Quinta Jurecic

There are some—there's some sneakiness in how he's worded that particular tweet.

There are some—there's some sneakiness in how he's worded that particular tweet.

Yeah, absolutely. So when he says— Let me read you the full tweet because I think the examples he uses are actually important. So he says, he ends by saying that judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. The two examples that he leads in with are, if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

Yeah, absolutely. So when he says— Let me read you the full tweet because I think the examples he uses are actually important. So he says, he ends by saying that judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. The two examples that he leads in with are, if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. So what Vance says is, judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. And... Framing it that way, I think... leaves open the question of what is legitimate power and who determines what is legitimate power, right?

If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. So what Vance says is, judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. And... Framing it that way, I think... leaves open the question of what is legitimate power and who determines what is legitimate power, right?

He's not quite saying this, but I think the implication is, well, is it the court that determines whether something is a legitimate use of executive power? Or is it the executive who determines whether something is a legitimate use of executive power? Typically, we would say that is actually the job of the court. That is the whole point of having judicial review.

He's not quite saying this, but I think the implication is, well, is it the court that determines whether something is a legitimate use of executive power? Or is it the executive who determines whether something is a legitimate use of executive power? Typically, we would say that is actually the job of the court. That is the whole point of having judicial review.

Now, it's a little bit more complicated that, but at the high level, that's the whole check that the judicial branch provides. Vance, I think, is not quite saying but hinting Well, maybe if I, the executive branch, decide that a court has intruded on my legitimate power, the constitutionally appropriate thing for me to do would just be to ignore the court.

Now, it's a little bit more complicated that, but at the high level, that's the whole check that the judicial branch provides. Vance, I think, is not quite saying but hinting Well, maybe if I, the executive branch, decide that a court has intruded on my legitimate power, the constitutionally appropriate thing for me to do would just be to ignore the court.

And that, I think, is what pretty much everybody would recognize as a constitutional crisis.

And that, I think, is what pretty much everybody would recognize as a constitutional crisis.

That seems to me to be right. I mean, I think there is a big question of whether or not it will backfire in the sense that the justices will not take particularly kindly to being threatened, and threatened not only by the vice president, but by someone who is very much within the same kind of elite legal circles that the justices themselves frequent, right?

That seems to me to be right. I mean, I think there is a big question of whether or not it will backfire in the sense that the justices will not take particularly kindly to being threatened, and threatened not only by the vice president, but by someone who is very much within the same kind of elite legal circles that the justices themselves frequent, right?

Vance very famously went to Yale Law School. He's kind of within that milieu. And so I think there's also a kind of like intra-legal elite struggle going on here. It certainly seems to me as if he is trying to fire a warning shot. What is less clear is how urgent this threat is.

Vance very famously went to Yale Law School. He's kind of within that milieu. And so I think there's also a kind of like intra-legal elite struggle going on here. It certainly seems to me as if he is trying to fire a warning shot. What is less clear is how urgent this threat is.

And what I mean by that is that I think this is sort of something that you put on the table and it's quite hard to take back. It will be hanging over the court. The question in my mind is how they decide to play it. You know, because you could say, on the one hand, they could respond by essentially saying, how dare you? We're going to do what we're going to do, and you can't stop us.

And what I mean by that is that I think this is sort of something that you put on the table and it's quite hard to take back. It will be hanging over the court. The question in my mind is how they decide to play it. You know, because you could say, on the one hand, they could respond by essentially saying, how dare you? We're going to do what we're going to do, and you can't stop us.

You know, kind of pushing back. On the other hand, you know, as everyone learns, the court does not have its own enforcement apparatus. It's dependent on the executive kind of agreeing to follow what it says. And that is really the basis of the sort of agreement that binds together the constitutional structure. And so...

You know, kind of pushing back. On the other hand, you know, as everyone learns, the court does not have its own enforcement apparatus. It's dependent on the executive kind of agreeing to follow what it says. And that is really the basis of the sort of agreement that binds together the constitutional structure. And so...