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.
You're insinuating that this person represents the dispassionate, sober consensus opinion at Harvard. He doesn't. His 'incentive' is that he has heterodox opinions on the legal system - which are probably informed by his catholicism. If you're going to appeal to authority when you keep insisting 'b-b-but, he went to the HECKIN' IVY LEAGUE!' you need to accurately summarize the authority's position (the Ivy League's) and not conflate it with its lone tradcath alumnus.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm insinuating that if your average r-slur can differentiate between what they want the law to be (e.g. full drug decriminalization) versus what it is (heroin is illegal), then a Harvard law professor can do it too. He's addressing a question here of American constitutional law, something he's a scholar in, not Catholic integralism. I also don't see anything about a personal preference for Catholic integralism that would somehow make him so overwhelmingly biased on this straightforward question of the executive's power over the treasury that he would end up conflating the two, very different, spheres.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context