The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
Trump Moving Slowly—But Sessions Moving Fast!
TrumpSession

It’s early days yet in the Trump presidency, but there’s a general feeling it’s not going very well. Except, of course, for the work of our splendid Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Even partisan types are generally willing to cut a new president some slack—the so-called “honeymoon.” Nope: Ten weeks in, Trump is graded F by a third of voters and his approval rating is down from a month ago.

You can discount that some for the relentless Main Stream Media hostility to the President and the high temperature of the Cold Civil War after eight years of far-Left government. That isn’t all of it, though.

I’m a Trump supporter myself, and a Trump voter. I was out there on March 4th in a freezing wind demonstrating my support. And sure, government isn’t easy. And yes, we should go down on our knees daily to thank whatever supernatural powers there be that Mrs. Clinton i sn’t in charge of the executive branch.

Still I’m tasting disappointment. I was looking for something bolder, more vigorous. I was looking for some fighting spirit.

Why are the so-called “DREAMers“—illegal aliens—still allowed to sign up for their benefits? Why aren’t they just deported?

What, we can’t separate families? Fine: deport the families, too.

I was looking for a firm re-establishment of the rule of law. I’m getting … nothing much.

Speaking of the rule of law, when did it become the case that some circuit court judge could set the nation’s immigration policy? Why didn’t the executive just slap the guy down Andy Jackson-style, and tell government employees to follow the President’s order?

What, those employees would then be arrested? By whom? Whom do you call to arrest federal law-enforcement agents?

Or, if it’s very punctilious adherence to the letter of the law that’s wanted, let’s start arresting big-city mayors and college presidents who harbor illegal aliens, and the principals of firms who knowingly employ them.

And what about some action on legal immigration? Two congresscritters, one Democrat and one Republican, have introduced a bill that, quote from the GOP-critter “protects American workers by preventing bad actors from abusing the system in order to offshore jobs.” This is supposed to address the abuse of H-1B visas, most famously at the Disney company, more recently at the University of California—organizations replacing American IT workers with cheaper foreigners.

In fact, as NumbersUSA has pointed out, the bill does diddly to address H-1B abuse. Probably it was just dictated to the congresscritters by their donors from the cheap-labor lobby without passing through the critters’ brains, assuming they have any. How about we just abolish H-1B, Mr. President. Hello? Mr. President? …

And then there are the President’s new military deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. What’s up with that? Why are Iraq and Afghanistan still our business? Has Trump just been buffaloed by his generals? Is there something we didn’t try during sixteen years chasing jihadis around Afghanistan, something that two hundred new guys will be able to accomplish?

Sure, I know Trump promised on the campaign trail to defeat ISIS. I assumed he meant by proxy, leaving the wet work to the Russians, Syrians, Israelis, and Iranians. I thought perhaps we might be entering a new era of cold self-interest towards foreign groups and nations that annoy or harm us: Nuke ’em, bribe ’em, or leave ’em alone.

I guess I was naive.

The fiasco over the healthcare bill didn’t help. It was mainly the failure of the President’s party in Congress. I’m still hoping it moved the balance of power some from Congress to the Presidency. But what’s the use of that if the President won’t fight?

Then on Wednesday this week I read that President Trump is addressing the plague of opioid addiction that he promised on the campaign trail to deal with. [After pledging to solve opioid crisis, Trump’s strategy underwhelms, , By Dan Diamond and Sarah Karlin-Smith, Politico, March 29, 2017] So what’s he going to do? Ratchet up sentences for dealers? Open new treatment centers for addicts? Put troops on the Mexican border?

No: He’s appointed a commission under Open-Borders shill Chris Christie.

I guess it’s fair enough to give Christie a job after he came out early for Trump. But really, Mr. President. Appoint a commission? This is lame.

We didn’t vote for lame.

The hungry sheep look up and are not fed, Mr. President. Grab a shillelagh and lay about you. Chase the money-changers from the temple. Brandish your saber and charge the enemy. I’m running out of metaphors, but you get the idea.

You’re a believer: take Longfellow’s advice:

Act,—act in the living Present!

Heart within, and God o’erhead!

So amid those doubts and worries, it was wonderful to see U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions declare on Monday that sanctuary cities are going to pay a price for defying federal law.

The Attorney General’s speech was mostly hortatory, urging jurisdictions to comply with the relevant federal law, which he helpfully named by section and paragraph. He showed a glimpse of iron fist inside the velvet glove, though, asserting that Justice will claw back grants from jurisdictions that defy the law, and make future grants conditional on compliance with the law.

Sample:

The American people want and deserve a lawful system of immigration that keeps us safe, and one that serves the national interest. This expectation is reasonable, just, and our government has the duty to meet it, and we will meet it.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Jurisdictions, March 27, 2017

Now that’s more like it: Good plain speaking from an immigration patriot.

Sessions doubled down on that in an appearance on the O’Reilly show Thursday evening, hinting that the administration would deploy further measures against scofflaw jurisdictions. He didn’t specify what those further measures might be, but I assume Sessions has figured that there are other monies the government might withhold—other than DOJ grants—without colliding with the doctrine of “unconstitutional conditions.”

ORDER IT NOW

The A-G’s Monday speech threw the scofflaws into shrieking fits. Here’s one of them, name of Bill Ong Hing, billed as a law professor and expert in immigration law at the University of San Francisco. Once again, just to press it home, the speaker here is a professor of law:

Sanctuary cities are saying, “We want every member of the community to trust us, and that can be only if we’re not viewed as partners of ICE.”

Column Here’s what Atty. Gen. Sessions got wrong about the law in his attack on sanctuary cities, by Michael Hiltzik, LA TIMES, March 28, 2017

So this law professor is telling us it would be wrong for municipal authorities to be seen as partners of federal law enforcement. The person best known for making that argument was the late George Wallace, as I recall.

Professor Hing’s faculty biography tells us that “Throughout his career, Professor Bill Ong Hing pursued social justice.” Well, I guess that’s being up front about it, at least.

The LAT quotes another legal eagle, although this time just a lawyer, not a law professor. This is Joseph Cotchett [Email him]who is representing the city of Richmond, California in a lawsuit challenging the legality of President Trump’s January 25th executive order on sanctuary cities. Said Mr. Cotchett to the LA Times:

This is all politics, aiming to divide people.

Well, yes, the executive order seeks to divide law-abiding persons from non-law-abiding persons. That’s not politics, though: that’s law enforcement.

