Just seen a missive from the US vice president that it's not the courts
role to decide whether an executive order is legal or not.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation,
that would be illegal,” he wrote on X. “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.”

Just curious as to how judges have got it wrong for all these years ? Presumably the pages were stuck together ?

Anyway, without the need for judges, will peoples taxes go down ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/10/2025 8:39 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Just seen a missive from the US vice president that it's not the courts
role to decide whether an executive order is legal or not.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” he wrote on X. “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.”

Just curious as to how judges have got it wrong for all these years ? Presumably the pages were stuck together ?

Anyway, without the need for judges, will peoples taxes go down ?

Yeah, well. In spite of having a law degree from Yale, the VP doesn't
know what he's talking about. Or more colloquially, he has his head up
his you-know-what.

has his head up his ass. Or in other words, --
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/10/2025 11:39 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Just seen a missive from the US vice president that it's not the courts
role to decide whether an executive order is legal or not.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” he wrote on X. “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.”

Just curious as to how judges have got it wrong for all these years ? Presumably the pages were stuck together ?

Anyway, without the need for judges, will peoples taxes go down ?

I don't know the context of Vance's remarks, but we know that
politicians of both parties exaggerate all the time for effect, and I
think this is just an example of that.

Vance surely knows that courts have the power and responsibility to
strike down a law or an executive action if it is unconstitutional, and
he knows courts do this all the time. What I think he is trying to say
is that sometimes or even often times, courts go too far and effectively
become legislators and strike down laws or actions simply because they
don't agree with them. The president has issued numerous executive
actions in recent weeks, and many if not most are now being litigated in
the courts. I think Vance is railing against judges who try to stop
some actions not because they are unconstitutional, but because the
judge simply disagrees with them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 06:48:40 -0800, Rick wrote:

Vance surely knows that courts have the power and responsibility to
strike down a law or an executive action if it is unconstitutional, and
he knows courts do this all the time.

There really is the question now of what would happen were a ruling from
a Federal court be ignored by the executive branch ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 06:48:40 -0800, Rick wrote:

Vance surely knows that courts have the power and responsibility to
strike down a law or an executive action if it is unconstitutional, and
he knows courts do this all the time.

There really is the question now of what would happen were a ruling from
a Federal court be ignored by the executive branch ?

I'm afraid nothing would happen. There is no one to enforce a court order. Enforcement is not normally a criminal matter, but if a court found someone
in criminal contempt, Trump could simply pardon them. Don's you uncle.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/11/2025 12:07 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 06:48:40 -0800, Rick wrote:

Vance surely knows that courts have the power and responsibility to
strike down a law or an executive action if it is unconstitutional, and
he knows courts do this all the time.

There really is the question now of what would happen were a ruling from
a Federal court be ignored by the executive branch ?

I'm afraid nothing would happen. There is no one to enforce a court order. Enforcement is not normally a criminal matter, but if a court found someone in criminal contempt, Trump could simply pardon them. Don's you uncle.

The court could issue fines for non-compliance, which could magnify over
time. They may not mean much to billionaires like Trump and Musk, but
lower level employees hit with fines for non-compliance might be a
different case. They are the ones who ultimately have to perform the
work, and at a certain point may just refuse to carry out the orders.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/11/2025 6:48 AM, Rick wrote:

  I think Vance is railing against judges who try to stop some actions
not because they are unconstitutional, but because the judge simply
disagrees with them.

I think you mean (or should mean) "I think Vance is railing against
judges who try to stop some actions that the judge has found
unconstitutional, but Vance thinks they are wrong.

Otherwise you are substituting your idea of what is constitutional for
that of people who know a lot more about US Common Law and the US
Constitution than you do.

For example: are you a lawyer? If you aren't, then what you are doing is equivalent to me saying I know more about how the universe works than
Neill deGrasse Tyson. (Hint: I dropped out of calTech because I was
failing Second Year Physics)

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/16/2025 7:27 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 2/11/2025 6:48 AM, Rick wrote:

   I think Vance is railing against judges who try to stop some
actions not because they are unconstitutional, but because the judge
simply disagrees with them.

I think you mean (or should mean) "I think Vance is railing against
judges who try to stop some actions that the judge has found unconstitutional, but Vance thinks they are wrong.

Otherwise you are substituting your idea of what is constitutional for
that of people who know a lot more about US Common Law and the US Constitution than you do.

For example: are you a lawyer? If you aren't, then what you are doing is equivalent to me saying I know more about how the universe works than
Neill deGrasse Tyson. (Hint: I dropped out of calTech because I was
failing Second Year Physics)

No, I wasn't trying to assess the constitutionality of the acts Trump
passed nor assess the accuracy or correctness of the judge's rulings. I
am neither a lawyer nor a cosmologist (though somewhat coincidentally I
was an astronomy major at the former Case Institute of Technology -
which in its day was a sort of minor-league version of CalTech - before flunking out in part due to that same second year Physics class being
too much of a heavy lift for me before eventually returning for a
different program) and was really just trying to interpret what Vance
was saying. I think Vance (who I believe is a lawyer, so may know more
than I do) and others are making the case that some judges are going too
far and are legislating from the bench rather than accurately assessing constitutionality. I think Vance and others are saying that the
President through the executive branch does have considerable authority
to make the kinds of decisions and actions Trump is making and that some
judges are actually going too far.

Although I am not a lawyer, I did complete a few law courses, including
one in constitutional law, so I do know a few things about that subject.
I have not studied any of the current cases in detail, but I do think in
one or two cases Vance and Co. might have a point.

Ultimately, of course, this will all likely be settled by the Supreme Court

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)