JD Vance has used words like Idiot and Hitler to describe Trump in the past.
He said “Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”

Now he sings Trump's praises....

But specifically to answer your question, here is one example.

“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive branch’s legitimate power,”

I could be wrong though, maybe he never had credibility on constitutional issues

Not doing your homework for you.

I wonder why you would refuse to do this.......we know why.

Why is he wrong?  If a judge can issue an injunction on an executive order, then where is the separation of powers? 

Judges would be usurping the power of the executive branch if this is allowed.  Liberal judges would be blocking GOP executive actions and vice versa. 

Only the Supreme Court has the power under the Constitution to decide if an executive action is unconstitutional.  Lower federal court judges are there to apply the law, not interfere with the president.

The president is not superior to the judicial system, if a judge could never block a presidential order this would effectively remove a major check and balance inherent to our system. Blocking unconstitutional orders is exactly what judges are supposed to do.

The landmark case Marbury v Madisen held that the SCOTUS is an appellate court meaning they review decisions by lower courts. Marbury did not win his case in because he went straight to the SCOTUS instead of a lower court even though in principle they said he was right. This is the way it works, a lower court blocks a presidential executive order, it get challenged up the chain and sometimes ends up at the supreme court.

Lower federal court judges don't only apply the law, they also uphold the constitution. Republicans had no problem with this system when lower federal court judges ruled against Biden. Only now when this system is not going the way they want do the cry foul, complaining about a judge blocking the president. I used to think we were better in part because we were the party of principles and rule of law but that is obviously a lie, we are a party of conditional values, praise the system when it works for us and cry when it holds us accountable.

Wrong.

So wrong, especially after the SCOTUS reaffirmed a president can't be charged with crimes pursuant to his duties as president.

Fail! Go read about Marbury V Madison. This doesn't even have anything to do with being charged with a crime, a judge put a block on Trump's order, he didn't charge Trump with a crime.

i never said the current issue had to do with a crime being charged.  i merely pointed to the precedent that protects the Presidency from judicial interference.

Try again, Sweet Pea.

There are 2 methods the co-equal branches can use to stop an executive action.  SCOTUS can decide it's unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, and Congress can impeach him.

Saying that a president has immunity to being charged with crimes related to official duties has no bearing on the judicial system "interfering" with executive orders.
Lower courts can block executive orders, and the president can challenge these rulings up to the SCOTUS who has the final say. SCOTUS is an appellate court, this is the way the system works.

Suggesting only the SCOTUS can rule on presidential executive orders is short sighted because it would be unworkable. SCOTUS hears around 90 cases a year. Trump has in 3 months issued over 100 executive orders. Saying only the SCOTUS can hear these cases would create a system where the president could get his way merely by overwhelming the SCOTUS. Based on averages that could mean 5x the work for the SCOTUS.

As I illustrated to you earlier, republicans had not trouble getting lower courts to issue orders blocking Biden's executive orders.

You're saying you don't see lower court rulings canceling out executive actions as interference with executive authority?

Good to know.  Is that for all Presidents, or just this one? 

Should a Hawaii court be allowed to block any executive action they don't agree with?  All it takes is a judge who doesn't like Trump.

Interfering? No, because you are using slanted language. If a cop arrests a protester who breaks the law is the cop "interfering" with the protest?

This is the court doing their job the way they are supposed to. You can disagree with the reasoning of the judge but this is the way the process works to resolve legal disagreements.

Is it for all presidents? Do you not remember when Biden's order to forgive student debt was blocked? It didn't start at the SCOTUS.

Cops are not presidents.  Different rules apply.

If the courts were truly doing their job, it wouldn't be so obvious that these lawsuits are only being filed in courts with left-leaning judges/Obama & Biden appointees.

I didn't use the cop analogy in regards to process and rules, I used it to explain how you are using the word in a bias slanted manner.

Forum shopping happens on the left and the right. Again, you complain about it now that Trump is being challenged but I never recall you complaining when we use forum shopping to fight a 2A case or to block loan forgiveness, etc.
Here is the bottom line, forum shopping has a downside but it is perfectly legal, hence it is not interfering with the president's authority. Again, this is how the courts work, a case is heard at a lower level then it can be appealed all the way up to the supreme court.
You left out the part where the parties to the lawsuit are the only ones provided the remedy if one is ordered.  Look at the anti-gun rules by the ATF.
 only those members of the organizations bringing the lawsuit were included in the ruling -- not all gun owners nationwide.  Yet, courts are issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump.  30% of all nationwide injunctions ever in the history of the US have been ordered in cases against Trump's administration.  Lawfare is real.

Anytime any side attacks the checks and balances in ways to try and give the president more power that is a problem because that is eroding away safeguards from tyranny.  The judicial branch is the most trusted out of the 3 branches and the attacks on the courts launched by both the left and the right risk eroding that.
i don't think you understand checks and balances.  You don't use them to attack other coequal branches.  You use them to correct wrongly initiated actions by another branch. In this case, they are attacking Trump by saying he's acting as a racist, even though it's within his constitutional authority.

You left out the part where the parties to the lawsuit are the only ones provided the remedy if one is ordered.  Look at the anti-gun rules by the ATF.
 only those members of the organizations bringing the lawsuit were included in the ruling -- not all gun owners nationwide.  Yet, courts are issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump.  30% of all nationwide injunctions ever in the history of the US have been ordered in cases against Trump's administration.  Lawfare is real.

i don't think you understand checks and balances.  You don't use them to attack other coequal branches.  You use them to correct wrongly initiated actions by another branch. In this case, they are attacking Trump by saying he's acting as a racist, even though it's within his constitutional authority.

This sums it up. But watch, EEF won't admit he's wrong, like usual.  Enter tactics such as: deflection, shape shifting, and the famous "strawman", etc...

Courts can issue nationwide injunctions. Imagine if you had a patent infringement case. If courts couldn't issue nationwide injunctions that would mean you would have to file in evert federal district, all 92 of them.

Maybe 30% of all nationwide injunctions ever in the history of the US have been ordered in cases against Trump's administration because Trump is doing improper/illegal/unconstitutional things at an unprecedented rate. He has signed executive orders at an unprecedented rate, of course you are going to see more challenged.


You repeatedly miss the fact that the SCOTUS is an appellate court, they hear lower court decisions.  Putting an injunction against an executive order is how they correct wrongly initiated actions by another branch, that is the process. Things don't have to go straight to the SCOTUS, I already showed you how this would not be a workable suggestion.

How is someone using district courts to "attack" another coequal branch? Because some judges called Trump a racist? Trump has no grounds to stand on, he has a long history of "attacking" the courts.