Another sound bite we’ve been hearing after Jeff Sessions’ speech is that crime in sanctuary cities is actually lower than in non-sanctuary cities. That’s the conclusion in a report out of the University of California San Diego. The author of the report, Political Science Assistant Professor Tom Wong—lot of monosyllabic names in this zone, apparently—the author claims to have found that crime in sanctuary cities is actually lower than in non-sanctuary cities.

I’m not impressed with the statement as quoted. The great iron law of crime statistics is that blacks are way, way more criminal than other groups. So if sanctuary cities have fewer blacks than non-sanctuary cities, which is very likely the case, the result will follow.

Did Professor Wong allow for that? When I’ve finished the report, I’ll tell you. But I think I know the answer already.

As Ann Coulter has pointed out tirelessly in her books and columns, the acceptable number of crimes committed by illegal aliens—or for that matter by legal ones—is zero. That they have lower crime rates than some other subgroup is not interesting. We shouldn’t be importing criminals at all—much less allowing criminals to import themselves, without our permission.

So all hail Attorney General Sessions! I’ve cheered myself just by writing about him.

If the General won’t mind me recycling an ancient joke: Sanctuary much!

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

(Reprinted from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Unfortunately, much of what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do will end up in court, where judges have been educated by the type of professors cited in John’s article. I predict many losses at the level of the lower courts, delays, and the issue finally decided by weathervane Anthony Kennedy at the SCOTUS. I’m disappointed that President Trump isn’t defying patently unconstitutional court injunctions. (In theory a federal judge could dispatch federal marshalls to arrest someone acting contrary to an injunction, but I doubt that they would risk the confrontation.)

    Who is allowed into the United States is an existential question. If Trump surrenders it to the judiciary, the United States will resemble a large Brazil by 2050 and a large South Africa by 2100.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Unfortunately, much of what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do will end up in court, where judges have been educated by the type of professors cited in John’s article. "

    As opposed to conservative justices who have been indoctrinated by race realism and Alt Right political theory.

    "I predict many losses at the level of the lower courts, delays, and the issue finally decided by weathervane Anthony Kennedy at the SCOTUS."

    Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, who reflects the center-right majority of Americans, a beacon of reasonable jurisprudence.

    "I’m disappointed that President Trump isn’t defying patently unconstitutional court injunctions. (In theory a federal judge could dispatch federal marshalls to arrest someone acting contrary to an injunction, but I doubt that they would risk the confrontation.)"

    Federal judges would assuredly call in marshals, as it is their constitutional duty, to arrest those circumventing the law. Moreover, the court injunctions are an integral part of our checks and balances system.

    "Who is allowed into the United States is an existential question. If Trump surrenders it to the judiciary, the United States will resemble a large Brazil by 2050 and a large South Africa by 2100."

    May, not will. You have no idea. I'm sure you have done your part by siring five or more purely White offspring, right?






    Speaking of the rule of law, when did it become the case that some circuit court judge could set the nation’s immigration policy? Why didn’t the executive just slap the guy down Andy Jackson-style, and tell government employees to follow the President’s order?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/trump-moving-slowly-but-sessions-moving-fast/#comment-1822212
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. As long as a good wall gets built and some good SC appointees appointed, that’s my expectations met, sad to say. There is a vast gulf between my expectations and my hopes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rex Little

    As long as a good wall gets built
     
    A "wall" as a metaphor for real border control and enforcement of immigration laws would be great. I fear that an actual, physical wall will be an expensive red herring, providing the illusion of border security without the reality. Another TSA, in effect.
  3. AIPAC probably gave President Trump some nicely framed stills from some footage that nice Mr Zapruder took in Texas. Honestly, just when one thinks people aren’t kind and considerate anymore, along comes a thoughtful gesture like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Mr. Giraldi, you really should see someone about these fantasies.
  4. Indeed, when Cholos show up in mass numbers and ethnically cleanse blacks from a neighborhood, crime in that neighborhood may go down. But of course NET crime in the nation goes up. You may also get different sorts of crime when blacks are forced out. An influx of, say, Pakis or Arabs might get you more welfare, medicaid and foodstamp fraud, for example, but a bit less random, knock you on the head for fun crime.

    On the other hand, you can also get good old fashioned black crime from black immigrants, as from this African gang now apparently turning Times Square back into it’s old ways of drugs and prostitution. Thank goodness that, for now, they still have “sanctuary.”

    http://nypost.com/2017/04/02/inside-the-drug-and-sex-ring-in-the-middle-of-times-square/

    Read More
  5. I got my money’s worth when Trump nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Anything beyond that will be gravy.

    Read More
  6. So Israel is involved in the Isis fight. On which side?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    Exactly. Israel never met a better friend than ISIS.
  7. I expected Trump to normalize relations with Russia at minimum and hopefully begin repatriating his legions also. I see the opposite happening. Trump lied about his foreign policy. Surrounded by enemies he alienates his supporters among the people? Not smart Donald. If people other than himself are the true authors of foreign policy he should give us their names, addresses and photos.

    Read More
  8. @Anonym
    As long as a good wall gets built and some good SC appointees appointed, that's my expectations met, sad to say. There is a vast gulf between my expectations and my hopes.

    As long as a good wall gets built

    A “wall” as a metaphor for real border control and enforcement of immigration laws would be great. I fear that an actual, physical wall will be an expensive red herring, providing the illusion of border security without the reality. Another TSA, in effect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Even if the wall is great and it has a big gate, the gate can be shut. No other presidential candidate was going to build a wall.
    , @Art Deco
    I fear that an actual, physical wall will be an expensive red herring,

    It isn't. See R.M. Kaus on this point. The red herrings are techno-substitutes.
  9. @Father O'Hara
    So Israel is involved in the Isis fight. On which side?

    Exactly. Israel never met a better friend than ISIS.

    Read More
  10. @Diversity Heretic
    Unfortunately, much of what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do will end up in court, where judges have been educated by the type of professors cited in John's article. I predict many losses at the level of the lower courts, delays, and the issue finally decided by weathervane Anthony Kennedy at the SCOTUS. I'm disappointed that President Trump isn't defying patently unconstitutional court injunctions. (In theory a federal judge could dispatch federal marshalls to arrest someone acting contrary to an injunction, but I doubt that they would risk the confrontation.)

    Who is allowed into the United States is an existential question. If Trump surrenders it to the judiciary, the United States will resemble a large Brazil by 2050 and a large South Africa by 2100.

    “Unfortunately, much of what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do will end up in court, where judges have been educated by the type of professors cited in John’s article. ”

    As opposed to conservative justices who have been indoctrinated by race realism and Alt Right political theory.

