J.D. Vance sabotages self with attack on Supreme Court
If the British coined the term 'too clever by half,' Vice President JD Vance might own the political update of 'too smart by 99%.'
And Donald Trump might wonder at what point he asks his veep: please stop helping — at least when it comes to Trump's greatest legacy and biggest asset, the Supreme Court.
Vance recently offered his own take on the 'role' of that body, in particular Chief Justice John Roberts' 'profoundly wrong sentiment' that the judiciary exists to 'check the excesses of the executive.'
Advertisement
The vice president finger-wagged that this was 'one-half' of the job; the 'other half' was to stop a 'small but substantial number' of courts from telling 'the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for,' namely 'immigration enforcement.'
Also, to be 'extremely deferential' to the 'political judgment' made by 'the people's elected president of the United States.'
Vance did at least preface his comments with a warning that they may prove 'inflammatory' — before inflaming away.
Logical fallacies
Students of law — or of, well, grade school — no doubt quickly picked up on the first problem.
Advertisement
The foundation of the U.S. system is the constitutional separation of powers, checks and balances.
Congress has the purse.
The executive has the sword.
Advertisement
The judiciary's power is to settle 'all Cases' and 'Controversies' 'arising' under the Constitution and other laws.
Far from being 'profoundly wrong,' Chief Justice Roberts's sentiment was profoundly basic.
To have a court that jumps to the will of a president or a changeable voting majority is to have . . . Venezuela.
Vance, a Yale Law School graduate, surely would have disapproved of the court's rubber-stamping Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness or vaccine mandates — even though Biden won an election.
Advertisement
Students of logic will find in the veep's comments an impressive array of logical fallacies, from the straw man to the false dilemma.
Chief Justice Roberts didn't, as Vance suggests, claim 'checking' was its main role, or single out the president.
The chief uncontroversially noted that the role of the court was to 'obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive.'
Nor did he suggest lower courts were immune from checks.
He probably didn't feel it necessary, given that every opinion the high court issues is a review of something a lower court did.
A significant number of its recent decisions brushed back activist judges — allowing the administration to proceed, among other things, in removing independent agency heads, freezing grant money, and ending the temporary protected status program for Venezuelans.
As for immigration, the court has continued to give the president the usual wide latitude — with the basic requirement of due process.
Political malpractice
Advertisement
Which brings us to students of politics, who will recognize these comments as political malpractice.
The most enduring legacy of the first Trump term was the cementing of a conservative Supreme Court majority that continues to thoughtfully transform the legal landscape.
Religious freedom.
The end of Roe v. Wade.
Advertisement
The major-questions doctrine.
The end of Chevron deference.
Reining in the bureaucracy.
Second Amendment rights.
Advertisement
Presidential immunity.
And the question of what legacy emerges from Trump's second term rests squarely in the hands of that same court.
Trump is proving to be the most energetic executive in decades, challenging the establishment to rethink the status quo on everything from the federal workforce and government grant making to the power of independent agencies.
Most of these questions are destined for the justices — the same people Vance and others in Trump's orbit have taken to badgering.
Advertisement
Vance fashions himself shrewd and likely thinks his comments serve the multiple purposes of proving loyalty to his boss, whipping up the base, and (not so) subtly warning the court of backlash if it fails to rule as he'd prefer.
The vice president might consider that jurists are well-versed in the art of clever arguments; they know what he's doing.
Or that they aren't easily intimidated — see the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.
But they can get irritated and annoyed, and less motivated to do much beyond basic requirements.
How helpful is that?
And Vance might consider that his criticism is essentially a slap at the president's judgment in appointing these justices and other lower-court judges (who occasionally rule against him) in the first place.
The temptation by Vance and other officials to let loose on the courts will grow as more issues ripen and the administration wins some and loses some (like this week's tariff case).
Trump has so far refrained from going full-frontal on the judiciary, a political instinct that has served him well, given the stakes.
At some point, he might suggest that the vice president leave the politics to the guy actually in charge of the executive branch.
From The Wall Street Journal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Aides Insist That Tariffs Will Remain, Even After Court Ruling
President Trump's top economic advisers stressed on Sunday that they would not be deterred by a recent court decision that declared many of the administration's tariffs to be illegal, as they pointed out a variety of additional authorities that the White House could invoke as it looks to pressure China and others into negotiations. They also signaled that Mr. Trump had no plans to extend an original 90-day pause on some of his steepest tariff rates, raising the odds that those duties — the mere announcement of which had roiled markets — could take effect as planned in July. 'Rest assured, tariffs are not going away,' Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, said during an appearance on 'Fox News Sunday.' Asked about the future of the president's so-called reciprocal tariffs, first announced and quickly suspended in April, Mr. Lutnick added, 'I don't see today that an extension is coming.' The president's tariff strategy entered uncharted political and legal territory last week after a federal trade court ruled that Mr. Trump had misused an emergency economic powers law in trying to wage a global trade war. The decision would have put a quick halt to those duties, which form the centerpiece of the president's strategy of pressuring other countries into trade talks. But an appeals court soon granted the government a brief administrative pause to sort out arguments in the case, which is expected to reach the Supreme Court. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Did The U.S. Air Force Cancel The F-22 Raptor?
