this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025

986 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19928 readers

3071 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

986

Trump Signals He Might Ignore the Courts | Yesterday, the president said that no judge “should be allowed” to rule against the changes his administration is making. (www.theatlantic.com)

submitted 1 day ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

215 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.

The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we're having this crisis now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] Shardikprime@lemmy.world -27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” Vice President J. D. Vance posted on X yesterday morning. “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.”

Dude is just underlining scopes. Nothing burger here

Now, Vance was not quite making an unconditional vow to ignore a court order.

He was making no vows. Stating the scope of practice is not illegal in any way

Rather, he was stepping right up to the line.

By explaining who has what scope? Wow stretch much?

Obviously, judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,

Yes that's literally the guys point.

but determining whether orders are legitimate is the very question the courts must decide.

Which was never in discussion?

People if you want to freak out about everything be my guest, but if this is what is going to make you flip the fuck out, geez.

The perma stun is real. And it proceeds at pace

[–] Nikophos@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/legal-experts-constitutional-crisis-vance-musk-judicial-rulings-trump-rcna191387

"I think the tweet, taken on its own terms, is empty because it refers to the 'legitimate powers' of the executive. And the whole question in these cases is whether the executive is acting legitimately or not," Greene told NBC News.

"He has some cover in that sense," Greene added, referring to Vance. "He hasn't promised unlawful behavior."

Rick Pildes, a professor at New York University’s Law School, also highlighted Vance’s use of the words “legitimate powers” in his post but pointed out that the judiciary is the branch with the power to decide what a president can “legitimately” do or not do.

"Under the rule of law and the Constitution, it is the courts that determine whether some use of the executive power is lawful or not. That is the critical point," Pildes said via email.

"The concern is that the vice president’s statement could be taken to suggest that the Executive Branch is prepared to refuse to comply with a court order based on the president’s own view that he has a power that the courts have concluded he does not," he added. "A president who orders his officials not to comply with court orders would be creating a constitutional crisis."

Also note,

It's not the first time Vance has floated defying court orders.

Greene pointed out that others in Trump's orbit, including Musk, have floated ignoring court orders.

On Saturday, Musk reposted a post on X from a user who wrote, "I don’t like the precedent it sets when you defy a judicial ruling, but I’m just wondering what other options are these judges leaving us."

I think it's a series of microaggressions; on their own, each comment is seemingly innocent, and every response appears to be an overreaction. But their comments put together paint a larger picture. I think this is part of the strategy - "Look at these emotional people, panicking at nothing!" as they slowly overwhelm and erode their checks and balances.

It's important not to become emotionally overwhelmed, and not to jump to conclusions. I definitely see the tendency to doom-scroll and panic in people right now - I do it myself sometimes as much as I try not to. But I'm thankful for the journalists and scholars that raise alarms, because if people don't know what's happening, how will anyone be held accountable?

load more comments (1 replies)