    “I predict many losses at the level of the lower courts, delays, and the issue finally decided by weathervane Anthony Kennedy at the SCOTUS.”

    Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, who reflects the center-right majority of Americans, a beacon of reasonable jurisprudence.

    “I’m disappointed that President Trump isn’t defying patently unconstitutional court injunctions. (In theory a federal judge could dispatch federal marshalls to arrest someone acting contrary to an injunction, but I doubt that they would risk the confrontation.)”

    Federal judges would assuredly call in marshals, as it is their constitutional duty, to arrest those circumventing the law. Moreover, the court injunctions are an integral part of our checks and balances system.

    “Who is allowed into the United States is an existential question. If Trump surrenders it to the judiciary, the United States will resemble a large Brazil by 2050 and a large South Africa by 2100.”

    May, not will. You have no idea. I’m sure you have done your part by siring five or more purely White offspring, right?

    Speaking of the rule of law, when did it become the case that some circuit court judge could set the nation’s immigration policy? Why didn’t the executive just slap the guy down Andy Jackson-style, and tell government employees to follow the President’s order?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, who reflects the center-right majority of Americans, a beacon of reasonable jurisprudence.
     

     

    Owen Josephus Roberts (May 2, 1875 – May 17, 1955) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court for fifteen years. ... the only Republican appointed Justice .. He was also one of three justices to vote against Roosevelt's orders for Japanese American internment camps in Korematsu v. United States.

    Roberts switched his position on the constitutionality of the New Deal in late 1936,.. Subsequently, the Court would vote to uphold all New Deal programs. Roosevelt's plan to appoint several new justices as part of his "Court-packing" plan of 1937 (The switch in time that saved nine) coincided with the Court's favorable decision in Parrish [...]

    However, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes contended in his autobiographical notes that Roosevelt's attempt to pack the court "had not the slightest effect" on the court's ruling [...].Roberts and Hughes both acknowledged that because of the overwhelming support that had been shown for the New Deal through Roosevelt's re-election in November 1936,[7] ... forced the court to depart from "its fortress in public opinion" and severely weakened its capability to base its rulings on personal or political beliefs
     

    I would say Trump reflects (or weathervanes) no less than Kennedy. Trump just happens to be an early adopter because he was very sensitive to the formation of new majorities, which enabled him to be seen as a rabble rouser or leader but he reflects the new majority--which was created by the issue

    Dewey begins his argument by distinguishing between the "state," represented by elected lawmakers, and the "public," the diffuse, often incoherent body of citizens who elect the state. The public is called into being when ordinary citizens experience the negative externalities (or consequences) of exchanges beyond their control (such as market or governmental activities). A public then is made up of citizens whose common interest is focused on alleviating these negative externalities through legislation; in fact, Dewey argues that a public does not actually exist until a negative externality calls it into being. Dewey asserts that this occurs when people perceive how consequences of indirect actions affect them collectively: “Indirect, extensive, enduring and serious consequences of conjoint and interacting behavior call a public into existence having a common interest in controlling these consequences”.[1] Hence, a public only develops when it has a reason and comes together around an issue of substantial or serious significance.

     

    Derb is correct that Trump will have to confront the Supreme Court, and win again. Winning a second term is essential, because then the Supremes will see that times, and the phantom majority, have changed.
  11. “Speaking of the rule of law, when did it become the case that some circuit court judge could set the nation’s immigration policy? Why didn’t the executive just slap the guy down Andy Jackson-style, and tell government employees to follow the President’s order?”

    First, Jackson’s refusal to abide by a court decision was unconstitutional and the opposite of the rule of law. Second, Jackson’s action helped to facilitate the Trail of Tears. Third, circuit court judges don’t set our immigration policies, they interpret laws and executive orders regarding those policies as being constitutional or unconstitutional. Congress then goes back to the drawing board and crafts new laws to meet constitutional scrutiny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    Corvinus why are you here?

    You aren't changing anyone's view on anything.

    Yet day after day, month after month, you post regularly.

    Now everyone sees something on the internet they disagree with, then they let the villains know in no uncertain terms.

    But you never, ever go away.

    So either you get paid to do this somehow, or you are channeling George Costanza "That's what I should have said!"

    BTW, I actually looked up recently how this whole Judge thing interfering in any and everything came about.

    Looks to me that it is not a thing specified in the Constitution, but rather it was a usurpal of executive authority that Jefferson let pass because he wasn't in the mood for a confrontation.

    Then it just became a thing.

    But it sure seems to me to be an undefined thing. If Trump were to totally ignore these judges, it is not clear that the Supreme Court has the slightest authority to even make a ruling on the matter.

    Seems to me a new precedent can be made. That can bite you in the butt, a la the Nuclear Option the Democrats passed, but it is high time some smack got put down on the Judicial Branch.
    , @Ace
    A succinct statement of the kindergarten view of the American political system.
  12. @Corvinus
    "Speaking of the rule of law, when did it become the case that some circuit court judge could set the nation’s immigration policy? Why didn’t the executive just slap the guy down Andy Jackson-style, and tell government employees to follow the President’s order?"

    First, Jackson's refusal to abide by a court decision was unconstitutional and the opposite of the rule of law. Second, Jackson's action helped to facilitate the Trail of Tears. Third, circuit court judges don't set our immigration policies, they interpret laws and executive orders regarding those policies as being constitutional or unconstitutional. Congress then goes back to the drawing board and crafts new laws to meet constitutional scrutiny.

    Corvinus why are you here?

    You aren’t changing anyone’s view on anything.

    Yet day after day, month after month, you post regularly.

    Now everyone sees something on the internet they disagree with, then they let the villains know in no uncertain terms.

    But you never, ever go away.

    So either you get paid to do this somehow, or you are channeling George Costanza “That’s what I should have said!”

    BTW, I actually looked up recently how this whole Judge thing interfering in any and everything came about.

    Looks to me that it is not a thing specified in the Constitution, but rather it was a usurpal of executive authority that Jefferson let pass because he wasn’t in the mood for a confrontation.

    Then it just became a thing.

    But it sure seems to me to be an undefined thing. If Trump were to totally ignore these judges, it is not clear that the Supreme Court has the slightest authority to even make a ruling on the matter.

    Seems to me a new precedent can be made. That can bite you in the butt, a la the Nuclear Option the Democrats passed, but it is high time some smack got put down on the Judicial Branch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    , @Corvinus
    "Corvinus why are you here? You aren’t changing anyone’s view on anything. Yet day after day, month after month, you post regularly."

    It's called facilitating discussion.

