The Vice President is wrong.
Or lying, take your pick.
The Vice President, JD Vance, February 9, 2025 on “X”
Schoolhouse Rock! was created by David McCall, an advertising executive, and directed by Chuck Jones. The animated educational series debuted on ABC in 1973. It was originally designed to teach children subjects like math, history, grammar, and science through catchy songs and animated characters.
Now, most of you probably remember, “I’m just a Bill.”
Sung by Jack Sheldon, nearly all kids born in the 1970s, learned about the legislative process, the three branches of government, and how “America worked,” as a consequence of Schoolhouse Rock! and “I’m Just a Bill.”
Lynn Ahrens sang and wrote the song "Three-Ring Government," which explained to school children all across the US how the branches of Government worked.
So much so that when I taught college-aged kids in political science classes, most of them based their understanding of the legislative process, in some part (at least) on Schoolhouse Rock! and what they remembered from the cartoons.
The Vice President never saw them, I guess.
And, apparently, at Yale, they don’t teach law. I’m not sure what they teach at Yale Law School, but it’s not the actual law (I presume). It must be some secret MAGA law nonsense or something.
Because the Vice President’s statement of the law in this “tweet,” “X,” or whatever the heck we call it now when someone blurps out nonsense on Musk’s hate-filled screed network, is beyond wrong.
It’s seditious.
Yes, Mr. Vice President, Judges do Review Generals and Their Acts
In the United States, the balance of power between the military and the judiciary is often misunderstood but crucial to the checks-and-balances system. While military leaders, especially generals, are entrusted with immense responsibility in times of war and peace, their actions are not beyond the reach of review. Judges—whether domestic or international—have the authority to review the acts of generals, particularly when those actions may violate international treaties or U.S. law.
Judicial Oversight under International Treaties
The U.S. is a signatory to international treaties establishing norms and standards for military operations, such as the Geneva Conventions. These treaties, which govern the treatment of prisoners of war, the conduct of hostilities, and other aspects of armed conflict, impose legal obligations on military personnel. And, while military commanders may operate with broad discretion on the battlefield, they must still abide by these international standards.
Judicial bodies, such as international courts and tribunals, have the authority to review military actions when they are accused of violating these treaties. The International Criminal Court (ICC), for example, can investigate and prosecute war crimes committed by military leaders, including generals, if they are deemed to have violated international law. But even if we were to put aside the idea of extraterritoriality or international jurisdiction, the United States Judiciary exercises jurisdiction over the US military through the UCMJ (indirectly), and the US military itself has a judicial arm that functions to hold the military accountable for acts on the battlefield that violate US law.
The UCMJ: Domestic Oversight of Military Actions
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in the U.S. provides a framework for holding military personnel accountable for their actions. This legal code applies not only to enlisted service members but also to officers, including generals. The UCMJ lays out provisions for reviewing military conduct, and multiple levels of oversight, including the courts-martial system, can hold generals accountable for violations.
While generals operate within the confines of their authority, there are still legal channels through which their decisions can be scrutinized, especially when there are concerns about criminal conduct or misconduct in their leadership. The UCMJ allows for the review of cases involving military leaders, ensuring accountability when it comes to violations of military law. Unlike many nations, the United States separates “military law,” from criminal law. There is a historical and practical reasons for this, however, “in the end,” the law “meets up,” at the federal judiciary (if necessary.)
Why the UCMJ Exists: The Need for Military Discipline and Accountability
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) ensures that military personnel, from enlisted service members to generals, are held to high standards of conduct. The UCMJ is a set of rules and a fundamental framework to maintain discipline, order, and accountability. Unlike civilian law, which is designed to govern the general public, the UCMJ is tailored to the unique needs of military life.
Military Discipline: A Cornerstone of Readiness
One of the primary reasons the UCMJ exists is to ensure that military personnel adhere to strict standards of discipline in high-stress environments like combat. The military operates with a unique set of priorities: mission success, unit cohesion, and national defense. The UCMJ helps maintain these priorities by creating clear and enforceable standards for behavior vital to the effective functioning of the military.
