(Poll) JD Vance: judges cannot "tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for"

[rahl]

What am I saying that's not a fact? Do or do you not you think that CA should obey the ruling of a Texas federal judge that laws banning 11-round magazines or assault weapons are unconstitutional?

Already been over this. That is a state law the judge ruled on. A federal law the judge rules on apply federally (nationally)

 

[jaypatriot]

The American people voted for scrapping the Constitution and the rule of law. Is that what they voted for?

What does "scrapping the Constitution" really mean?
Is that like the Dems in 2024 saying that Trump will destroy democracy as we know it?

I believe there are enough guard rails there to keep Trump from violating the Constitution.

Obviously you don't believe that.

 

[rahl]

What does "scrapping the Constitution" really mean?

What Trump keeps doing

Is that like the Dems in 2024 saying that Trump will destroy democracy as we know it?

No

I believe there are enough guard rails there to keep Trump from violating the Constitution.

Yes, the courts. It’s why he keeps having his ass handed to him in court.

Obviously you don't believe that.

How many times does Trump need to violate the constitution, get slapped down by the judiciary, does it take for you to stop supporting such an anti American piece of shit?

 

[Atomic Kid]

What am I saying that's not a fact? Do or do you not you think that CA should obey the ruling of a Texas federal judge that laws banning 11-round magazines or assault weapons are unconstitutional?

Any such order would be deemed unconstitutional in itself.

 

[rahl]

Any such order would be deemed unconstitutional in itself.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

[Grogu]

Do you really believe there should be 1770 federal judges having the power to prevent the president from exercising presidential power in this country?

======================================
The United States federal courts are the system of courts organized under the United States Constitution and federal law. The federal courts decide disputes involving the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.

Altogether, there are nearly 1,770 judgeships authorized across the 209 courts in the federal court system. About half of the judges sitting on federal courts are appointed by the president of the United States for life terms. The remaining judges are selected by judges sitting on circuit or district courts for terms of defined lengths.

United States federal courts

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

When the president exercises his presidential power in this country, do you not believe that his actions have to stay within the law? Do you think his interests hold the power to violate the law or to step over the rights of citizens as granted by the Constitution? Federal judges are the check to make sure the executive’s actions and declarations are not superior to the citizens by violating the current laws.

It’s amazing that when federal judges in the past have found for the right wing causes, people had no problem with it. Not a word or a peep about it. After all, it was the law being upheld. But when federal judges rule against Trump and his administration for operating unconstitutionally, or against the law, or using human rights as a doormat, all hell breaks loose on the right these days. Judges are crooked, judges need to be removed, judges are Democrats, judges need to be limited on their scope and power, etc.

Follow the laws of the land, quit trying to find angles or make phony interpretations, and guess what? This made-up federal judge “issue” doesn’t exist.

 

[jaypatriot]

When the president exercises his presidential power in this country, do you not believe that his actions have to stay within the law? Do you think his interests hold the power to violate the law or to step over the rights of citizens as granted by the Constitution? Federal judges are the check to make sure the executive’s actions and declarations are not superior to the citizens by violating the current laws.

It’s amazing that when federal judges in the past have found for the right wing causes, people had no problem with it. Not a word or a peep about it. After all, it was the law being upheld. But when federal judges rule against Trump and his administration for operating unconstitutionally, or against the law, or using human rights as a doormat, all hell breaks loose on the right these days. Judges are crooked, judges need to be removed, judges are Democrats, judges need to be limited on their scope and power, etc.

Follow the laws of the land, quit trying to find angles or make phony interpretations, and guess what? This made-up federal judge “issue” doesn’t exist.

It is federal law that is keeping Trump from becoming a total dictator.

 

[jaypatriot]

What Trump keeps doing

No

Yes, the courts. It’s why he keeps having his ass handed to him in court.

How many times does Trump need to violate the constitution, get slapped down by the judiciary, does it take for you to stop supporting such an anti American piece of shit?

Do you want a specific number or are you asking a rhetorical question?

 

[rahl]

Do you want a specific number or are you asking a rhetorical question?

Is there a specific number of unconstitutional actions he will get overturned on that would make you denounce him for the anti American piece of shit he is?

 

[George50]

Simple yes/no basic civics question.