    "Looks to me that it is not a thing specified in the Constitution, but rather it was a usurpal of executive authority that Jefferson let pass because he wasn’t in the mood for a confrontation."

    Clearly you didn't conduct any research. The Marshall Court ruled that the sole right to negotiate with the Indian nations in North America as sovereign nations belonged with the federal government. He acknowledged the exercise of conquest and purchase can give political dominion, but if falls before the federal government, and individual states had no authority in this matter. Georgia's statute was therefore invalid. Rather than enforcing the court's decision as his sworn duty as chief executive called for, he sided with Georgia. Again, his action violated the rule of law.

    "But it sure seems to me to be an undefined thing. If Trump were to totally ignore these judges, it is not clear that the Supreme Court has the slightest authority to even make a ruling on the matter."

    It is abundantly clear that Congress would be in a position to bring charges against Trump for failing to abide by the ruling made by the highest court in the land. Because if Democrat president engaged in such conduct, he or she would also be subject to consequences given his or her willful violation of the Constitution.

    Again, do you even understand checks and balances?
  13. @MEH 0910

    Grab a shillelagh and lay about you.
     
    SCTV Finian's Rainbow Meats

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiylnBNwKac

    Meh.

    Read More
  14. @Corvinus
    "Speaking of the rule of law, when did it become the case that some circuit court judge could set the nation’s immigration policy? Why didn’t the executive just slap the guy down Andy Jackson-style, and tell government employees to follow the President’s order?"

    First, Jackson's refusal to abide by a court decision was unconstitutional and the opposite of the rule of law. Second, Jackson's action helped to facilitate the Trail of Tears. Third, circuit court judges don't set our immigration policies, they interpret laws and executive orders regarding those policies as being constitutional or unconstitutional. Congress then goes back to the drawing board and crafts new laws to meet constitutional scrutiny.

    A succinct statement of the kindergarten view of the American political system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Corrie exhibits a very strong vibe of "We Are The World." Maybe she was a Wymnn's Studies major, maybe she's a single mother whose "daddy" is Uncle Sam, or maybe she's a man-jawed Alpha wife who runs the local churchian league.

    I find it fascinating to see all the rationalizations for the last 50 years trotted out so well, right at a time when they're so out of date and out of fashion.
    , @Corvinus
    "A succinct statement of the kindergarten view of the American political system."

    Considering my audience, I thought that you would appreciate dumbing things down so even you, Anonym, and dc.sunset are able to understand.

  15. Trump is a transition figure.

    Stocks are still bumping the ceiling. Bond prices are still very close to their Aug-2016 highs. Uncle Sam can still spend to his little satraps’ delight without having to tax….via the magic of Issue Another IOU. People still behave like resources are unlimited.

    Wait until this game ends. Wait until rates climb enough to choke off willingness to lend. Wait until the “news” about rate increases begin to sincerely hand-wring over covering the monthly vig. Wait just a couple more years and medical costs subsume most of the Federal budget.

    At current rates of year-over-year increase, medical costs born by Uncle Sammy will slam into the singularity (where borrowing requirements begin to track vertically) about the same time as rate increases do the same for the National Debt, or in just a couple years.

    Then will people finally get very concerned about their little piece of the pie, and they’ll be ready to exterminate any rivals. How much of a Coalition of the Fringes will exist then?

    Read More
  16. @Ace
    A succinct statement of the kindergarten view of the American political system.

    Corrie exhibits a very strong vibe of “We Are The World.” Maybe she was a Wymnn’s Studies major, maybe she’s a single mother whose “daddy” is Uncle Sam, or maybe she’s a man-jawed Alpha wife who runs the local churchian league.

    I find it fascinating to see all the rationalizations for the last 50 years trotted out so well, right at a time when they’re so out of date and out of fashion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Corvinus's faith in the courts as neutral and principled interpreters of the Constitution to which we should all plight our troth is strange at this late date. But that's been holy writ since the New Deal so make that 75 years and counting.
  17. My British aerospace engineer friend listened to as much of your podcast this week as he could manage, remarking with distaste at one point that you sounded like an auntie complaining about fish.

    Read More
  18. @Sunbeam
    Corvinus why are you here?

    You aren't changing anyone's view on anything.

    Yet day after day, month after month, you post regularly.

    Now everyone sees something on the internet they disagree with, then they let the villains know in no uncertain terms.

    But you never, ever go away.

    So either you get paid to do this somehow, or you are channeling George Costanza "That's what I should have said!"

    BTW, I actually looked up recently how this whole Judge thing interfering in any and everything came about.

    Looks to me that it is not a thing specified in the Constitution, but rather it was a usurpal of executive authority that Jefferson let pass because he wasn't in the mood for a confrontation.

    Then it just became a thing.

    But it sure seems to me to be an undefined thing. If Trump were to totally ignore these judges, it is not clear that the Supreme Court has the slightest authority to even make a ruling on the matter.

    Seems to me a new precedent can be made. That can bite you in the butt, a la the Nuclear Option the Democrats passed, but it is high time some smack got put down on the Judicial Branch.

    Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Read More
  19. @Sunbeam
    Corvinus why are you here?

    You aren't changing anyone's view on anything.

    Yet day after day, month after month, you post regularly.

    Now everyone sees something on the internet they disagree with, then they let the villains know in no uncertain terms.

    But you never, ever go away.

    So either you get paid to do this somehow, or you are channeling George Costanza "That's what I should have said!"

    BTW, I actually looked up recently how this whole Judge thing interfering in any and everything came about.

    Looks to me that it is not a thing specified in the Constitution, but rather it was a usurpal of executive authority that Jefferson let pass because he wasn't in the mood for a confrontation.

    Then it just became a thing.

    But it sure seems to me to be an undefined thing. If Trump were to totally ignore these judges, it is not clear that the Supreme Court has the slightest authority to even make a ruling on the matter.

    Seems to me a new precedent can be made. That can bite you in the butt, a la the Nuclear Option the Democrats passed, but it is high time some smack got put down on the Judicial Branch.

    “Corvinus why are you here? You aren’t changing anyone’s view on anything. Yet day after day, month after month, you post regularly.”

    It’s called facilitating discussion.

    “Looks to me that it is not a thing specified in the Constitution, but rather it was a usurpal of executive authority that Jefferson let pass because he wasn’t in the mood for a confrontation.”

    Clearly you didn’t conduct any research. The Marshall Court ruled that the sole right to negotiate with the Indian nations in North America as sovereign nations belonged with the federal government. He acknowledged the exercise of conquest and purchase can give political dominion, but if falls before the federal government, and individual states had no authority in this matter. Georgia’s statute was therefore invalid. Rather than enforcing the court’s decision as his sworn duty as chief executive called for, he sided with Georgia. Again, his action violated the rule of law.