It is the absolute apex of air-to-air combat. It rules the skies like a bird of prey, from which it takes its name. It's one of the stealthiest fighter jets in the world. The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is the pinnacle of what air dominance can be. So ... it was canceled. In 2009, the U.S. Department of Defense decided to end production of the fighter after only 186 planes were produced, significantly less than the original order of 750. What happened? Airpower is supposed to be one of the pillars of America's military strength, so why take its best piece off the board? The answer comes down to the fact that the nature of America's threats change and evolve over time, meaning that an asset that seemed critical in one era seems less so in another. Plus, put simply, the F-22 is wildly expensive, so if it's not an absolute must-have, the cost-benefit analysis just doesn't shake out. Read more: These Are The Worst American Cars Ever Made The F-22 was a revelation when it first flew in 1997. With a top speed of an incredible Mach 2.25 (1,726 miles per hour), supercruise capability (meaning it could fly for extended periods above the speed of sound), and a coat of radar-absorbent material, it was more advanced than any other fighter in the world at the time. It was a spaceship in a world full of paper planes. Ironically enough, that was part of its problem. Because Russia and China had nothing comparable in the first decade of the 21st century, the F-22 almost seemed like overkill. At a massive per-unit cost of $150 million, did America really need something that far beyond any of its competitors? For that matter, America's main adversaries at the time had no airpower at all. With the U.S. embroiled in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq against low-tech insurgent forces, a high-cost air-dominance fighter just didn't fit the country's needs at the time. Since even the Pentagon doesn't have infinite money (though it sure seems like it sometimes), it had to make some tough choices over where to put resources. For the budget-draining War on Terror, the F-22 just didn't have an argument to make. Not helping matters was the fact that Congress restricted use of the F-22 to just the U.S. Air Force. Translation: There would be no sales to foreign allies, which cut off a major revenue stream that could have offset its costs. Of course, since the end of production in 2009, a lot has changed. Russia and particularly China have upped their military capabilities, including in the air. With the benefit of hindsight, should the U.S. have kept the F-22 rolling off the assembly line? Not necessarily. For one thing, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an even newer fighter jet (though it has problems of its own). While slower and less stealthy than the F-22, it has vastly more advanced sensor capabilities. Not only can it gather a huge amount of information about the battlespace, its true party trick is its ability to disseminate that information to other F-35s and to headquarters. Meanwhile, the Air Force has also moved forward by looking backward. The decades-old F-15 airframe has gotten a major update in the form of the F-15EX. For one thing, it's much cheaper than the F-22 (its unit cost is only $94 million), which is appealing as the Pentagon looks to cut overspending. More importantly, the F-15EX can bring a whopping 12 air-to-air missiles to the fray, compared to the F-22's measly eight. The F-15EX was also designed to carry the newest and most advanced ordnance in the Air Force's arsenal, hypersonic missiles. Given all that, you could argue that the F-22 has lost its crown as the best air dominance fighter ... to a much older, and cheaper, plane. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK bans single-use vapes to stem use by children and reduce harmful litter
LONDON (AP) — A ban on disposable vapes came into force across the U.K. on Sunday as the British government aims to stem their use by children, reduce litter and prevent the leaking of harmful chemicals into the environment. The ban makes it illegal for any retailer — online or in-store — to sell vapes, whether they contain nicotine or not. They will still be able to sell reusable vapes. The crackdown follows the soaring use of disposable vapes in schools and a rising tide of trash as users dispose of the vapes. It is estimated that as many as 5 million disposable vapes are thrown in bins or littered every week across the U.K., rather than being recycled. A number of countries are seeking to regulate the vape market, which has grown exponentially over the past decade or so. Australia outlawed the sale of vapes outside pharmacies last year in some of the world's toughest restrictions on electronic cigarettes, while Belgium became the first European Country to ban the use of disposable vapes at the start of this year. California has been at the forefront of bringing in new regulations in the U.S. The U.K.'s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said usage among young people remained too high, and the ban would 'put an end to their alarming rise in school playgrounds and the avalanche of rubbish flooding the nation's streets.' Also known as single-use vapes, disposable vapes are non-refillable and unable to be recharged, and are typically thrown away with general waste or just thrown on the street. Even when they are recycled, they need to be taken apart by hand, while their batteries are a fire risk to recycling facilities and can leak harmful chemicals into the environment and potentially harming wildlife. Businesses were given six months to prepare for the change by selling any existing stock. Rogue traders who continue to sell them risk a fine of 200 ($260) in the first instance, followed by an unlimited fine or jail time for repeat offending. The U.K. Vaping Industry Association said its members had moved quickly to comply with the June 1 deadline, but warned of 'serious unintended consequences' emanating from too much regulation. 'We are concerned that this ban will encourage former smokers who have already transitioned from cigarettes, which kill 220 people every day in the U.K, to return to combustible tobacco or opt for unregulated vapes," said its director general, John Dunne. Separately, the British government is legislating to potentially restrict the packaging, marketing and flavors of e-cigarettes.
