Isn't Vance an attorney? If so, this ought to be grounds for disbarment.
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
361 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19916 readers
3668 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
His position is going to rapidly transition from ignoring subpoenas to "You and what army?" To "the bar association are traitors" to "we'll set up an executive branch element with tribunals" and his whole job is to bark these things behind Trump's leash to make the courts treat the cabinet with kid gloves.
It's possible that this is a threat to judges. I read it as "Resist us and be removed".
That's exactly what it is, plain as day, they are not hidding it
Well if the richest man in the world wants something, he's gonna let everyone know
So the judges shouldn't have stopped Biden from eliminating student debt?
"Well... let's not go CRAZY!"
He playing stupid, c'mon. He knows.
Gotta play stupid to pander to the stupid
i hate this fake ass fake appalachian profiteering on my people's pain
Maybe, but it doesn't matter. They want the outrage, cement trust in the flock
Vance is, strictly speaking, correct. The key word there is legitimate. The problem is that he's trying to confuse the issue; he's implying that everything Trump is doing is a legitimate exercise of executive power, when it's very clear from law and precedent that the power being exercised is supposed to be held by Congress.
Don't you remember? The supreme court decreed that any "official" presidential action is immune from prosecution. Anything trump does as president is "official," therefore anything he does is legal.
That's... Not how that decision was worded. Although that was the conclusion that was drawn by certain pundits. The president has absolute immunity for official acts in areas that Congress has no authority over, e.g., commanding the military, issuing pardons, etc. So if the President committed a crime in an area that Congress has direct control over--such as criminal actions related to trying to shut down the Dept. of Education--he would explicitly not have immunity from criminal prosecution.
And yet he's already locked federal employees out of four departments. If there's no enforcement there's no law. Lawsuits don't mean shit to him and theyll get tied up until they hit the Supreme Court, who will likely side with him, and in the meantime he'll keep doing the same thing.
Yeah, now THAT is a problem. The executive branch is in charge of enforcement of laws and court rulings; if Trump's administration flatly refuses to enforce court orders, then no, nothing is going to happen. At that point, Congress gets to make a choice as to whether or not they wish to exercise their authority to impeach and remove a president. If Congress fails to act, then it's time for the people to exercise their second amendment rights, or hope that there will actually be elections again. But such a hope seems vain, if Trump's administration refuses to follow court rulings, wouldn't you say?
Yes, but do you remember who gets to interpret what an official act is?
Other than courts?
The president doesn't get to determine what's an official act and what isn't, any more than Michael Scott saying, "I declare bankruptcy!" makes it so.
The corrupt as hell supreme court is who would make the determination.
I think that you might find that SCOTUS has conflicting interests here. Yes, the conservatives (Thomas, Alito, Goresuch, Kavanaugh, Barret, and mostly Roberts) are generally supportive of Trump. But we're now seeing Trump flout judicial rulings, and that cuts into SCOTUS' power; the justices are likely going to want to preserve that in the rulings that they make.
I don't hold a lot of hope though.
So, if Judges aren’t there to evaluate and limit the laws signed by the President, then what purpose do they serve? Does Vance think the Judges are there reading all those bills for their health?
Vance reminds me of that one kid who says he loves punk music, but only knows about Blink182.
Vance is s Theil sock puppet. He wants to dismantle Democracy like his master does.
The mantra is that judges are there only to uphold the law and strictly punish the common people and all who stand in "maga's" way.
Vance thinks the judges serve whoever appointed them.
When fElon talked about putting USAID through the shredder, he should have really said he just put the Constitution through the shredder.
Akshully, I think you need to read the case law, Marbury v. Madison, on that one, and not just the Constitution.
Um.....to be fair, "case law" doesn't override the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave themselves power not explicitly granted to them in the Constitution, and the rest of the country has just been going along with it since.
It is somewhat hypocritical to say that Trump can't just grant himself new powers out of thin air, then use a case where the Supreme Court just granted itself new powers out of thin air as justification.
Why would he bother when the one organization that has total editorial control over the document is ideologically copacetic?