    “But it sure seems to me to be an undefined thing. If Trump were to totally ignore these judges, it is not clear that the Supreme Court has the slightest authority to even make a ruling on the matter.”

    It is abundantly clear that Congress would be in a position to bring charges against Trump for failing to abide by the ruling made by the highest court in the land. Because if Democrat president engaged in such conduct, he or she would also be subject to consequences given his or her willful violation of the Constitution.

    Again, do you even understand checks and balances?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "On his last day in office, John Adams attempted to further the Federalist legacy by appointing numerous federal judges to office. These became known as the "midnight appointments" and naturally irritated the incoming Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Federalist views. These judges held lifetime tenures, making it impossible for the new president to shape the judiciary.

    One of the appointees, William Marbury, was appointed a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia; the appointment was ratified by the Senate. However, his official commission had not been delivered by the time Jefferson took office. The new secretary of state, James Madison, seemingly flouted the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 by refusing to deliver the documents. Marbury then sued for a writ of mandamus — a court order to compel a federal official to carry out a prescribed action.

    The case did not reach the Supreme Court until 1803. The chief justice was John Marshall, a staunch Federalist and former Adams secretary of state, who had received his appointment to the high court just two months before Jefferson took office. Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison accomplished the following:

    Gave the Chief Justice opportunity to chide his political opponents by holding that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury
    Avoided a confrontation between the Judiciary and Executive branch, given that no action was ordered by the Supreme Court
    Established the precedent of judicial review by holding that the portion of Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue such writs was unconstitutional.

    Marbury never became a justice of the peace in Washington, but John Marshall had fashioned a Supreme Court with power equal to the other branches of government."

    " Established the precedent of judicial review by holding that the portion of Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue such writs was unconstitutional."

    Seems to me this is one man's opinion, not backed up by the Constitution. Everyone involved had their reasons for going along at the time.

    And by some curious quirk, akin to a child reasoning "They let me do this yesterday, so I get to do it again today," we have this lovely system.
  20. @Rex Little

    As long as a good wall gets built
     
    A "wall" as a metaphor for real border control and enforcement of immigration laws would be great. I fear that an actual, physical wall will be an expensive red herring, providing the illusion of border security without the reality. Another TSA, in effect.

    Even if the wall is great and it has a big gate, the gate can be shut. No other presidential candidate was going to build a wall.

    Read More
  21. @Ace
    A succinct statement of the kindergarten view of the American political system.

    “A succinct statement of the kindergarten view of the American political system.”

    Considering my audience, I thought that you would appreciate dumbing things down so even you, Anonym, and dc.sunset are able to understand.

    Read More
  22. @Corvinus
    "Corvinus why are you here? You aren’t changing anyone’s view on anything. Yet day after day, month after month, you post regularly."

    It's called facilitating discussion.

    "Looks to me that it is not a thing specified in the Constitution, but rather it was a usurpal of executive authority that Jefferson let pass because he wasn’t in the mood for a confrontation."

    Clearly you didn't conduct any research. The Marshall Court ruled that the sole right to negotiate with the Indian nations in North America as sovereign nations belonged with the federal government. He acknowledged the exercise of conquest and purchase can give political dominion, but if falls before the federal government, and individual states had no authority in this matter. Georgia's statute was therefore invalid. Rather than enforcing the court's decision as his sworn duty as chief executive called for, he sided with Georgia. Again, his action violated the rule of law.

    "But it sure seems to me to be an undefined thing. If Trump were to totally ignore these judges, it is not clear that the Supreme Court has the slightest authority to even make a ruling on the matter."

    It is abundantly clear that Congress would be in a position to bring charges against Trump for failing to abide by the ruling made by the highest court in the land. Because if Democrat president engaged in such conduct, he or she would also be subject to consequences given his or her willful violation of the Constitution.

    Again, do you even understand checks and balances?

    “On his last day in office, John Adams attempted to further the Federalist legacy by appointing numerous federal judges to office. These became known as the “midnight appointments” and naturally irritated the incoming Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Federalist views. These judges held lifetime tenures, making it impossible for the new president to shape the judiciary.

    One of the appointees, William Marbury, was appointed a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia; the appointment was ratified by the Senate. However, his official commission had not been delivered by the time Jefferson took office. The new secretary of state, James Madison, seemingly flouted the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 by refusing to deliver the documents. Marbury then sued for a writ of mandamus — a court order to compel a federal official to carry out a prescribed action.

    The case did not reach the Supreme Court until 1803. The chief justice was John Marshall, a staunch Federalist and former Adams secretary of state, who had received his appointment to the high court just two months before Jefferson took office. Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison accomplished the following:

    Gave the Chief Justice opportunity to chide his political opponents by holding that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury
    Avoided a confrontation between the Judiciary and Executive branch, given that no action was ordered by the Supreme Court
    Established the precedent of judicial review by holding that the portion of Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue such writs was unconstitutional.

    Marbury never became a justice of the peace in Washington, but John Marshall had fashioned a Supreme Court with power equal to the other branches of government.”

    ” Established the precedent of judicial review by holding that the portion of Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue such writs was unconstitutional.”

    Seems to me this is one man’s opinion, not backed up by the Constitution. Everyone involved had their reasons for going along at the time.

    And by some curious quirk, akin to a child reasoning “They let me do this yesterday, so I get to do it again today,” we have this lovely system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Seems to me this is one man’s opinion, not backed up by the Constitution. Everyone involved had their reasons for going along at the time."

    Silly man, Congress created the court system with the intention to review laws and executive decisions. Hence, checks and balances. The Marshall Court ruled it lacked the authority to force Madison to make the appointment official -and- that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not expressly grant this power to the judiciary!

  23. @NoseytheDuke
    AIPAC probably gave President Trump some nicely framed stills from some footage that nice Mr Zapruder took in Texas. Honestly, just when one thinks people aren't kind and considerate anymore, along comes a thoughtful gesture like that.

    Mr. Giraldi, you really should see someone about these fantasies.

    Read More
  24. @Rex Little

    As long as a good wall gets built
     
    A "wall" as a metaphor for real border control and enforcement of immigration laws would be great. I fear that an actual, physical wall will be an expensive red herring, providing the illusion of border security without the reality. Another TSA, in effect.

    I fear that an actual, physical wall will be an expensive red herring,

    It isn’t. See R.M. Kaus on this point. The red herrings are techno-substitutes.