Discipline is critical in the military because the stakes are so high. The military is often tasked with dangerous and high-risk operations requiring high trust, obedience, and integrity. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines need to trust their leaders and each other implicitly, and the UCMJ ensures that those who fail to uphold the necessary standards face the consequences.
Accountability and Justice in a Unique System
The UCMJ establishes a justice system that is fair and appropriate for military service members. It addresses issues related to wartime and military operations and situations that would be foreign in a civilian context or setting. The system is designed to judge acts and allegations within the military environment and according to the military's standards and doctrine. In this regard, it functions similarly to civilian courts in assuring that individuals are judged by “a jury of their peers.” In the UCMJ, conduct is judged by individuals, such as fellow service officers, who have the basis and context to judge such actions.
One of the unique aspects of the UCMJ is that it holds officers—especially senior officers like generals—accountable for their actions, both on and off the battlefield. This is essential because generals have vast authority and discretion in making decisions that affect their subordinates and national security. The UCMJ provides a mechanism to review military decisions and actions, ensuring those in power are not exempt from accountability.
The Role of Civilian Courts: Oversight Beyond the Military's Reach
While the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) serves as the primary legal system within the military, it does not operate in a vacuum. The UCMJ is designed to maintain order, discipline, and accountability within the military, ensuring that those who serve in uniform are held to high standards. However, this system does not exist independently of the civilian judiciary. The UCMJ’s authority is not absolute, and its decisions—particularly those affecting the rights of individuals—are subject to review by civilian courts.
Judicial Review: Not "Sole Judges" in Their Own Context
The key point here is that military tribunals and courts are not the final arbiters of military decisions when those decisions affect constitutional rights or exceed the boundaries of military law. While the UCMJ is designed to address violations within the military context, the U.S. legal system operates on a principle of checks and balances—meaning that even the most powerful military leaders are not beyond the reach of the civilian judiciary.
The federal judiciary can review military decisions in the U.S. system, ensuring they align with constitutional principles and federal law. This means that even if a general makes a decision, orders an action, or enforces a rule, civilian courts can intervene if constitutional violation, due process, or unlawful conduct is questioned. The system of checks and balances requires that military decisions not be immune to scrutiny by civilian judges who can rule on whether those actions overstep legal or constitutional limits.
The Appeals Process: From Courts-Martial to the U.S. Supreme Court
One key distinction between military and civilian courts is that while military tribunals handle cases under the UCMJ, those rulings are subject to appeal in federal courts. A military service member or officer who feels that a ruling under the UCMJ is unjust or unconstitutional can appeal the decision to civilian courts, starting with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and, ultimately, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This process ensures that while the military operates within its own legal framework, it is still subject to oversight by the federal judiciary. The courts do not act in real-time to dictate military operations, but they do have the authority to check decisions that may conflict with service members' rights or exceed the bounds of military law.
For example, in United States v. MacDonald (1950), the Supreme Court affirmed that civilian courts could review military decisions implicating constitutional rights. While the military can enforce its discipline, it is bound by the Constitution, and the civilian courts ensure that no one—regardless of rank—is above the law.
Final Authority: The Supreme Court’s Role
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court serves as the final arbiter in cases involving military decisions. If an appeal challenges a military decision on constitutional grounds, the Court can make a definitive ruling. This ensures that, while the military has autonomy in enforcing its laws and regulations, it is ultimately held accountable to the highest legal authority in the land: the U.S. Constitution.
So, yes, Mr. Vice President, while the UCMJ provides a system of justice within the military, it does not serve as the sole judge of military actions. Civilian courts have the authority to review and, if necessary, overturn decisions made by military leaders, including generals, when those decisions conflict with constitutional principles. The military may operate within its own rules, but it cannot act outside the bounds of the law.
Hillbilly Stupidity: Let’s Go Torture Someone!
Imagine a scenario in which the U.S. military has a terrorist with vital intelligence information and it is part of a broad military operation the US is engaged in. I don’t know, for the sake of argument, let’s say it involves bulldozing a large strip of land so we can build a casino in the Middle East. That operation, however, directly violates the Convention Against Torture (CAT), a key international treaty the United States has committed to upholding, not to mention federal criminal statutes, executive orders, DoD directives, military field manuals, and military doctrine, just to name a few things that are going to “take it on the chin,” when we break the law.
