https://x.com/JDVance/status/1888607143030391287
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 9, 2025
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.
Burgers have an extremely r-slurred political system. If a PM in Canada actually tried the Burger "Ignore the courts", the House of Commons would force a non confidence vote, and they would likely lose it.
What's the point of the judiciary if one of the President's goons says "The President said so"?
MAGA cultists should be forced to pay a 300% tariff on everything.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Woo gee, what an unhinged maniac that has... a professor of constitutional law from Harvard totally agreeing with him that this judge is clueless.
But, wait wait wait, hold it! Not so fast MAGAts! Liz Cheney says they're wrong! The end!
Edit: Reddit thinks Cheney is awesome, of course:
https://old.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/comments/1ilp12k/liz_cheney_calls_out_the_vice_president_jd_vance/
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
STOP INTERFERING WITH MY LEGITIMATE ACTS OF STATE
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There are almost 700 US District Judges. The fact that at least one of them is a glaring r-slur, as pointed by the Harvard professor, and willing to throw out his credibility to annoy Trump isn't surprising. Said r-slur is also not singlehandedly "the constitutional auditors"™ or the final word on the subject.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not the final word, but they are a check, it's part of the process.
Still stuck on that huh
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yea, I'll stick to it because the leading constitutional scholars at Ivy League schools aren't really known for being Trump loyalists. I think Alan Dershowitz is the only one to speak of and this isn't him. Chances are that this judge will be overturned and it's also only a temporary halt for like a week anyways.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If you reckon one in 700 federal judges could be wrong, what's one in 115 law professors?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The number is more relevant in the context of understanding that this isn't the collective voice of the constitutional auditors restraining Trump. In terms of an Ivy League professor of constitutional law being wrong on it, of course it could happen too. What's suggestive, though, is one of them, not known at all for being a Trump supporter, is willing to put his own reputation on the line to say, in no uncertain terms, that the judge is violating the separation of powers. You can see why an Obama appointee would thwart, or at least slow down, Trump, but what's the perverse incentive for professor Vermeule here?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I can absolutely see a (really dumb to follow up on) perverse incentive for the judge and likewise see only reasons NOT to speak out for the professor, if the professor was acting cynically. I think that's pretty good evidence that the professor is speaking sincerely, and that both of these are compelling circumstantial evidence for the theory that the judge is acting beyond their powers for politically motivated reasons.
I just also believe there's possibly a reason the President usually doesn't mess with the Treasury so directly. Ain't that a Congress thing?
So I think your belief is reasonable, but I'm not so convinced of it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think that Trump's approach is unprecedented, but I really don't know that much political history from before my lifetime that isn't like the large or major events. But I think it's still well within the scope of the executive power. Otherwise, nothing really to add. I think your comment is a good summation of things. We'll leave it at that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Treasury is very much part of the executive branch. Still serves at the pleasure of the president.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Um, being a catholic integralist like vance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Vermeule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That doesn't really answer the question. One doesn't get to be a Harvard constitutional law scholar by holding a personal belief about the ideal Catholic society that they can't differentiate from the actual legal system. And Catholic integralism itself has nothing to do with the question of the executive branch exercising its power over the treasury department as far as I can tell. I guess you could say that this guy might be predisposed to like the vice-president on a personal level, but I just don't see how that translates into him throwing away his reputation in order to be blatantly wrong about the separation of powers here.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Listen to me grue, you ape. Im raping you now. How is this unconstitutional?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'd say it's cruel and unusual punishment
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Any politician that uses the term rage quit should be banned from politics. I don't want g*mers in positions of power.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
just bc
said something doesnt make it so, reminder that the last person to do his job was 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
He's smarter
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This is only true if the Commons has a majority of non Kool-Aid drinkers. Congress can impeach Trump or Vance for any behaviour they don't like too. Both these systems can be overridden by a party sufficiently in thrall to its leader.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Politicians tend to like getting re-elected.
If public opinion is toxic, even backbenchers will feel enough heat to join the opposition into voting non confidence.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sadly our voters are so buckbroken now that they no longer have any values except their team winning. Trump's plan to invade Gaza is proof of this. The one thing that everyone has to admit Trump did right, probably the #2 reason (after immigration) that people voted for him, is that he didn't get us into any wars, especially in the Middle East. This is a complete 180. It's like if after the election Hitler announced he's converting to Judaism. And chuds just go along with it like this is what they always wanted.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I agree, i am disappointed how much of a 180 he did in that regard but hey thats what people have been saying since ancient greece: cant trust a politician
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Oh 100%, that's what did for Nixon.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
presidential systems just suck balls. the only stable
presidential systems are korea 
and the US which both have issues with executive overreach.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Korea does fairly well, but of their last 5 presidents there's:
One currently facing impeachment.
One impeached and went to prison.
IIRC Lee managed to complete his term before he went to prison.
One jumped off a fricking cliff because that's how severe his legal issues were.
So not as tarded as America but not very stable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wasn't one of them in some crazy cult or something
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes... kind of. Oh dammit, I had started writing about that a long time ago but got off track after the first chapter.
It's more complicated than just she was in a cult. She was the daughter of the loved/hated dictator who pretty much invented what South Korea is. She had a really fricked-up life. And I'm not sure if it was really a cult or she was just a lesbian and Koreans don't want to admit that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
GEOTUS is actually happening?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
So if a court said the military has to go around shooting random civilians, do you think the executive branch would have to obey just because a court said so? Some libshit on the court throwing a temper tantrum is not the same thing as a legitimate decision that needs to be heeded.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Who defines what's legitimate?
Trump openly rejects the 14th amendment, even if the American plainly endorses birthright citizenship.
Then the Senate GOP unveils a BS amendment to restrict Supreme Court to 9 justices, and not repeal birthright citizenship from the constitution.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The men with guns define what's legitimate. That's what government is.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Snapshots:
https://x.com/JDVance/status/1888607143030391287:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I mean, he can try this argument in court and see how it goes. I don't see this as a threat to simply ignore decisions.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There is no need to go to court. The court does not have men with guns, that's the executive branch LOL
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I wish the Supreme Court rules against Trump 7-2 several times, while insulting both Trump and Musk.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
When Vance leaves the kid's table then I will believe anything he says matters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
He's Peter Theil's slave, he has no credibility.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context