    Read More
  25. The hungry sheep look up and are not fed, Mr. President. Grab a shillelagh and lay about you. Chase the money-changers from the temple. Brandish your saber and charge the enemy. I’m running out of metaphors, but you get the idea.

    “Fix bayonets” would not have gone amiss.

    The Attorney General’s speech was mostly hortatory, urging jurisdictions to comply with the relevant federal law, which he helpfully named by section and paragraph. He showed a glimpse of iron fist inside the velvet glove, though, asserting that Justice will claw back grants from jurisdictions that defy the law, and make future grants conditional on compliance with the law.

    Advice, and warning. It’s not like he’s in some toothless role. He’s the AGotUS. It’s in his interests to tell folks to obey the law, before he starts enforcing it. It makes his job easier if people simply comply. The more people who will obey the law do so, the fewer he’ll have to waste his time on, leaving him just the hardened scum to deal with.

    Sanctuary cities are saying, “We want every member of the community to trust us, and that can be only if we’re not viewed as partners of ICE.”

    These are the same sentiments as those expressed by immigration fifth columnists in a recent piece in the NY Daily News:

    NYPD alerts feds to Criminal Court appearances of immigrants facing deportation despite ‘sanctuary’ vow

    Advocates slammed the practice, saying it amounts to “collusion” with immigration officials that goes against the spirit of Mayor de Blasio’s pledge that the city will remain a sanctuary city.

    But advocates said de Blasio could do more to stymie immigration agents.

    “The mayor can issue a command to the Police Department that they shouldn’t be calling ICE,” Zeno said. “Cooperating with ICE is one thing … But to me they seem to be in collusion with ICE.”

    State gov’t “colluding” with Federal gov’t to enforce the law, news at 11.

    Professor Hing’s faculty biography tells us that “Throughout his career, Professor Bill Ong Hing pursued social justice.” Well, I guess that’s being up front about it, at least.

    If it quacks like a duck… The guy says the same things that criminal alien fifth columnists say, I suppose that’s more instructive than his job title or credentials.

    Read More
  26. @Sunbeam
    "On his last day in office, John Adams attempted to further the Federalist legacy by appointing numerous federal judges to office. These became known as the "midnight appointments" and naturally irritated the incoming Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Federalist views. These judges held lifetime tenures, making it impossible for the new president to shape the judiciary.

    One of the appointees, William Marbury, was appointed a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia; the appointment was ratified by the Senate. However, his official commission had not been delivered by the time Jefferson took office. The new secretary of state, James Madison, seemingly flouted the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 by refusing to deliver the documents. Marbury then sued for a writ of mandamus — a court order to compel a federal official to carry out a prescribed action.

    The case did not reach the Supreme Court until 1803. The chief justice was John Marshall, a staunch Federalist and former Adams secretary of state, who had received his appointment to the high court just two months before Jefferson took office. Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison accomplished the following:

    Gave the Chief Justice opportunity to chide his political opponents by holding that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury
    Avoided a confrontation between the Judiciary and Executive branch, given that no action was ordered by the Supreme Court
    Established the precedent of judicial review by holding that the portion of Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue such writs was unconstitutional.

    Marbury never became a justice of the peace in Washington, but John Marshall had fashioned a Supreme Court with power equal to the other branches of government."

    " Established the precedent of judicial review by holding that the portion of Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue such writs was unconstitutional."

    Seems to me this is one man's opinion, not backed up by the Constitution. Everyone involved had their reasons for going along at the time.

    And by some curious quirk, akin to a child reasoning "They let me do this yesterday, so I get to do it again today," we have this lovely system.

    “Seems to me this is one man’s opinion, not backed up by the Constitution. Everyone involved had their reasons for going along at the time.”

    Silly man, Congress created the court system with the intention to review laws and executive decisions. Hence, checks and balances. The Marshall Court ruled it lacked the authority to force Madison to make the appointment official -and- that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not expressly grant this power to the judiciary!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr Darcy
    Get your head out of the clouds. There is no "rule of law" and there never has been. The law, my dear, is whatever the enforcers of the law say it is. 'Twas ever thus.
  27. As opposed to conservative justices who have been indoctrinated by race realism and Alt Right political theory.

    In Corvanus’ fevered imagination…

    Federal judges would assuredly call in marshals, as it is their constitutional duty, to arrest those circumventing the law. Moreover, the court injunctions are an integral part of our checks and balances system.

    Well, we now have the assurances of Corvanus, a guy who thinks race-realist alt-right law professors are a significant presence in our law schools, going back far enough to have indoctrinated many current federal judges. In other words, we have the assurances of a loon.

    May, not will. You have no idea. I’m sure you have done your part by siring five or more purely White offspring, right?

    Well, it’s only a distinct possibility that Corvanus will have his home broken into, and his arsehole raped (it’s also a distinct possibility that Corvanus would enjoy this, but, I digress). Thus, he never locks his doors, has installed no security system, etc.

    “A succinct statement of the kindergarten view of the American political system.”

    Considering my audience, I thought that you would appreciate dumbing things down so even you, Anonym, and dc.sunset are able to understand.

    Corvanus has already explained that he only inhabits right-wing commentariats, because his fellow lefties have all banned him.

    Read More
  28. @Corvinus
    "Unfortunately, much of what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do will end up in court, where judges have been educated by the type of professors cited in John’s article. "

    As opposed to conservative justices who have been indoctrinated by race realism and Alt Right political theory.

    "I predict many losses at the level of the lower courts, delays, and the issue finally decided by weathervane Anthony Kennedy at the SCOTUS."

    Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, who reflects the center-right majority of Americans, a beacon of reasonable jurisprudence.

    "I’m disappointed that President Trump isn’t defying patently unconstitutional court injunctions. (In theory a federal judge could dispatch federal marshalls to arrest someone acting contrary to an injunction, but I doubt that they would risk the confrontation.)"

    Federal judges would assuredly call in marshals, as it is their constitutional duty, to arrest those circumventing the law. Moreover, the court injunctions are an integral part of our checks and balances system.

    "Who is allowed into the United States is an existential question. If Trump surrenders it to the judiciary, the United States will resemble a large Brazil by 2050 and a large South Africa by 2100."

    May, not will. You have no idea. I'm sure you have done your part by siring five or more purely White offspring, right?






    Speaking of the rule of law, when did it become the case that some circuit court judge could set the nation’s immigration policy? Why didn’t the executive just slap the guy down Andy Jackson-style, and tell government employees to follow the President’s order?

    Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, who reflects the center-right majority of Americans, a beacon of reasonable jurisprudence.