But JD and the President don’t care - we got terrorists to torture! Jack Bauer stuff to be accomplished here! Screw the law! Ain’t no court gonna stop us and tell us what to do! Courts be damned! General! Get that pliers and blowtorch! Torture that guy!
And the General (apparently throwing the UCMJ, his Oath, and the rulebook out the window, en arguendo) goes, “Okie dokie!”
Now, imagine that a group like Amnesty International, renowned for its work in human rights, learns of the operation and understands that it will likely result in torture or abuse of prisoners—something that violates both U.S. law and international obligations.
Amnesty International, or a similar organization, well-versed in international law and human rights protections, files a lawsuit in federal court.
Again, en arguendo, this is a thought experiment.
The goal: to prevent the operation from proceeding. Poor little whomever is strapped to a chair with JD having a blowtorch in one hand and a pair of pliers in the other. They seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the military action until the court can fully assess whether it would violate the Convention Against Torture.
Everything is obviously (and satirically) blatantly illegal here. But, according to the Vice President, nobody can stop the General.
What happens next? Would the courts intervene, or is this a case where the military is untouchable, operating under its own rules beyond judicial oversight?
Let’s replace JD Vance’s “MAGA Idiocy” with actual Folger’s “logic, law, and the Constitution,” and let’s find out, shall we?
Step 1: Can Amnesty International Even Bring the Case?
The first hurdle is whether Amnesty International (or another NGO) has the legal right to challenge this action in court. This involves determining whether they have standing—the legal right to bring a lawsuit. They would likely have standing given Amnesty International’s mission to defend human rights and its involvement in documenting and exposing abuses. The organization would argue that the military’s planned operation violates international law, directly affecting its work and harming the very populations it seeks to protect.
The next question is whether the court has jurisdiction.
Federal courts generally avoid getting involved in military operations, citing the political question doctrine—a principle that courts should refrain from intervening in matters exclusively within the executive branch's domain, like military strategy and national defense decisions. However, international treaties like the Convention Against Torture impose binding legal obligations on the U.S. government, including its military. Courts may be more willing to intervene when the issue clearly violates U.S. law or international treaty obligations—and that’s precisely what Amnesty International would argue here.
Given that torture is universally prohibited under both U.S. law and the Convention Against Torture, a court may find that it does have jurisdiction to review whether the planned military operation would violate these treaties.
Sorry JD. The Court just stuffed its boot up your ass.
Step 2: Requesting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
Assuming the court agrees it has jurisdiction, the next step is for Amnesty International to seek a temporary restraining order (TRO). This type of injunction would temporarily stop the military operation while the court evaluates the larger legal questions.
To secure a TRO, Amnesty International would need to show that:
Likelihood of success on the merits: Amnesty must demonstrate that the planned operation would clearly violate the Convention Against Torture and U.S. law. They would likely present evidence from intelligence sources, eyewitness accounts, or leaked information proving that the operation would result in torture or cruel treatment of prisoners.
Irreparable harm: Amnesty International would argue that if the operation proceeds, irreparable harm would occur, as the victims would suffer torture or abuse that could not be undone after the fact.
Balance of equities: The court would need to weigh whether the harm caused by issuing the TRO (i.e., delaying or stopping the operation) outweighs the potential harm to national security or military objectives. Given that torture is a clear violation of international human rights law, this could tip the balance in favor of granting the TRO.
Public interest: The court would also need to consider whether granting the TRO serves the public interest. Since the U.S. government is bound by international law to prevent torture, it could be argued that the public interest strongly favors preventing violations of human rights.
I don’t know if you have been paying attention lately, but the Trump DoJ has been losing TROs so fast, my watch has stopped and started running backwards because the orders have been issued faster than the speed of light.
Once again, sorry, JD. That boot just went up your ass a bit farther.
