
Neither Trump nor Vance want the Supreme Court to do its job
Vance is not politically ignorant like Trump is, but he sure acts as if he learned nothing in his time at Yale Law School. While Trump opposes things that stand in his way, Vance has an ideology of how he wants to shift the balance of power within our federal government, but only when Republicans are in power.
Trump has surrounded himself with voices that insist the presidency is in a stronger position than it is, and as a result, the courts are being strained when he exceeds his authority.
JD Vance is wrong about the role of the presidency
For Vance, the executive branch is the motor meant to power our federal government. This goes against what conservatives have historically understood, which is that Congress is the branch that ought to power our government, despite some administrations giving in to the temptation of executive rule.
"You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for," Vance recently told New York Times opinion columnist Ross Douthat on the "Interesting Times" podcast.
To him, an electoral victory means the American people elected that administration to act with impunity for four years. This is a majoritarian view in which the American people give broad mandates to the politicians they elect, rather than those elections being reflections of the choices in front of Americans.
Opinion: Don't call me a Republican. I'm a conservative. Trump and his MAGA GOP aren't.
As I have argued before, the people do not elect a president because they trust whatever that individual's whims are for four years, but rather because they trust that person within the framework of American government more than the alternative.
I highly doubt the vice president would be making the same argument of an executive mandate in the case of former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness scheme. Vance doesn't actually believe these arguments (he's far too intelligent to). It's simply partisan politics.
Trump's administration is causing unnecessary conflict
The vice president's view ties in perfectly with his hostility to the courts.
"I think that the courts need to be somewhat deferential," Vance said on the podcast. "In fact, I think the design is that they should be extremely deferential to these questions of political judgment made by the people's elected president of the United States."
The job of the Supreme Court is to settle what the law is, rather than make political judgments. In this sense, Vance is correct that political matters should be left to the discretion of the executive branch. However, that is not what is happening with the Trump administration's deportation plans.
Opinion: GOP keeps pretending Trump has a mandate. Americans are clearly saying otherwise.
While there are some legitimate examples of activist judges hindering the administration's deportation actions, the ones that have made broader headlines involve the administration's legally sketchy decisions.
Thus far, the Trump administration has launched a hostile collision course with the courts by:
Reinterpreting a 1798 wartime statute to consider illegal immigrants as foreign invaders.
Mistakenly deporting a suspected gang member to El Salvador, though he had an American court order against being removed, and refusing to facilitate his return - despite a court order demanding the administration do so.
Signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship, a constitutionally protected policy upheld by several court precedents.
Repeatedly questioning whether suspected illegal immigrants are entitled to due process before being deported.
Called for the impeachment of a judge who ruled against Trump.
The Supreme Court has been way too active
It is not simply a matter of political judgment for the court to block policies that run afoul of the law.
You would think that an administration that believes in deference to the executive branch would act in good faith with the court, but that is not what has happened. Instead, the Trump administration has worked with open contempt for both the judicial branch and the Constitution. An administration looking for deference on any number of policies should at least act like it cares about what the Constitution says.
The Supreme Court is not meant to be in the news this much, and one of the reasons it is is because of this administration's very aggressive view of the executive branch. When an administration runs afoul of the law as much as Trump's has, the Supreme Court gets bogged down in the political world, where it is not meant to be.
When an administration forces the Supreme Court to routinely rule on its policies, it politicizes the judicial branch in ways that it was never meant to be. Both in their rhetoric and in their attempted policies, White House officials are stressing the role of the judicial branch. As I've written before, Congress isn't helping the problem with inaction, but Trump is taking a far more active role in the erosion of our federal government than any other recent president.
One can argue about the merits of the chief justice's statements about the administration and its rhetoric, and there are debates to be had. However, the fact that Roberts even feels the need to comment publicly on the Trump administration's bad faith says a lot about where the court is.
The Trump administration has raised the temperature in the power struggle between the judicial branch and the presidency, and White House officials complain when judges meet them at the rim to check against their power.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
30 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump administration claims Columbia violated Title VI, threatening school's accreditation
The Trump administration said Wednesday it has notified the accreditor for Columbia University that the school violated Title IV, threatening the university's accreditation status by saying it "no longer appears to meet the Commissions accreditation standards." The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights (HHS OCR) "determined that Columbia University acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," according to press release from the Education Department. The release says the school has been in violation since the start of the war in the Middle East that began on Oct. 7, 2023 when Hamas invaded Israel.