    Owen Josephus Roberts (May 2, 1875 – May 17, 1955) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court for fifteen years. … the only Republican appointed Justice .. He was also one of three justices to vote against Roosevelt’s orders for Japanese American internment camps in Korematsu v. United States.

    Roberts switched his position on the constitutionality of the New Deal in late 1936,.. Subsequently, the Court would vote to uphold all New Deal programs. Roosevelt’s plan to appoint several new justices as part of his “Court-packing” plan of 1937 (The switch in time that saved nine) coincided with the Court’s favorable decision in Parrish [...]

    However, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes contended in his autobiographical notes that Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the court “had not the slightest effect” on the court’s ruling [...].Roberts and Hughes both acknowledged that because of the overwhelming support that had been shown for the New Deal through Roosevelt’s re-election in November 1936,[7] … forced the court to depart from “its fortress in public opinion” and severely weakened its capability to base its rulings on personal or political beliefs

    I would say Trump reflects (or weathervanes) no less than Kennedy. Trump just happens to be an early adopter because he was very sensitive to the formation of new majorities, which enabled him to be seen as a rabble rouser or leader but he reflects the new majority–which was created by the issue

    Dewey begins his argument by distinguishing between the “state,” represented by elected lawmakers, and the “public,” the diffuse, often incoherent body of citizens who elect the state. The public is called into being when ordinary citizens experience the negative externalities (or consequences) of exchanges beyond their control (such as market or governmental activities). A public then is made up of citizens whose common interest is focused on alleviating these negative externalities through legislation; in fact, Dewey argues that a public does not actually exist until a negative externality calls it into being. Dewey asserts that this occurs when people perceive how consequences of indirect actions affect them collectively: “Indirect, extensive, enduring and serious consequences of conjoint and interacting behavior call a public into existence having a common interest in controlling these consequences”.[1] Hence, a public only develops when it has a reason and comes together around an issue of substantial or serious significance.

    Derb is correct that Trump will have to confront the Supreme Court, and win again. Winning a second term is essential, because then the Supremes will see that times, and the phantom majority, have changed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Thanks for the fascinating account of Owen Roberts. Are you suggesting that Kennedy will follow in the same path? Because that would be premature to say. Kennedy's judicial philosophy has consistently remained at the intersection of the liberal court and conservative court.

    "because of the overwhelming support that had been shown for the New Deal through Roosevelt’s re-election in November 1936...forced the court to depart from “its fortress in public opinion” and severely weakened its capability to base its rulings on personal or political beliefs".

    Indeed, judges as people are mindful of public opinion. Hence, their decisions may reflect societal trends. There's nothing earth shattering here.
  29. @Corvinus
    "Seems to me this is one man’s opinion, not backed up by the Constitution. Everyone involved had their reasons for going along at the time."

    Silly man, Congress created the court system with the intention to review laws and executive decisions. Hence, checks and balances. The Marshall Court ruled it lacked the authority to force Madison to make the appointment official -and- that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not expressly grant this power to the judiciary!

    Get your head out of the clouds. There is no “rule of law” and there never has been. The law, my dear, is whatever the enforcers of the law say it is. ‘Twas ever thus.

    Read More
    • Agree: Gringo
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Get your head out of the clouds. There is no “rule of law” and there never has been. The law, my dear, is whatever the enforcers of the law say it is. ‘Twas ever thus."

    With the enforcers of the law saying it is one way or the other way based on statutes, past decisions, and precedents.
  30. @dc.sunsets
    Corrie exhibits a very strong vibe of "We Are The World." Maybe she was a Wymnn's Studies major, maybe she's a single mother whose "daddy" is Uncle Sam, or maybe she's a man-jawed Alpha wife who runs the local churchian league.

    I find it fascinating to see all the rationalizations for the last 50 years trotted out so well, right at a time when they're so out of date and out of fashion.

    Corvinus’s faith in the courts as neutral and principled interpreters of the Constitution to which we should all plight our troth is strange at this late date. But that’s been holy writ since the New Deal so make that 75 years and counting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Corvinus’s faith in the courts as neutral and principled interpreters of the Constitution to which we should all plight our troth is strange at this late date."

    I have faith that our courts, run by people, are sworn to be as neutral and principled as humanly possible, knowing full well that they have a particular ideology and set of values they employ when crafting their rulings.
    , @Gringo
    More like 213 years since Marbury vs Madison 1804 ruled that the supremes could over rule the elected president.
    President Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling but that was the only instance of a president not obeying the court.

    I know conservatives don't like Roosevelt, but he was elected by electoral and popular vote 4 times and fought the court.

    I'm afraid that every thing Trump tries to do will be overturned by the courts. Already the environmentalists have decreed that the border wall will harm done endangered worms and weeds. The courts almost always go along with ebvirinmebtalists
  31. @Corvinus
    "A succinct statement of the kindergarten view of the American political system."

    Considering my audience, I thought that you would appreciate dumbing things down so even you, Anonym, and dc.sunset are able to understand.

    Don’t think I don’t appreciate it.

    Read More
  32. @Sean

    Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, who reflects the center-right majority of Americans, a beacon of reasonable jurisprudence.
     

     

    Owen Josephus Roberts (May 2, 1875 – May 17, 1955) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court for fifteen years. ... the only Republican appointed Justice .. He was also one of three justices to vote against Roosevelt's orders for Japanese American internment camps in Korematsu v. United States.

    Roberts switched his position on the constitutionality of the New Deal in late 1936,.. Subsequently, the Court would vote to uphold all New Deal programs. Roosevelt's plan to appoint several new justices as part of his "Court-packing" plan of 1937 (The switch in time that saved nine) coincided with the Court's favorable decision in Parrish [...]

    However, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes contended in his autobiographical notes that Roosevelt's attempt to pack the court "had not the slightest effect" on the court's ruling [...].Roberts and Hughes both acknowledged that because of the overwhelming support that had been shown for the New Deal through Roosevelt's re-election in November 1936,[7] ... forced the court to depart from "its fortress in public opinion" and severely weakened its capability to base its rulings on personal or political beliefs
     

    I would say Trump reflects (or weathervanes) no less than Kennedy. Trump just happens to be an early adopter because he was very sensitive to the formation of new majorities, which enabled him to be seen as a rabble rouser or leader but he reflects the new majority--which was created by the issue

    Dewey begins his argument by distinguishing between the "state," represented by elected lawmakers, and the "public," the diffuse, often incoherent body of citizens who elect the state. The public is called into being when ordinary citizens experience the negative externalities (or consequences) of exchanges beyond their control (such as market or governmental activities). A public then is made up of citizens whose common interest is focused on alleviating these negative externalities through legislation; in fact, Dewey argues that a public does not actually exist until a negative externality calls it into being. Dewey asserts that this occurs when people perceive how consequences of indirect actions affect them collectively: “Indirect, extensive, enduring and serious consequences of conjoint and interacting behavior call a public into existence having a common interest in controlling these consequences”.[1] Hence, a public only develops when it has a reason and comes together around an issue of substantial or serious significance.

