JD Vance sabotages self with attack on
Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal,
by
Kimberly Stassel
Original Article
Posted By: 4250Luis,
5/31/2025 7:54:53 PM
If the British coined the term “too clever by half,” Vice President JD Vance might own the political update of “too smart by 99%.”
And Donald Trump might wonder at what point he asks his veep: please stop helping — at least when it comes to Trump’s greatest legacy and biggest asset, the Supreme Court.
Vance recently offered his own take on the “role” of that body, in particular Chief Justice John Roberts’ “profoundly wrong sentiment” that the judiciary exists to “check the excesses of the executive.”
The vice president finger-wagged that this was “one-half” of the job; the “other half” was to stop a “small but substantial number”
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
AntiStatist 5/31/2025 8:13:01 PM (No. 1958096)
Usually, I agree with Strassel’s takes.
Not here, not at all.
72 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
downnout 5/31/2025 8:22:20 PM (No. 1958097)
I noticed at the bottom of the article this was written for the Wall Street Journal. It figures…
59 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
MindMadeUp 5/31/2025 8:22:29 PM (No. 1958098)
The NYP sabotages itself with attack on Vice President Vance.
61 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 5/31/2025 8:26:23 PM (No. 1958099)
Article implicitly assumes that Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.
35 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Catherine 5/31/2025 8:30:54 PM (No. 1958100)
This must mean Vance is doing an excellent job. Most realize he will likely run for president after Trump. Probably win big, too.
88 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Citoyen 5/31/2025 8:34:05 PM (No. 1958103)
While I agree with the author that Vance was if he did in fact say that the court(s) should not ever hamper the Executive Branch, rash in hectoring the Chief Justice. Stassel also noted that the one of the jobs of the Supreme Court is to check the inferior courts. A bunch of inferior court judges have taken it upon themselves to operate as though they run the Executive Branch. The Supreme Court is woefully negligent in reigning in those judges who have usurped almost every function of the Executive. Vance is right about that.
65 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
john56 5/31/2025 8:37:47 PM (No. 1958105)
It would be great if Pres Trump had three more opportunities to make USSC appointments.
1. One of the liberal justices (ill health)
2. Chief Justice Roberts
3. Justice Thomas, with great thanks and gratitude from this nation (he is getting up in years and it would be better for a Republican to name his successor).
27 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Strike3 5/31/2025 8:44:43 PM (No. 1958109)
The Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds and has disappointed the American people a number of times with decisions that were not in our best interests or in the interests of right and wrong. I'm with JD on this one. They need to revisit their purpose. Dunces like KBJ and the Wide Latina are not as smart as advertised.
74 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
66Strat 5/31/2025 8:55:15 PM (No. 1958114)
If the Murdochs don't like JD that's a great endorsement for 2028.
66 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
earlybird 5/31/2025 9:52:33 PM (No. 1958130)
JD is a lawyer, Yale Law School. Stassel has been a writer for the WSJ since she graduated from college.
45 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
voxpopuli 5/31/2025 10:37:12 PM (No. 1958134)
i stopped reading the Wally about thirty years ago
when it became left wing oriented..
i like Investors Business Daily for Market news
and Lucianne.com for other...
22 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Dukester 5/31/2025 10:39:41 PM (No. 1958135)
Today I cancelled my WSJ subscription. I liked a lot of the info they provided, but the news pages were filled with articles trying to make Trump's decisions look bad, and the editorial pages reflected a milder form of TDS. The latter contained supersious opinions on the order of we know best, which usally meant please promote immediate business interests at the expense of the nation's broader aims. The tariffs are a good case in point.
30 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Safari Man 5/31/2025 11:19:28 PM (No. 1958139)
I wonder who’s cocktail party she’s trying to get invited to
13 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
JHHolliday 5/31/2025 11:25:57 PM (No. 1958141)
I see nothing wrong with what JD said. He was right. I once subscribed to the WST until I sensed they started leaning somewhat left. If I wanted that, I would have subscribed to one of the lefty business rags. They can criticize JD all they want. I suspect if all goes well during Trump's term we are looking at #48. Marine (a Marine will tell you that there is no such thing as an ex-Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine), Yale Law School grad, Now Vice President of the United States and a man who pulled himself out of a terrible childhood.
31 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
stablemoney 6/1/2025 12:20:16 AM (No. 1958146)
I listened to Vance's remarks, and found them to be true, and very reasonable. Stassel must have gotten frostbite up there in Alaska.
24 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
franco 6/1/2025 2:05:42 AM (No. 1958153)
Whether you like Strassel or not, never forget that anything appearing in the WSJ must get past its globalist, open-borders, crony-capitalist editor in chief, who is doing the bidding of his fellow travelers and trying to knee-cap JD Vance well before 2028.