Step 3: The Political Question Doctrine
This is where things get tricky. The political question doctrine traditionally limits judicial interference in military matters. Courts tend to defer to the military’s expertise in conducting operations, particularly concerning national security decisions. In this case, the military might argue that the operation is a matter of national defense and that the court should not interfere.
However, the court would have to consider whether the potential violation of international law is serious enough to overcome the political question doctrine. Given that the Convention Against Torture is an international treaty the U.S. has ratified, courts have a duty to ensure that the U.S. adheres to its international obligations.
In this case, the court could decide that, despite the political question doctrine, the clear violation of a human rights treaty outweighs the military’s operational discretion.
Coin flip on this one. Who knows. Probably win at the District Court. Probably win at the Appellate Court. Who knows at the Supreme Court.
Either way - the basic argument was, according to the Vice President, the Court wouldn’t be able to tell “the General” anything. For the last three steps, a Judge has slapped “the General” and JD around all day and twice on Sunday.
So, at least for now, whoever is strapped to that chair waiting to be tortured probably isn’t tortured yet.
Step 4: Judicial Response
If the court decides to intervene, it may not immediately stop the military operation in real-time. Courts are hesitant to disrupt military strategy during active combat or operations. Instead, the court might issue a declaratory judgment—a ruling that the military operation violates the Convention Against Torture—but it may not stop the operation outright.
The court would likely issue an injunction preventing future operations that violate the treaty, but it would give the military time to adjust its plans. The court could also consider a narrower injunction, possibly stopping certain aspects of the operation (e.g., preventing the use of torture or abuse in the treatment of detainees) without halting the entire mission.
And of course, eventually, everything winds up before the Supreme Court.
Step 5: Appeal to the Supreme Court
If the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices would have to weigh the separation of powers (military autonomy versus judicial oversight), the political question doctrine, and the U.S.’s commitment to international law. The Court would likely recognize the military’s need for operational flexibility but would also affirm that no one—no matter their rank—is above the law. The Court could issue a ruling that supports the treaty obligations and reinforces that military actions must comply with international human rights standards.
The Supreme Court might conclude that the U.S. military is bound by both constitutional principles and international law and that, even in times of conflict, torture cannot be condoned. The Court’s decision would likely focus on ensuring that such violations do not go unchecked, providing a clear message that international law cannot be disregarded for military expediency.
Conclusion: Judicial Oversight in Action
So, yes, Mr. Vice President, judges have the authority to review military actions, even those involving generals and high-level decisions. In this hypothetical case, the U.S. judiciary has the power to intervene when international law is violated—especially in the case of a Convention Against Torture violation. While courts would likely defer to military judgment in operational matters, they would not allow the U.S. government to violate its legal obligations under international law. Ultimately, military leaders, including generals, are not above the law—even regarding national security decisions—and courts can hold them accountable.
What about Pammy Whammy? She can do what she wants. Right?
The simple answer is no. The Vice President is incorrectly stating the law there as well.
While prosecutors have considerable discretion in who, how, and what they charge in criminal cases, their power to charge is not without review.
In the U.S. legal system, prosecutorial discretion is a powerful tool, but it is not without limits, and it operates within a framework of checks and balances. The Attorney General cannot prosecute whomever she wants without judicial oversight or review. While the Attorney General holds significant prosecutorial power, that power is not unlimited and is subject to important checks and balances within the U.S. legal system.
1. Prosecutorial Discretion: What It Is and What It Isn’t
Prosecutorial discretion allows the Attorney General to decide whether or not to bring charges, what charges to bring, and how to conduct prosecutions. While this discretion is broad, it is not carte blanche. The Attorney General must exercise it fairly, justly, and follow the law. This means decisions must be based on evidence, legal principles, and ethical standards. Prosecutorial decisions cannot be arbitrary, discriminatory, or politically motivated.
As Attorney General, Pam Bondi cannot bring charges simply because she disagrees with someone politically or personally. Prosecutions must be grounded in law, with clear evidence that a crime has been committed. Prosecutors at the federal level, including the Attorney General, are bound by constitutional principles, including due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against selective prosecution.
2. Judicial Oversight: The Role of the Courts
While the Attorney General has significant power, that power is not exercised without judicial oversight. The courts play a critical role in reviewing prosecutorial actions to ensure they comply with the law, particularly in safeguarding constitutional rights.
