfreezing-feder...
[flagged]
Flagged