24 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
jayjeti 6/1/2025 2:13:42 AM (No. 1958154)
that's an article about nothing. Justice Roberts is a problem and it's okay for politicians to note issues with judges.
20 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Red Ghost 6/1/2025 4:05:25 AM (No. 1958157)
I remember, not so long ago, 2010, a so-called president of the united states who called out the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address as the justices sat in front of him. If Sotero had no problem calling them out to their faces, then JD was pretty moderated in his statement.
I don't recall if the WSJ had a problem with Sotero's insulting behavior.
27 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
ARKfamily 6/1/2025 5:32:54 AM (No. 1958162)
Agree with some posters here, it would seem this author is trying to marginalize JD Vance. . .
15 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
govlawyer 6/1/2025 7:09:35 AM (No. 1958185)
Stop apologizing for her....this wasn't an audition column for a permanent WSJ gig.
9 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Strike3 6/1/2025 8:04:54 AM (No. 1958202)
Nobody ever had a problem with Obama's insulting behavior. His fans lapped up every word that came from those purple lips and they loved him more for it. Not so much now.
13 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
crashnburn 6/1/2025 8:10:07 AM (No. 1958204)
#6. I couldn't have said this better: " Stassel also noted that the one of the jobs of the Supreme Court is to check the inferior courts. A bunch of inferior court judges have taken it upon themselves to operate as though they run the Executive Branch. The Supreme Court is woefully negligent in reigning in those judges who have usurped almost every function of the Executive. Vance is right about that"
And VP Vance is well within his rights to hector the not so Supreme Court. I wonder if Strassel has ever heard of the First Amendment.
16 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
jkb 6/1/2025 8:38:48 AM (No. 1958223)
Desperation sets in at the WSJ. They're trying to put a wedge between Trump & Vance as others are trying to do between Trump & Musk. Division won't work. SCOTUS isn't Trumps biggest legacy. IMO, closing the border and revealing the deep state are.
14 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
bpl40 6/1/2025 9:39:52 AM (No. 1958241)
I don’t think the Supreme Courts disregard of lower court behavior is negligent. There is power struggle going on inside the SCOTUS. Thomas, Alito on one side and Robert’s and the two communist women on the other. Sometime the water will break and the baby will be born.
6 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
FormerDem 6/1/2025 10:44:57 AM (No. 1958266)
why not just say you disagree with him? Is it sabotage to discus the Constitution, considering that this is going to involve disagreement? Just say you don't agree. I think JD is very interesting and there is nothing more important that can happen than discussion of the Constitution. And you are raising the stakes so high nobody will dare. fwiw, I also agreed w JD when the Pope disagreed w him, but I denounce neither, I am just interested in that tennis game also. Is the Holy Father saying he does not agree w St. Thomas? With the fourth commandment? But this is an interesting discusision and nobody is sabotaging themselves. Let Us All Talk
1 person likes this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
earlybird 6/1/2025 11:04:09 AM (No. 1958277)
Stassel sabotaged her credibility with this one. I agree with #12 that the op-ed heads at WSJ have been too smug with their "we know best" attitude. Supercilious to the max. I stopped watching their Saturday program. Even Paul Gigot has become a mealy-,mouthed lefty.
6 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
franco 6/1/2025 11:05:28 AM (No. 1958278)
After reading the whole piece (where do I go to get that time back?), I can only conclude that Strassel's snarky phrases were inserted by her editor-in-chief. She wrote that absent the USCC's robust checking of the executive branch, the US would be... Venezuela. Nice snark. May I offer a rejoinder?
It's my fervent hope that if those assisting TdA members to remain in the US ultimately succeed... that the TdA members take up residence in Strassel's and Paul Gigot's neighborhoods. Then both of them will then understand what it feels like to see the US become Venezuela at their front doors.... Suddenly their snide points of legal philosophy will fade in importance.
4 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
Namma 6/1/2025 12:32:06 PM (No. 1958319)
3 branches of government.
1. EXCUTIVE - President
2. Legislative - make laws
3. Judicial - enforce law
show me in the Constitution where is says that all 3 branches of the government control and tell the other 2 branches of the government what to do. You will not find any place that states this. VP Vance is correct.
I think the media has to start dumping on VP Vance to keep him from winning the next election!
4 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
WWIIDaughter 6/1/2025 12:38:36 PM (No. 1958320)
Kimberley Strassel has morphed into Peggy Noonan. Sad.
5 people like this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
zephyrgirl 6/1/2025 2:29:05 PM (No. 1958359)
I can think of several bad SCOTUS decisions in recent years - Obergefell v Hodges (gay marriage), Kelo v City of New London (imminent domain), and NFIB v Sebelius (called health insurance a "tax"). Roberts was all over the last case, proving he's a political animal. He deserved what J.D. dished out.
6 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "4250Luis"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)