A basic premise of the Constitution is that there are some things the government cannot do even with the support of a majority of voters. The VP swore an oath to uphold the constitutional rights of all people, which are superior to any legislation or executive action. Judges have final authority to interpret the Constitution. It is disturbing he does not understand this.

Don't forget that contrary to what JD Vance wants people to think, Trump did not even get a majority of the votes cast.

 

[Atomic Kid]

What does "scrapping the Constitution" really mean?

It's not 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 the judicial branch and the Constitution. If the Trump Administration wants deference from the courts on its policies, it should at least act like it cares about what the Constitution says. The courts aren't blocking the Trump Administration from enforcing immigration law and deporting illegal immigrants. They're simply saying they have to follow the law and the Constitution when doing so.

Is that like the Dems in 2024 saying that Trump will destroy democracy as we know it?

No, because they don't appear to be that much wrong. The Trump Administration is breaking the law and denying people and other entities their constitutional rights on a near-daily basis.

I believe there are enough guard rails there to keep Trump from violating the Constitution.

Obviously you don't believe that.

You're right, I don't. Unlike Trump's first term, there is practically no one in his cabinet or administration now to keep him within the guardrails. They are all either lackeys or sycophants, and some are both. The only qualifications they needed to attain their positions were complete loyalty and subservience to Trump. Not relative experience, professional, or educational qualifications. And the GOP members of Congress, particularly the House, and many in the Senate lack the courage and backbone to stand up to Trump's abuse of power and by doing so preserve their powers. The judicial branch is the last line of defense against the executive usurping the powers and authority of the other coequal branches of the federal government. Or so it seems at this point anyway.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

The Supreme Court has established that the 2nd Amendment applies not only to the federal government, but also to state and local governments. Although historically, this right was initially understood to be a restriction on the federal government and not the states. But the Court also recognized that this right is not absolute and is subject to restriction. States have historically regulated firearms and continue to do so to this day. This regulation can take on many forms. For example, certain types of guns, equipment, accessories, licensing requirements, waiting periods, background checks, etc. State legislatures are empowered to enact regulations that they deem necessary, while still respecting the constitutional rights of individuals. And as long as they do so, they are deemed constitutional. So, a Texas state gun regulation, or de-regulation cannot be unilaterally imposed on other states.

 

[jaypatriot]

It's not 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 the judicial branch and the Constitution. If the Trump Administration wants deference from the courts on its policies, it should at least act like it cares about what the Constitution says. The courts aren't blocking the Trump Administration from enforcing immigration law and deporting illegal immigrants. They're simply saying they have to follow the law and the Constitution when doing so.

No, because they don't appear to be that much wrong. The Trump Administration is breaking the law and denying people and other entities their constitutional rights on a near-daily basis.

You're right, I don't. Unlike Trump's first term, there is practically no one in his cabinet or administration now to keep him within the guardrails. They are all either lackeys or sycophants, and some are both. The only qualifications they needed to attain their positions were complete loyalty and subservience to Trump. Not relative experience, professional, or educational qualifications. And the GOP members of Congress, particularly the House, and many in the Senate lack the courage and backbone to stand up to Trump's abuse of power and by doing so preserve their powers. The judicial branch is the last line of defense against the executive usurping the powers and authority of the other coequal branches of the federal government. Or so it seems at this point anyway.

I believed you looked at the situation dispassionately and coolly. Trump will continue to push the envelope in his quest for more political power. He knew the push back he would face going in. Now it's a question of how much smarter his lawyers are compared to the federal judges who want to thwart his attempts to usurp more political power.

 

[Ganondagan]

The real issue is with you moving the goalposts.

Trump is politicizing the system by using it to go after his enemies.

Now that's chutzpah!

 

[rahl]

The Supreme Court has established that the 2nd Amendment applies not only to the federal government, but also to state and local governments. Although historically, this right was initially understood to be a restriction on the federal government and not the states. But the Court also recognized that this right is not absolute and is subject to restriction. States have historically regulated firearms and continue to do so to this day. This regulation can take on many forms.

Ok I’m with you so far.

For example, certain types of guns,

This has been ruled unconstitutional. Any firearm in common use is protected by the 2nd amendment. States can ban types of firearms.

equipment, accessories,

Sort of. States can’t ban bump stocks, fore grips, etc.

licensing requirements,

Sort of. Only for concealed carry in public.

waiting periods, background checks, etc. State legislatures are empowered to enact regulations that they deem necessary, while still respecting the constitutional rights of individuals.

