Daily Herald opinion: Our republic cannot afford to bow to political attempts to undermine judiciary’s constitutional role

When it comes to the removal of a federal inspector general, the law seems pretty straight-forward. The president has the authority to do it, but he must first a) provide Congress with 30-day notice and b) provide cause.

So it was not surprising that lawyers would get involved when President Donald Trump issued a blanket directive to fire a long list of these government watchdogs, with no notice and providing no apparent cause other than that, despite the independence that is supposed to characterize the positions, he wanted to install his own people. And it was not surprising, given how clear the law is, that a judge would put a freeze on the dismissals.

Frankly, it would have been stunning in that case if any judge would have just waved the removals through. The judicial review was not just appropriate. It was necessary. The law is the law.

Other suits prompted by the scores of executive orders issued in the first couple weeks of Trump's return to office may be a bit more nuanced, but then, that of course is why the courts are there. To sort out disputes and figure out who is in the legal right.

A week ago, Vice President JD Vance implied that the judiciary is not a co-equal branch of government with the president. “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal," Vance said. "If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.”

(First, tossing generals and attorneys general into the fray is a little like citing cereal regulations to make a case on behalf of the tobacco industry. Second, generals and attorneys general very much are subject to rules of law just like everybody else.)

But not to get sidetracked: The issue in question, as far as the presidential authority is concerned, is not one of control. The question is what are the president's legitimate exercises of power? And that very much is under the judiciary's auspices. What is he doing that is within the law? Is there anything that isn't? It is not the president who gets to decide that and it would be dangerous if he did. It is the courts. Under our Constitution, the president does not get to do whatever he wants.

We probably would not be responding to the comment by Vance were it standing alone. It unfortunately is not. Similar aspersions have been echoed elsewhere around a White House that generally seems to characterize disagreement or opposition as somehow unpatriotic if not seditious.

And we probably would not be responding to the comment if the Congress was showing any inclination to provide the balance of power the founders had envisioned. Unfortunately, Congress has been gradually ceding its power to the White House for decades, and the current Republican caucuses in each house appear now to be in full retreat. In her vote to confirm self-described Christian nationalist Russell Vought as director of the Office of Management and Budget, for example, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine actually explained her unwillingness to buck the president when it came to the Wheaton College graduate's appointment by saying, “I hope that the litigation succeeds in showing that the executive does not have the ability to impound funds.”

Some in the president's circle seem to hint that he ought to simply ignore court rulings that get in the way. Take heed: That would not be a political difference of opinion. It would be a constitutional crisis, and who knows how it would turn out. Left unchallenged, it would say that while there may be three branches of government, the president's is the only one that matters.

Already in these heavy years of polarization, so many of the institutions that safeguard the republic have been put on the defensive -- the news media, the FBI, the Department of Justice, election workers, federal employees, health care professionals, teachers, centrist politicians from both parties. For the most part, as far as we can tell, each are victims of smears and relentless attack. They are on the defensive simply for trying to do their jobs.

It has been cruel and it has been tragic. And it does not leave much in the way of institutions standing anymore to defend constitutional order.

Left standing and relatively unsullied until now are the courts, as Collins more or less admitted. The founders viewed the judiciary as a vital check on the other two branches of government. We all need it to fulfill that mission.

In doing so, the judiciary provides the nation with an invaluable, patriotic service. If the judiciary fails to provide it, or if the role of the judiciary is usurped, woe be to the republic. Make no mistake. It would be woe to the republic. We all owe the courts our support.