It's like these people (edit- republican voters) have never read a book in their lives.
By about age 12 I had a reasonable grasp of our nation's checks and balances, a cornerstone of our democracy.
At a minimum you'd think a rabid conservative fanbase that claims to love the constitution would be aware of this, and possibly expect the politicians they voted for to uphold such core principles.
That would require Republicans and US Conservatives to have actual ethics and principles beyond making sure they create the most unwelcoming world possible for anyone not white, straight, male, cis, and Christian.
It’s like these people have never read a book in their lives.
JD Vance has a law degree from Yale.
"Let’s dispel with this fiction that
Barack ObamaJD Vance doesn’t know what he’s doing,”the Florida senatorI said. “He knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s trying to change this country.”Thanks for letting me crib you, Marco Rubio, you fucking buffon, because yeah. JD Vance literally has a degree in this field so he knows unequivocally what the truth actually is. He knows exactly what he's doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JD_Vance#Early_life,_military_service,_and_education
Vance then attended Yale Law School, where he was a member of The Yale Law Journal
as Vance was about to graduate from Yale with a Juris Doctor degree.
Just like the Bible, they love the idea of the Constitution, but they haven't actually read it.
They have someone else interpret it for them, so they don't have to think.
At a minimum you’d think a rabid conservative fanbase that claims to love the constitution would be aware of this
Conservatives who say they love the Constitution are a bit like Prosperity Gospel preachers who say they love the Bible.
They don't see this statement as an expression of ideology. They see it as a psychological hack to disarm their audience.
That would require Republicans and US Conservatives to have actual ethics and principles
The idea of a politician with principles used to be the punchline to a sitcom comedy routine or the climax of a utopian drama.
It's dizzying to see people blindly trust what has always been a pool of con artists and hustlers, both along conservatives (who doge-edly insist Trump is the Real Deal) and liberals (who keep screaming "hypocrite!" at a party that flaunts its hypocrisy)
The idea of a politician with principles used to be the punchline to a sitcom comedy routine or the climax of a utopian drama.
I'm talking primarily about the voters, which it's becoming increasingly clear I need to specify.
Oh, they know exactly what they're doing. They are attempting (and apparently succeeding) to bulldoze their way through an administrative coup.
So a small government means a king?
Correct. Conservativism comes from a means of fanboying for the monarchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Can't get smaller than one man.
I think instead of having fewer representatives in government, we should make government smaller by having physically smaller representatives. Like children, or gnomes.
The courts need to start deputizing large numbers of bailiffs to enforce their orders. Forget relying on funding from Congress for it; I'm sure they'll have plenty of volunteers. Musk and his goons refuse to comply with court orders? Haul them into court at the point of a bayonet. I'm sure you'll have no shortage of patriotic Americans also willing to donate weapons to arm these new bailiffs.
The courts need to seriously build out their capacity to enforce orders independent of the executive branch. They need muscle.
Today, the primary responsibilities of U.S. Marshals include protecting federal judges and witnesses, transporting federal prisoners, apprehending federal fugitives, and managing assets seized from criminal enterprises.
Oh, sweet.
The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints U.S. Marshals for a 4-year term.
Oh. Oh no.
Exactly. That's why my point is that there may be other mechanisms for courts to deputize or recruit people to serve as enforcers for the court.
Whoa now, that's a bit reactionary.
The reason for the shit show is that it's all based on good faith. And if a power hungry dictator tries to control the executive....well, the legislative is supposed to keep him in check.
It's also based on the presumption that the people wouldn't willingly elect, let alone re-elect, a blatantly corrupt president and Congress that enables them...or at least have few enough bad ones to be able to break party lines and put a stop to it.
Ideally, enough Republicans on Congress would have enough of a spine to actually put country before party and stop this shit. Start impeaching judges and presidents. Don't let anything else get done.
Nope. They all sold out on their party. Fucking despicable. Not even worth spitting on.
I can't wait till someone spills the beans on whatever kompromat or bribes or imperius curse has got such a tight grip on the party.
I came to a bit of a realization some time ago. Every time you think of some possible new government function, or legislation, or resolution to an issue, you cynically think of every way it could be abused, right? You’re confident that greedy, self-aggrandizing politicians or businessmen will use it to further their own power and wealth. The concept that someone will act in good faith is absent. It’s infantile, it’s naive. The world is cruel.
