No, there is no Constitutional Crisis, Harvard Law opinion

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

In fact…



“Although I don’t think there is any constitutional crisis arising from the administration’s entirely ordinary legal arguments about executive discretion, it’s increasingly clear that there is an intra-judicial crisis arising because district judges have exercised discretion without prudence or restraint, and have consequently exceeded the boundaries set for them by law and tradition vis-à-vis the executive branch. Higher courts will have to step in, firmly, and sooner rather than later.”

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

TL: DR

Activist judges are overstepping their authority.

 

[Colonoscopy]

There won't be unless the Trump WH openly defies the courts and chooses not to comply with orders. Hasn't happened so far.

We've had decades of politicians on both sides bitching about "activist judges" at this point. This is old news. There are legal remedies.

That said, the rhetoric coming from Musk, Miller and Vance concerning federal judges (that they feel are doing them wrong) has been fairly terrible. They're openly undermining and misrepresenting the role the court actually plays in checking the executive in order to foment anger and conspiracy amongst their base.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

There won't be unless the Trump WH openly defies the courts and chooses not to comply with orders. Hasn't happened so far.

We've had decades of politicians on both sides bitching about "activist judges" at this point. This is old news. There are legal remedies.

That said, the rhetoric coming from Musk, Miller and Vance concerning federal judges (that they feel are doing them wrong) has been fairly terrible. They're openly undermining and misrepresenting the role the court actually plays in checking the executive in order to foment anger and conspiracy amongst their base.

it’s increasingly clear that there is an intra-judicial crisis arising because district judges have exercised discretion without prudence or restraint, and have consequently exceeded the boundaries set for them by law and tradition vis-à-vis the executive branch.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

There won't be unless the Trump WH openly defies the courts and chooses not to comply with orders. Hasn't happened so far.

We've had decades of politicians on both sides bitching about "activist judges" at this point. This is old news. There are legal remedies.

That said, the rhetoric coming from Musk, Miller and Vance concerning federal judges (that they feel are doing them wrong) has been fairly terrible. They're openly undermining and misrepresenting the role the court actually plays in checking the executive in order to foment anger and conspiracy amongst their base.

Hey look he even mentioned you!

“Others, apparently making the same assumption, thought it important to insist that the executive is in some way or to some degree bound by judicial judgments.”

 

[DirtyJohns97]

It's so weird to me that you were a Democrat less than 2 years ago, and now you are raging on all things Trump. And that's fine, I guess, but credibility is a concern.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

“Courts themselves often invoke the separation of powers to limit their own authority, to put certain classes of executive action off limits from judicial review, or to shape and constrain the remedies they themselves provide. This has been true for as long as we have had courts and judicial review.“

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

It's so weird to me that you were a Democrat less than 2 years ago, and now you are raging on all things Trump. And that's fine, I guess, but credibility is a concern.

yeah yeah Harvard Law, big MAGA county boyz!

 

[DirtyJohns97]

yeah yeah Harvard Law, big MAGA county boyz!

So...all in then

 

[BelemNole]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/american-bar-association-says-rule-law-is-under-attack-2025-02-11/

 

[Colonoscopy]

Hey look he even mentioned you!

“Others, apparently making the same assumption, thought it important to insist that the executive is in some way or to some degree bound by judicial judgments.”

You left out the context the statement occurred within. He wasn't disagreeing with that statement. (he was talking about the responses to Vance's comments, which he went on to explain in more detail)

Not sure why I bother interacting with you.

 

[Gus is dead]

There won't be unless the Trump WH openly defies the courts and chooses not to comply with orders. Hasn't happened so far.

We've had decades of politicians on both sides bitching about "activist judges" at this point. This is old news. There are legal remedies.

That said, the rhetoric coming from Musk, Miller and Vance concerning federal judges (that they feel are doing them wrong) has been fairly terrible. They're openly undermining and misrepresenting the role the court actually plays in checking the executive in order to foment anger and conspiracy amongst their base.

You don't think calling to expand SCOTUS (packing the court) and setting up a commission to look at just that undermines the court’s validity?

But otherwise a fair post.

 

[Colonoscopy]

You don't think calling to expand SCOTUS (packing the court) and setting up a commission to look at just that undermines the court’s validity?

But otherwise a fair post.

I thought the idea of expanding the court was a terrible idea that would obviously end up in a tit for tat scenario. Thankfully it didn't reach the point of serious consideration.