Vice-President J. D. Vance recently shared his thoughts on the federal courts and Chief Justice John Roberts with the New York Times’ Ross Douthat. Vance believes that the courts should be more deferential to Presidential authority and that the Supreme Court needs to keep lower-court judges in line. He expressed concern over the Trump Administration’s series of court losses in immigration-related cases, suggesting that some federal judges are attempting to overturn the will of the American people. Vance emphasized the importance of the courts respecting the outcomes of elections and allowing the implementation of policies chosen by the electorate.
However, this perspective overlooks the fundamental role of the judiciary, which is to balance the powers of the three branches of government and safeguard individual rights. Chief Justice Roberts has highlighted the Court’s duty to check excesses not only of the executive but also of Congress. The courts have been diligently upholding their constitutional mandate, despite criticism from some quarters. Vance’s critique of judicial actions as undemocratic fails to acknowledge the judiciary’s vital function in upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens from governmental overreach. While it is essential for the courts to maintain a connection with public sentiment, their primary responsibility is to interpret and uphold the law impartially, even when their decisions are unpopular.
The clash between the Trump Administration and the judiciary has raised concerns about the government’s compliance with court orders and respect for due process. Instances of individuals being detained, deported, or denied basic legal protections underscore the importance of the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional rights. Vance’s arguments about judges thwarting the will of the electorate overlook the broader public sentiment regarding immigration policies and the administration’s handling of deportation cases. Polls indicate growing unease with the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement and a majority of respondents supporting judicial oversight of executive actions. The public’s perception of the administration’s confrontational stance towards the courts suggests a need for a more balanced and respectful approach to the rule of law.