I think this represents a fundamental breakdown of the trust in our government. The US has been coasting on good faith for almost 300 years, and the wheels are falling off. It’s a vicious cycle, where if you don’t trust that other people will do the right thing, you’re less likely to do the right thing yourself. I don’t know if this cycle can be ended, or even if it has an end.
The Legislative and Judiciary can only keep the Executive in check, if the people with guns in the Executive are willing to listen to them, rather than the superiors giving them orders.
You have "Legislatives" in dictatorships too. but when they refuse to obey the military any longer, they either get disappeared, get a sham process over something they allegedly did, or at best you get a civil war.
Or how Cersay Lannister said in Game of Thrones: "Power is Power". When push comes to shove, the question is who do the people with guns listen to. Everything around it is just fluff. Unless large parts of the Military and Police defect and take care of their superior and then hand power back to the normal institutions, or there is a peoples uprising and subsequent civil war, the power will not go back.
Yeah that pesky balance of powers thing is such a nuisance and all.
It is very annoying how it keeps appearing every time Democrats are in charge and they suddenly will not get anything done.
Wait. Isn't there military side of court that does literary this? And what's more, it has access to heavier penalties because military can be more heinous?
Non judicial punishments and courts martials make up the american military legal system.
NJPs are basically your commanding officer saying "you did this wrong, you're grounded. Half pay and stay in your room for a month"
Courts martials are an actual legal proceeding with a military judge who says "you did this wrong, straight to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200"
All this to say, yes. In fact, there are jobs in the military that can be legally punished with execution if they aren't performed diligently even during peace times.
did you drop a “them”?
Sadly, no. That's the quote.
Wait, different circumstances have different laws? Tell me more!
Would a traffic warden tell a surgeon how to operate? Would a traffic warden tell a footballer how to kick? The how come a traffic warden can tell me where I can park my car?
Vance, being a lawyer, knows which words have meaning.
That's why he wrote 'tell' 'command' and 'control' instead of 'rules' 'orders' or 'directs'.
What a woke perspective.
The fucker even got a law degree
He's sowing disinformation (lies) so his dumbass followers have something to argue for, and to create distractions for the real crimes.
Playing dumb and saying dumb shit is the new fascism!
Which is why he's deliberately choosing ambiguous and non-binding language in this tweet. If questioned later (I presume at the Hague) he can then say "well, I said 'command' not 'rule' so I wasn't speaking about actual legal rulings, just you know, like when a judge tells someone to do something, not a ruling in a courtroom...."
Fucker knows how seditious this is so he's riding the line.
No checks and balances when JD was learning social studies. We need to have a word with his teachers. The other acceptable answer is "fuck you, you're not made of teflon and we know what you're doing."
European here. I've seen this quote everywhere, what does it mean?
JD is drawing false equivalence, to lead to the conclusion that law doesn't matter.
Does a judge plan a military operation? No. But they can establish if it is legal.
That's their whole job, to establish if actions violate the law. If they violate the law, they can order them to stop.
Judges don't write the law. You don't like the judge's ruling? Change the law. Judges don't write the laws, they just interpret the ones that exist.
JD is arguing that judges (and by extension, the law, and by extension the fundamental concept of the rule of law) don't apply to him and Trump. It's literally an argument for monarchy.
JD Vance and Trump are doing a power grab to ignore checks and balances that are very basic elementary school level things that their supporters are going to suddenly pretend aren't a thing
This is the vice president overlooking the 'check and balance' for the executive branch of government defined in the Constitution.
They never really constitutionalised their Supreme Court, which happens to be the cornerstone of their judicative. Now the executive is grabbing power over the judicative, which would essentially deactivate rule of law and separation of powers, basics of democracy.
Oh f*ck indeed! 🫣
If you were to try to drive someone else's car, that would be illegal
If you were to try to command a bank teller to give you money, that's also illegal
Vice Presidents aren't allowed to fuck couches.IF A JUDGE TRIED TO TELL A BOOZE CRUISER HE CAN'T DRINK AND DRIVE, THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.
Not well. I say you nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
He's not wrong. A judge can rule if there's a trial and that judge will always have to apply the law.
