The Dictatorship
JD Vance just publicly turned his back on his law degree — and his oath of office
In 1803, when our constitutional democracy was still young, the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. That case forms the basis for judicial review, the court’s power to declare laws unconstitutional. The justices can, and every term do, review and strike down laws, executive actions and administrative actions that violate the Constitution. They are the final arbiter in this regard, and this function serves a vital purpose in our democratic system — one that everyone from a high school student to an Ivy League law school graduate like Vice President JD Vance should understand.
One of the seminal judicial review cases involves the power of the presidency, Youngstown Sheet & Tubing Company v. Sawyer. In April 1952, as the United Steelworkers of America prepared to strike during the Korean War, President Harry Truman issued an executive orderdirecting his secretary of commerce to take over the nation’s steel mills. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that Truman lacked the constitutional authority to take that step, ruling 6-3 that “the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.” There is no doubt that the court has the ability to decide that presidential actions exceed the powers the Constitution grants to a president.
The Founding Fathers purposefully created the judiciary as a check on the executive and legislative branches, in part, to prevent a president from becoming a tyrant.
The Founding Fathers purposefully created the judiciary as a check on the executive and legislative branches, in part, to prevent a president from becoming a tyrant. Parties must follow the courts’ decisions, even though they often do so with some grumbling. In its 1975 decision in Manness v. Meyers, the Supreme Court explained that “all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly. If a person to whom a court directs an order believes that order is incorrect, the remedy is to appeal, but, absent a stay, he must comply promptly with the order pending appeal. Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect.”
When the Supreme Court gutted Section V of the Voting Rights Act, a law passed by Congress, in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, Democrats complied. Republicans didn’t protest, instead taking advantage of the new rule to pass a variety of state-level measures designed to make it more difficult to register and vote. In another example, Trump v. Andersonthe court held individual states misinterpreted the Constitution when they used it to prevent Donald Trump’s name from appearing on their ballots. The list of examples is long.
Federal judges are appointed to office by the president and receive life tenure, an inherently political process. Once they take the bench they are, at least theoretically, no longer beholden to the political party that helped them rise to power. Republican appointeesincluding some appointed by Trump, underscored their independence in the wake of the 2020 presidential election when they ruled repeatedly in favor of free and fair elections.
But not everyone seems to be enthusiastic about that independence. Over the weekend, Vance appeared to challenge judicial reviewwhich the Yale-educated Republican would have learned as a first-year law student is an essential part of our constitutionally based court system. On Sunday morning Vance posted: “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
It’s hard to view that objectively inaccurate statement as anything other than an argument that the laws that apply to everyone else don’t apply to Trump. Trump has already benefited personally from special immunity rules that prevented him from being prosecuted for official presidential acts. Now Vance and other Trump allies seem to be hinting that special rules blocking judicial rule of executive action, which have never applied to other administrations, should be applied to his.
Earlier in the day Vance reposted other comments that were even more troubling. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., posted that it was “outrageous” that federal Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a temporary restraining order blocking members of Elon Musk’s DOGE project and others lacking the proper security clearances from accessing Treasury Department systems. “This outlaw should be reversed immediately and Engelmayer should be forbidden by higher courts from ever hearing another case against the Trump admin,” Cotton raged.
Conservative Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule seemed to concur. “Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the separation of powers,” he claimed. Vance reposted Vermeule, raising further concern that he was advocating for the administration to ignore court orders it disagrees with.
If any party, including the government, doesn’t like a court order, it can appeal it. It doesn’t get to just disregard it.
That is most definitely not how our system works. If any party, including the government, doesn’t like a court order, it can appeal it. It doesn’t get to just disregard it. Vance took an oath to uphold the Constitution, just like Sen. Cotton did. And yet, this weekend they seemed to be advocating for lawlessness. If that’s not the case, now would be a good time for them to clarify their views. If they don’t, they are flirting with blowing up one of the three pillars of democracy.
At least for now cooler heads seem to have prevailed. The Trump administration filed an appeal of Judge Engelmayer’s decision — the right step to take when disagreeing with a lower court’s ruling. But the country is in a dangerous place if every time a judge issues a decision against the Trump administration — as a Rhode Island judge did Monday morning in a case challenging the administration’s ability to impound congressionally allocated spending and a Massachusetts judge did Monday afternoon in the case challenging the administration’s new rules around National Institutes of Health grant payments — the judiciary and our democracy are threatened all over again.
On Monday, Musk commented “Absolutely” in response to a post that began “JUDICIAL OVERREACH IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.” The true threat to democracy are efforts to undercut the legitimacy of the courts by misrepresenting the importance of judicial review.
In the words of Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., “We don’t have to be lawyers to know that ignoring court decisions we don’t like puts us on a dangerous path to lawlessness.”
And Republicans, just like Democrats, take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to pander to the president. The political consequences of these misplaced legal arguments have to be taken seriously. But the legal arguments underpinning them are deeply unserious. And leaders like Vance should be ashamed to even be seen engaging with them.
Joyce White Vance is an BLN columnist and NBC News and BLN legal analyst. She is a law professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and a former U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Alabama.
The Dictatorship
Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.
In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.
Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.
In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”
A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.
Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.
Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.
In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.
It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.
On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring
About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.
All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.
The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.
The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.
The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
The Times summarized the broader context nicely:
Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.
Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.
In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.
The article added:
Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.
Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.
This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.
* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”
* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.
* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.
* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.
* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.
* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?