Pretrial Proceedings: If an individual believes they have been unjustly charged or that charges are legally insufficient, they can challenge the decision in court through motions such as a motion to dismiss or a motion to suppress evidence. A judge will review the sufficiency of evidence and ensure the charges comply with the law.
Probable Cause Hearings: Before certain charges can be brought, especially in felony cases, the prosecutor must present evidence to a judge to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed. If the judge determines that the evidence is insufficient, they may dismiss the charges or prevent them from going forward.
Trial Proceedings: Once charges are filed and a case moves to trial, the judge oversees the process, ensuring that the prosecution adheres to legal standards and that the defendant’s rights are protected. Prosecutors, including the Attorney General, cannot proceed with charges without judicial oversight during the trial. Judges can intervene, exclude evidence, or even dismiss the case if there is misconduct or improper legal practices.
Post-Conviction Review: After a conviction, the courts retain the authority to review the case through appeals. If the convicted party believes their constitutional rights were violated or the prosecution engaged in misconduct, the case can be appealed to higher courts. If the appeals court finds an error or violation of law, it can overturn the conviction or order a new trial, providing another layer of oversight to the prosecutorial process.
3. Limits to Prosecutorial Power: Accountability and Ethical Boundaries
As Attorney General, Pam Bondi is held to the highest ethical standards. Federal prosecutors must comply with legal and ethical guidelines, including those in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual and the Rules of Professional Conduct. If a prosecutor abuses their power—such as targeting an individual based on improper motivations, withholding exculpatory evidence, or engaging in other forms of misconduct—they can be subject to professional and legal consequences.
For example, if Pam Bondi or any prosecutor were to pursue charges based on political bias or racial discrimination, the defendant could challenge those charges on the grounds of selective prosecution, and the courts could intervene. Similarly, if evidence was withheld that could exonerate the accused, a judge could dismiss the case, and the prosecutor could face legal consequences.
4. The Role of Judicial Review in Protecting Rights
The courts provide an important safeguard to ensure that prosecutorial discretion is used fairly and in compliance with the law. Even though the Attorney General has substantial authority over criminal prosecutions, their actions are still subject to judicial review to prevent power abuses and protect individuals' rights.
Selective Prosecution: If there is evidence that a prosecution is based on discriminatory or unconstitutional grounds, such as targeting someone for political reasons, the courts can intervene. A defendant can file a motion claiming selective prosecution, and a judge will review whether the prosecutor’s decision was unjust.
Prosecutorial Misconduct: Courts also have the authority to address prosecutorial misconduct, such as unethical behavior or violations of due process. If the Attorney General’s office were found to have violated the rights of the accused, judges could dismiss charges, reverse convictions, or impose sanctions.
Accountability in the Prosecutorial Process
While Pam Bondi, as the Attorney General of the United States, holds significant prosecutorial power, she cannot prosecute anyone without judicial oversight. The courts ensure that the prosecutorial process remains fair and lawful, safeguarding the rights of individuals and holding prosecutors accountable when their actions overstep legal bounds. Judicial review serves as a critical check on prosecutorial discretion, ensuring that no prosecutor is above the law, and that everyone—even those with significant power—must operate within the justice framework.
The Return of the Myth of the Unitary Executive
This may seem like something new, but it’s not. I remember all these arguments from when I worked for W. It’s the return of the “Unitary Executive” theory.
After 9/11, President George W. Bush and his legal advisors promoted the theory that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, had the authority to act outside the constraints of law regarding national security. This meant that under the President’s direct control, the executive branch could override congressional legislation and sidestep the judiciary, all in the name of “executive prerogative.”
This overreach gave rise to many of the Bush-era policies we look back on with alarm—like the use of torture and extraordinary renditions. The theory behind these actions was that the President alone had the power to determine what was “necessary” in the fight against terrorism, even if that meant violating international treaties or domestic laws. The idea was simple: the President’s power as head of the executive branch was absolute. But the reality was far messier, and in many cases, illegal.
