Has J.D. Vance “Raised the Specter of Open Disregard for Federal Court Rulings”?
Chief Justice Roberts’s 2024 year-end report warned that “elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings.” When I read that claim, I had no idea who the Chief was referring to. I know that critics have talked about jurisdiction stripping, court expansion, term limits, and so on, but open defiance? Who has proposed that?
Ruth Marcus has a theory. She writes that Roberts was taking a swipe at J.D. Vance. She points out several things Vance has said over the years. (I had missed a piece in Politico Magazine that cited several of these sources.) I follow law and politics pretty closely, and I had never heard of any of these statements. Let’s walk through the, one a time.
First, Marcus writes that in September 2021, candidate Vance appeared on the Jack Murphy Live podcast. You can listen to the entire podcast here, or read the transcript here. And here a section (27:13) that Marcus quotes, in part. (She omits the “constitutional crisis level” bit.)
I think that what Trump should do like if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid level bureaucrat, Every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people. And when the courts, because you will get taken to court, and then when the courts stop, you stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, the Chief Justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it, because this is, I think, a constitutional level crisis if we continue to let bureaucrats control the entire country, even when Republicans win elections, then we’ve lost. We’ve just permanently lost. We’ve permanently given up.
Vance returns to that theme a few minutes later in the podcast (32:39):
And I guess to me, the fundamental problem here of the administrative state is that civil servants have no real consequence, and elected officials, specifically, the President, has no real recourse when the civil servants get out of line. Now, the left doesn’t care about this, because the civil servants are all on their team. But we should really care about this, because the civil servants are like 90 to 10 not on our team. And so I think the thing that you can do in the Senate is push the legal boundaries, as far as the Supreme Court will let you take it to basically make it possible for democratically accountable people in the executive, in the legislature to fire mid level, up to high level civil servants, like that, to me, is the meat of the administrative state. Now, that doesn’t mean you’re going to have, like, civil servant turnover, like, every time you have a new president, they’re going to fire everybody, but just the knowledge that they can be fired can actually bring a lot of these administrative bureaucracies to heal that is that is like the fundamental fact of the federal government is that the people who implement the policy are very often totally unaccountable to the the people that we elect to actually do policy like that is crazy. That’s not a real constitutional republic when that happens. But that is, unfortunately where we are these days.
Here, Vance makes clear that he is not calling
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