New Statesman
40 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The People's Republic of iPhone
Photo by In Pictures Ltd./Corbis via Getty Images On Friday 23 May, Donald Trump threatened to impose a 25 per cent tariff on what is arguably the world's most successful consumer product, the iPhone. This would be a historic tax hike on American consumers, because Apple currently sells around 70 million iPhones in the US for about $1,000 each; the US government would ask for $17.5bn in additional taxes on a single product line from a single company. But what Trump wants is actually more extreme: he believes that in order to escape his punitive tariff, Apple might bring production of the iPhone back to America. There are two reasons that this is wishful thinking. The first is that the iPhone is the apex product of globalisation. It would be impossible to make something as complex as a smartphone with the resources of a single country. Apple's supplier list runs to 27 pages of companies, many of which are themselves multinationals with long lists of their own subsidiaries. It is not the product of one country – more like 50. It will never be the case that the iPhone can be described as a purely American product. As Patrick McGee explains in Apple in China, in light of the company's long history of contract manufacturing, the vast sums it has invested in China, the knowledge and skills it has imparted to Chinese workers and the Chinese factories it has developed, it makes more sense to describe it as Chinese. Trump's discomfort with Americans using Chinese phones is not without foundation. What Apple has achieved in China is a spectacular example of industrial strategy. Apple's investment in China for a single year, 2015, was $55bn – greater than the combined research and development spending of every business in the UK. Around the same time, Apple's engineers were working in 1,600 Chinese factories. 'We were unwittingly tooling them up,' a former Apple executive told McGee, 'with… incredible know-how and experience.' It is unclear how other countries can loosen China's grip on technological manufacturing; an American iPhone would cost more than three times the price of current models, according to one analyst. But this is a power that China has been helped to acquire by the Western capitalists who rushed to exploit its people for cheap labour, and who never stopped to consider the long-term implications. A former Apple vice-president told McGee: 'We weren't thinking about geopolitics at all.' For all the Silicon Valley rhetoric about changing the world, Apple does not appear to have understood how successfully it was doing just that. We're reminded to question the information we see on our screens, but the screen itself is also an illusion. The devices of digital modernity are made, we are told, by companies that are American, German, Japanese and Korean. The brightest minds compete in an unending race to make the displays ever more crisp, the computers ever more intelligent. We choose between phones and laptops made by Google, Microsoft, Apple or Amazon, televisions made by Philips or Samsung, games consoles made by Sony or Nintendo. But there is only really one company. It makes products for all of these companies, and hundreds of other businesses around the world. It is called Hon Hai Precision Industry. Hon Hai began in 1974, in a shed in a suburb of Taipei called Tucheng ('dirt city', in Mandarin), in which ten people moulded knobs and dials for televisions from molten plastic. Their boss was Terry Gou, the 24-year-old son of a police officer, and recently released from national service. As personal computers began to proliferate, Gou moved to making components, mostly sockets and connectors; the trading name for the company, Foxconn, refers to connectors. The 'fox' part is simply an animal Gou admires. He also admires Ghengis Khan, and wears a bracelet from a temple dedicated to the Mongol emperor. Gou was instrumental in Apple's return from the brink of defeat. In 1997, Steve Jobs and Jony Ive had created the iMac, which offered to replaced the complicated and boring world of personal computing with an aspirational consumer product that connected easily to the internet. Apple quickly realised why everyone else made beige boxes – making anything else was expensive and difficult – but the company's designers and executives had an additional problem, which was that if they didn't do exactly what Steve Jobs told them to do, he would scream at them and then sack them. Every engineer who doubted the design eventually left and the 'unmanufacturable' iMac was finally manufactured by the Korean company LG. When Apple's exacting demands became too much for LG, it began looking for another company to build its products, and in Taiwan it found Terry Gou. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe In Gou's factory at the end of the 1990s, the roof was made from corrugated metal and the air conditioning was reserved for equipment, not people. Around the building, banners reminded workers of the wisdom of 'Uncle Terry', which included such aphorisms as 'work hard on the job today or work hard to find a job tomorrow' and 'hungry people have especially clear minds'. Gou, more than anyone else, took advantage of the opportunities offered by the special economic zone that had been established around Shenzhen, in Guangdong province on the east coast of mainland China, in 1980. At the time the zone was created, Shenzhen was a town of around 70,000 people; by 2020, it had a population of 17.5 million. This accelerated growth was the result of the 'Guangdong model', in which local government and private businesses (often led by Taiwanese entrepreneurs such as Gou) collaborated to produce growth. Gou's factory was subsidised and outfitted by the state; the advanced machines on which he began making Apple's designs had been paid for by the Chinese Communist Party. China also provided its people, in vast numbers. Among the sources that McGee has obtained for Apple in China are documents showing that when Apple needed to increase production – in the weeks before a new iPhone went on sale, for example – the Chinese state would be able to secure an additional 