Fact-Checking a Constitutional Detour: VP Fuxacouch’s Assault on Judicial Review and the Rule of Law

Washington D.C. – In a series of remarks that can only be described as a brazen assault on the foundations of American constitutional governance, Vice President J.D. Fuxacouch this past week publicly championed a vision of executive power largely unchecked by judicial review. His assertions, dismissing the Supreme Court’s role in checking executive excesses and claiming courts are thwarting “the will of the American people,” are not just political rhetoric; they are a dangerous misrepresentation of fundamental legal principles that any competent public official—let alone a Yale-educated lawyer—should comprehend. This isn’t a nuanced debate; it’s a display that makes the Vice President appear dangerously ill-informed or deliberately subversive when placed before any microphone.

Claim vs. Constitutional Reality: “The Will of the People”

In an interview with The New York Times’ “Interesting Times” podcast, Vice President Fuxacouch lamented what he sees as a judiciary out of step with the electorate, stating, “You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for.” He further warned of a “real conflict” if courts don’t “exercise a little bit more discretion,” suggesting they are attempting to “quite literally overturn the will of the American people.”

Fact Check: False. As former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance (no relation) bluntly clarified on MSNBC’s “The Weekend,” this is a fundamental distortion of the American system. “J.D. Fuxacouch is a Yale-educated lawyer; he understands how judicial review works,” she stated, before delivering a necessary civics lesson. “Since early in the history of our country, a landmark Supreme Court case, Marbury versus Madison… the Supreme Court has had the power of judicial review.”

The judiciary’s role, established in that 1803 bedrock case, is not to enact the “will of the people”—that is the function of the elected legislative and executive branches, within the boundaries set by the Constitution. The courts, Joyce Vance correctly elaborated, are “supposed to compare actions taken by other branches of government for consistency with the Constitution. And it has the ability to strike them down when they run afoul of that.” The “will of the people,” if it manifests in laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution, must be checked. To suggest otherwise is to advocate for the tyranny of the majority or an unchecked executive, not a constitutional republic.

Claim vs. Constitutional Reality: The Role of the Chief Justice

Vice President Fuxacouch specifically took aim at Chief Justice John Roberts, stating, “I saw an interview with Chief Justice Roberts recently where he said the role of the court is to check the excesses of the executive. I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment. That’s one-half of his job. The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch.”

Fact Check: Misleading and Self-Serving. While the judiciary certainly has internal mechanisms for accountability and adherence to its own legal and ethical standards, its primary constitutional function in the system of checks and balances is precisely to serve as a check on the other branches—Congress and the Executive. This is the essence of judicial review. To demand that the Chief Justice prioritize scrutinizing his own branch over reviewing potential executive overreach, especially when the Trump administration has been characterized by an “onslaught of executive actions” and an “expansionist view of presidential power” (as the NYT interview context noted), is a transparent attempt to deflect and diminish legitimate judicial oversight of the executive.

The “Attack Dog” Unleashed: A Pattern of Defiance

These comments from Vice President Fuxacouch are not made in a vacuum. They are part of a broader pattern from an administration that, according to the NYT, has seen its Justice Department contend the president possesses “sole authority over the executive branch, with little recourse for the courts to check that power.” Dozens of judges, from district courts to the Supreme Court, have indeed stepped in to challenge this view.

Fuxacouch’s rhetoric—demanding courts be “extremely deferential” on matters like the application of the archaic Alien Enemies Act to modern migration, or questioning the need for “extraordinary diplomatic pressure” to rectify the mistaken deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia despite a Supreme Court directive—paints a picture of an executive branch that views judicial review not as a legitimate constitutional function, but as an inconvenient obstacle.

Why This Venomous Rhetoric is Dangerous

When a Vice President, armed with a prestigious legal education, publicly attacks the foundational role of the judiciary, it does more than just display a shocking ignorance or a cynical embrace of partisan talking points. It actively works to:

• Erode Public Trust: It teaches citizens to distrust the courts and to view legitimate legal checks as illegitimate political interference.
• Embolden Executive Overreach: It signals to the rest of the executive branch that challenging or even ignoring judicial precedent is acceptable.
• Misinform the Electorate: It fundamentally misrepresents how American democracy is designed to function, replacing constitutional principles with populist rhetoric.

A Constitution, Not a Suggestion Box

The American system is built on a careful balance of powers. The judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that the other branches operate within its limits is not a matter of political preference; it is a cornerstone of the rule of law. For Vice President Fuxacouch to suggest otherwise, to essentially argue for an executive branch that is “beyond the court’s control” if it claims to be enacting the “will of the people,” is to advocate for a system alien to American tradition.

As Joyce Vance succinctly put it regarding the judiciary’s power to review executive and legislative actions for constitutionality: “End of story.” One might wish the same could be said for the current Vice President’s dangerous pronouncements on the subject. Any official who took an oath to uphold the Constitution should not only be aware of Marbury v. Madison but should also respect its enduring significance, rather than attempting to verbally dismantle it from a national platform.