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” of courts from telling “the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for,” namely “immigration enforcement.”

Also, to be “extremely deferential” to the “political judgment” made by “the people’s elected president of the United States.”

Vance did at least preface his comments with a warning that they may prove “inflammatory” — before inflaming away.

Students of law — or of, well, grade school — no doubt quickly picked up on the first problem.

The foundation of the U.S. system is the constitutional separation of powers, checks and balances.

Congress has the purse.

The executive has the sword.

The judiciary’s power is to settle “all Cases” and “Controversies” “arising” under the Constitution and other laws.

Far from being “profoundly wrong,” Chief Justice Roberts’s sentiment was profoundly basic.

To have a court that jumps to the will of a president or a changeable voting majority is to have . . . Venezuela.

Vance, a Yale Law School graduate, surely would have disapproved of the court’s rubber-stamping Joe Biden’s student-loan forgiveness or vaccine mandates — even though Biden won an election.

Students of logic will find in the veep’s comments an impressive array of logical fallacies, from the straw man to the false dilemma.

Chief Justice Roberts didn’t, as Vance suggests, claim “checking” was its main role, or single out the president.

The chief uncontroversially noted that the role of the court was to “obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive.”

Nor did he suggest lower courts were immune from checks.

He probably didn’t feel it necessary, given that every opinion the high court issues is a review of something a lower court did.

A significant number of its recent decisions brushed back activist judges — allowing the administration to proceed, among other things, in removing independent agency heads, freezing grant money, and ending the temporary protected status program for Venezuelans.

As for immigration, the court has continued to give the president the usual wide latitude — with the basic requirement of due process.

Which brings us to students of politics, who will recognize these comments as political malpractice.

The most enduring legacy of the first Trump term was the cementing of a conservative Supreme Court majority that continues to thoughtfully transform the legal landscape.

Religious freedom.

The end of Roe v. Wade.

The major-questions doctrine.

The end of Chevron deference.

Reining in the bureaucracy.

Second Amendment rights.

Presidential immunity.

And the question of what legacy emerges from Trump’s second term rests squarely in the hands of that same court.

Trump is proving to be the most energetic executive in decades, challenging the establishment to rethink the status quo on everything from the federal workforce and government grant making to the power of independent agencies.

Most of these questions are destined for the justices — the same people Vance and others in Trump’s orbit have taken to badgering.

Vance fashions himself shrewd and likely thinks his comments serve the multiple purposes of proving loyalty to his boss, whipping up the base, and (not so) subtly warning the court of backlash if it fails to rule as he’d prefer.

The vice president might consider that jurists are well-versed in the art of clever arguments; they know what he’s doing.

Or that they aren’t easily intimidated — see the Brett ­Kavanaugh hearings.

But they can get irritated and annoyed, and less motivated to do much beyond basic requirements.

How helpful is that?

And Vance might consider that his criticism is essentially a slap at the president’s judgment in appointing these justices and other lower-court judges (who occasionally rule against him) in the first place.

The temptation by Vance and other officials to let loose on the courts will grow as more issues ripen and the administration wins some and loses some (like this week’s tariff case).

Trump has so far refrained from going full-frontal on the judiciary, a political instinct that has served him well, given the stakes.

At some point, he might suggest that the vice president leave the politics to the guy actually in charge of the executive branch.

From The Wall Street Journal.