800,000 workers for its production lines. This would be done by government-backed companies, which would send buses into rural areas to draw workers from China's 'floating population' of internal migrants. These migrant workers numbered in the hundreds of millions, a larger workforce than that of the European Union. Apple was an exceptionally demanding client, led first by Steve Jobs and then, after his death, by his trusted lieutenant, Tim Cook, whose forensic eye for detail was even more exacting than his predecessor's temper. On his first day as CEO, Cook presided over an operations meeting that lasted for nearly 13 hours. But this was also what China needed: a company that would push its factories to ever greater standards and quantities of production. Jobs, Cook and Gou helped to make China the global factory. By 2010, the executives of Silicon Valley joked that within 20 years, there would be two companies left. Wal-Mart would be the only shop, and everything it sold would be made by Foxconn. As the Guangdong Model brought economic growth to China, Apple discovered that the country was also becoming its most important new market. Despite the role the company had played in China's industrial development, access to this market still came at a price. In 2016, Cook and two of his top executives visited the headquarters of the Chinese Communist Party, where they promised to invest $275bn in the country over the following five years. McGee points out that this sum is more than twice the amount (in real terms) that America had invested through the Marshall Plan in rebuilding Europe after the Second World War. The effects of this investment can be seen on government buildings around the UK. The technology transfer enabled by Apple and others enabled the rise of a new generation of native Chinese companies, such as Huawei. China ceased to be a taker of foreign technology and began pushing its own technology into other states, including Britain. Huawei equipment was installed in the UK's mobile networks, and cameras made by companies such as Hikvision (of which the Chinese state is the largest shareholder, and which human rights organisations have alleged supplies equipment used in the mass surveillance of Uyghur people) appeared at sensitive sites in the UK. Some were worn by our own police officers. Attempts have been made to ban Chinese technology from our infrastructure, but it will be years before it is removed, if it ever is. The trade policy of the Trump administration is an erratic series of pronouncements made via social media, which are almost always delayed and abandoned. And if Trump does persist in battling Apple, he will be abruptly reminded that trillions of dollars of American savings are invested in the company. Xi Jinping has no such concerns. Apple must appease him or lose access to the world's largest group of consumers. As the trade war between America and China grows, then, it must be asked if the world's most influential technology company can avoid picking a side – and to what extent it already has. Apple in China: The Capture of the World's Greatest Company Patrick McGee Simon & Schuster, 448pp, £25 Purchasing a book may earn the NS a commission from who support independent bookshops [See also: The lost futures of Stereolab] Related This article appears in the 04 Jun 2025 issue of the New Statesman, The Housing Trap


The Herald Scotland
40 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Rangers on verge of appointing Russell Martin as new head coach
The appointment of a new man at the helm is the latest in a series of major changes at the club. An American consortium led by Andrew Cavenagh and 49ers Enterprises secured a majority shareholding on Friday and new sporting director Kevin Thelwell officially began work on Monday, when he said that the recruitment of a new head coach would come to a conclusion 'in the coming days'. Russell Martin played for Rangers (Jeff Holmes/PA) Outgoing Real Madrid assistant manager Davide Ancelotti, son of Carlo Ancelotti, and Martin were the two frontrunners for the post, vacated by Philippe Clement in February, with former Rangers captain Barry Ferguson taking over to the end of the season, which ended trophyless. However, it is the former MK Dons and Swansea boss, who had a short loan spell as a player at Rangers in 2018, who will be tasked with wrestling the power back from the other side of the city where Celtic this season won their 13th William Hill Premiership title in 14 seasons and have a stranglehold on Scottish football. However, many Rangers fans have revealed some dismay at the notion of Martin's arrival. The former Scotland international brought Southampton up to the Premier League through the play-offs in 2024 but was sacked in December as they headed back towards the Championship with one win from their first 16 games. Chris Hughton, Martin's boss at Norwich, offered a glowing character reference, saying on talkSPORT: 'If I'm looking at Russell's managerial background, he is known of course, for playing a certain way, very expansive in the way that he wants to play, very much a passing game and progression through the thirds. Philippe Clement was sacked by Rangers in February (Steve Welsh/PA) 'But he's a strong personality also. He's had a few knockbacks in his football career so far. 'I think any knockbacks, he will look at very much as experience and look to improve in every aspect that he can. I saw him recently, and he was in good form and really looking forward to getting back into the game. 'I think he's had a few offers. So this is somebody that's still very respected in the game, and of course, the rollercoaster in management, there are always going to be ups and downs, but he's a very confident individual and very confident in what he wants to do on the football pitch. 'He was very much a leader in the changing room, vocal in the meetings that we had and, of course, he was my voice when it came to any sort of direction on the players. 'So no surprise to me that he eventually went into management. He always showed those characteristics. And he was somebody that, as he improved in his career as a player, is of course very much looking to improve the same way in management.'