JD Vance's controversial comments about judicial authority have sparked widespread criticism. He asserted that judges lack the power to limit the president's authority, comparing it to a military leader's autonomy on the battlefield. His remarks followed a ruling by Judge Engelmayer that temporarily blocked some of Trump's executive orders. Critics, including Representative Daniel Goldman, highlighted the importance of checks and balances among the three branches of government, emphasizing that the judiciary ensures the executive adheres to the law. This situation raises significant concerns regarding the respect for judicial review in the US Constitution.
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal, he wrote. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.
It's called the rule of law. Our constitution created three co-equal branches of government to provide checks and balances on each other (separation of powers).
What Vance's wording suggests is that the executive could potentially respond to a court order by saying to the court, 'You're unconstitutionally intruding on my authority and I'm not going to do what you say.'
Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.
Collection
[
|
...
]