Fast forward to 2025, and Vice President is resurrecting this very myth with his recent statement that judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power, and more specifically, that judges shouldn’t tell generals how to conduct military operations or how the Attorney General should use prosecutorial discretion. In other words, Vance is promoting the very notion that the executive branch should be able to act without checks or review, a dangerous path that directly challenges the rule of law and the separation of powers.
A Dangerous Return to a Love of Unchecked Power
The Vice President's comments echo the logic of the unitary executive theory—that the President has ultimate authority and that Congress and the courts should not interfere with executive decision-making. This may sound appealing to some, but it completely ignores the foundational structure of the U.S. Constitution: a system of checks and balances designed to ensure no one branch of government can consolidate too much power.
The idea that military generals or the Attorney General are beyond judicial review is dangerous and legally incorrect. The judiciary has the constitutional responsibility to review executive actions, ensuring they don’t violate U.S. law or international treaties. This is true whether we’re talking about military operations or prosecutorial decisions. The courts are there to check the exercise of executive power, particularly when those in power act illegally.
The Myth vs. the Reality
Vance's argument that generals and prosecutors should be immune to judicial oversight is a throwback to the Bush administration’s unitary executive thinking. But just as we saw in the Bush years, when the executive branch attempts to go unchecked, it leads to constitutional violations—from illegal detentions and torture to abuses of prosecutorial discretion.
The truth is that the U.S. legal system has mechanisms in place to prevent these abuses. Military leaders are bound by military law and international treaties—like the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Civilian courts can and do review those decisions if a general orders actions that violate these treaties. The UCMJ allows military leaders to be held accountable for violations of military conduct. Still, in cases where constitutional rights or international law are at stake, the judiciary has the final say.
Similarly, the Attorney General—whether Pam Bondi or anyone else—does not have unfettered discretion to act without oversight. The courts serve as the final check on prosecutorial power, ensuring that decisions are made fairly and without bias. When the executive branch violates the law or acts beyond its authority, the judiciary provides the necessary counterbalance to hold those in power accountable.
No One Can Be Above the Law
So the Vice President’s “X” (whatever we call it) is an old refrain of executive branch chest beating. The unitary executive myth—whether championed by Bush-era lawyers or revived by the Vice President—is fundamentally flawed. The Constitution did not create a system where any branch can operate without limits. On the contrary, it established a system in which checks and balances ensure that no branch of government, including the executive, operates outside of the law.
Judicial oversight exists precisely to prevent the abuses of power that the unitary executive theory would invite. From military operations to prosecutorial decisions, the courts have the authority—and the responsibility—to review executive actions, ensuring that they comply with U.S. law and international obligations.
So, while the unitary executive theory might sound appealing to those seeking concentrated power, it is a seditious idea threatening the Republic, the balance of power, and the rule of law. In the end, no one can be above the law, whether it’s the President, a general, or the Attorney General. And the courts are there to make sure of it.
I’m reminded of a federal judge I once knew, a man in his 60s who had been practicing law for over 40 years. He had been a US Attorney before being nominated as a federal judge. He was a highly distinguished jurist, widely respected, and had been on the bench for over a decade—perhaps longer. One of the country's most feared district court judges, he was known for his authority and presence. Despite his intimidating reputation, I always found him pleasant, though the lawyers around him cowered in his presence.
I had the chance to meet with him while working as a trial consultant on a massive, multi-district price-fixing case involving hundreds of millions of dollars. With about 20 parties involved, we prepared the courtroom and ensured everything was set up correctly. This was 30 years ago, long before we had the technology we take for granted today. The judge pointed to a button on his dais as we went through the various equipment and displays.
“What’s that for?” he asked.
I explained, “It’s to turn off the microphones and kill the displays if things get out of hand.”
He raised an eyebrow. “Why would I want to do that?”
“Well,” I said, “in case things get chaotic during the trial, you can just shut everything off.”
The judge leaned in, smiled, and said, “Son, that’s what my gavel’s for. If I can’t control this courtroom and enforce the rule of law with that, then I assure you, it’s the end of the Republic.”
And with that, he walked off.
Indeed.