Correct. Often times, those states run afoul of the constitution and the courts just strike them down.

And as long as they do so, they are deemed constitutional. So, a Texas state gun regulation, or de-regulation cannot be unilaterally imposed on other states.

Correct.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Regarding the MAGA politicians that have bowed down to Trump, I wonder what it's like to wake up every morning and know that you've sold your soul.

How do you even look at your wife and kids?

 

[Risky Thicket]

Vance is a bought for, paid and groomed mouth piece designed to serve a very specific purpose.

Not even his name is genuine

As Trump's cognitive Waterloo rapidly approaches there is zero comfort knowing that Vance eagerly awaits his moment to step up.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Regarding the MAGA politicians that have bowed down to Trump, I wonder what it's like to wake up every morning and know that you've sold your soul.

How do you even look at your wife and kids?

You are assuming that the women MAGA politicians wake up next to are their wives.

 

[CaughtInThe]

You are assuming that the women MAGA politicians wake up next to are their wives.

Well, I was just playing the odds.

 

[cpwill]

I believe there are enough guard rails there to keep Trump from violating the Constitution.

Yeah. For example, the Judiciary.

Except that you (in this poll here) voted against them doing so.

 

[jaypatriot]

Yeah. For example, the Judiciary.

Except that you (in this poll here) voted against them doing so.

I do not believe every one of those 2000 or so federal judges have the authority to override every decision Trump makes.
There is legislation in the works to prevent that from happening in the future.

 

[Peter]

I do not believe every one of those 2000 or so federal judges have the authority to override every decision Trump makes.
There is legislation in the works to prevent that from happening in the future.

Oh, so you don't want checks and balances against Presidential power?
The Dems should remember that when they get back in power and just completely ignore any and all laws.

Ban guns.
Massive tax rises on the rich
Declare the Republicans a terrorist organisation.

Lets go nuts.

 

[cpwill]

I do not believe every one of those 2000 or so federal judges have the authority to override every decision Trump makes.

Then you don't believe in guardrails to keep Trump from violating the Constitution You want an unimpeded President, presumably because it's Your Guy, and like most partisans, you aren't willing or able to think more than 30 seconds ahead to when it won't be Your Guy.

Or - perhaps I am misjudging you, and you are simply a Progressive, rather than a partisan - can you point out the instances during Democrat Presidencies where you complained about Biden's policies being found to be violations of the Constitutions by Judges, and declared that it was wrong for Federal Judges to be guardrails against attempts by Obama or Biden to violate the Constitution?

There is legislation in the works to prevent that from happening in the future.

Cool, but you'll have to change the Constitution to subordinate Article III Powers to Article II preferences.

 

[Ethel2]

The Executive branch has the sole power of enforcement

The judicial branch has the sole power of determining if a law or an action is permissible according to the constitution.

 

[jaypatriot]

Then you don't believe in guardrails to keep Trump from violating the Constitution You want an unimpeded President, presumably because it's Your Guy, and like most partisans, you aren't willing or able to think more than 30 seconds ahead to when it won't be Your Guy.

Or - perhaps I am misjudging you, and you are simply a Progressive, rather than a partisan - can you point out the instances during Democrat Presidencies where you complained about Biden's policies being found to be violations of the Constitutions by Judges, and declared that it was wrong for Federal Judges to be guardrails against attempts by Obama or Biden to violate the Constitution?




Cool, but you'll have to change the Constitution to subordinate Article III Powers to Article II preferences.

I want Federal judges to act as guard rails so that the president acts within the Constitution.

If a federal judge decides in a partisan fashion to thwart Trump with his Administration's agenda, then who gets to decide if that judge is a guard rail or a partisan activist/obstacle?

"Partisan activists from the bench": White House attacks federal judges, promises more deportations​

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said judges were "undermining the will of the American public"​

By Nights & Weekends Editor

Published March 19, 2025 5:48PM (EDT)​

"The judges in this country are acting erroneously. We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench," Leavitt said, referring to the judiciary's constitutionally granted check on executive power. "They are trying to clearly slow-walk this administration’s agenda, and it’s unacceptable."

"Partisan activists from the bench": White House attacks federal judges, promises more deportations

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said judges were "undermining the will of the American public"

www.salon.com