     

    Derb is correct that Trump will have to confront the Supreme Court, and win again. Winning a second term is essential, because then the Supremes will see that times, and the phantom majority, have changed.

    Thanks for the fascinating account of Owen Roberts. Are you suggesting that Kennedy will follow in the same path? Because that would be premature to say. Kennedy’s judicial philosophy has consistently remained at the intersection of the liberal court and conservative court.

    “because of the overwhelming support that had been shown for the New Deal through Roosevelt’s re-election in November 1936…forced the court to depart from “its fortress in public opinion” and severely weakened its capability to base its rulings on personal or political beliefs”.

    Indeed, judges as people are mindful of public opinion. Hence, their decisions may reflect societal trends. There’s nothing earth shattering here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Roosevelt was not outside the realms of what had gone before so it was still possible for the Court to keep with the old assumptions Trump probably came as a huge shock to them so they will be disconcerted.

    It was as President that Eisenhower sent the Airborne Division to Little Rock in 1958 to enforce Supreme's Brown v. Board of Education, 1954. So the court's judicial experience is that a strong executive commanding democratic consent is the only meaningful guardian of the constitution.

  33. @Mr Darcy
    Get your head out of the clouds. There is no "rule of law" and there never has been. The law, my dear, is whatever the enforcers of the law say it is. 'Twas ever thus.

    “Get your head out of the clouds. There is no “rule of law” and there never has been. The law, my dear, is whatever the enforcers of the law say it is. ‘Twas ever thus.”

    With the enforcers of the law saying it is one way or the other way based on statutes, past decisions, and precedents.

    Read More
  34. @Ace
    Corvinus's faith in the courts as neutral and principled interpreters of the Constitution to which we should all plight our troth is strange at this late date. But that's been holy writ since the New Deal so make that 75 years and counting.

    “Corvinus’s faith in the courts as neutral and principled interpreters of the Constitution to which we should all plight our troth is strange at this late date.”

    I have faith that our courts, run by people, are sworn to be as neutral and principled as humanly possible, knowing full well that they have a particular ideology and set of values they employ when crafting their rulings.

    Read More
  35. The immigration bill being floated by Republican Tom Cotton and a Democrat only lowers legal immigration from 1.1 million to 700K. What nation on earth accepts 700K immigrants annually? It’s still madness.

    Supposedly the bill ends chain migration which if true is long overdue but we need a 5-10 year moratorium on legal immigration and after than time no more than 100K annually with the vast majority being white Europeans from Europe, Scandinavia, U.K. and Australia. We should only accept 10-15K refugees as long as they are white such as the beleaguered whites of S. Africa.

    On foreign policy it seems Trump is orgasmic over anyone bearing the title of “general” and has outsourced foreign policy to the military brass and the pentagon. That means endless little wars. Trump openly questioned our foreign commitments and need for NATO on the campaign trail but has quickly fallen into line since taking office. No doubt he was given “the talk” by Mike Pence and other establishment hacks.

    Trump has also kept DACA in place after promising to rescind it upon taking office. We’ve been totally had on that one and I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump keeps drifting left on his signature issues to where he’s indistinguishable from your typical RINO by 2020.

    Read More
  36. @Corvinus
    Thanks for the fascinating account of Owen Roberts. Are you suggesting that Kennedy will follow in the same path? Because that would be premature to say. Kennedy's judicial philosophy has consistently remained at the intersection of the liberal court and conservative court.

    "because of the overwhelming support that had been shown for the New Deal through Roosevelt’s re-election in November 1936...forced the court to depart from “its fortress in public opinion” and severely weakened its capability to base its rulings on personal or political beliefs".

    Indeed, judges as people are mindful of public opinion. Hence, their decisions may reflect societal trends. There's nothing earth shattering here.

    Roosevelt was not outside the realms of what had gone before so it was still possible for the Court to keep with the old assumptions Trump probably came as a huge shock to them so they will be disconcerted.

    It was as President that Eisenhower sent the Airborne Division to Little Rock in 1958 to enforce Supreme’s Brown v. Board of Education, 1954. So the court’s judicial experience is that a strong executive commanding democratic consent is the only meaningful guardian of the constitution.

    Read More
  37. Anyone got any thoughts on this chemical weapons thing? Smells like a false flag to me.

    Trump’s news conference said something about Assad and Russia, but come on, there is no plausible explanation for why either of them would sign on for something like this.

    Read More
  38. @Ace
    Corvinus's faith in the courts as neutral and principled interpreters of the Constitution to which we should all plight our troth is strange at this late date. But that's been holy writ since the New Deal so make that 75 years and counting.

    More like 213 years since Marbury vs Madison 1804 ruled that the supremes could over rule the elected president.
    President Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling but that was the only instance of a president not obeying the court.

    I know conservatives don’t like Roosevelt, but he was elected by electoral and popular vote 4 times and fought the court.

    I’m afraid that every thing Trump tries to do will be overturned by the courts. Already the environmentalists have decreed that the border wall will harm done endangered worms and weeds. The courts almost always go along with ebvirinmebtalists

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    I'm not one to grind my teeth over Marbury, which was correctly decided. The prevailing view is that it was something of a power grab but I don't think it was. Article III, Sect. 2 provides that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ." This is not a plenary power as the option exists to impeach justices who do not honestly interpret the Constitution. Honest interpretation is the implicit condition for all obedience to the court's rulings.

    Nor do I find Jackson's defiance of the Court objectionable. The Court itself punts on cases it believes involve political matters. I see no reason why a president can't act and take his chances regarding his own impeachment and the displeasure of the voters. Separation of powers is a doctrine that needs expanding. Marbury is improperly worshiped by liberals as establishing the supremacy of Court power and they studiously ignore the existence of the impeachment option. As I like to argue, impeachment was meant to be an important check on official malfeasance, misfeasance, or non-feasance and it should be as common as WSJ editorials calling for open borders. Or unsanctioned border crossings for that matter. Or Muslim lies about plain vanilla Islam.

    So, no, it's not authority for the Court's power to rule supreme.

    The court that Roosevelt "fought" was a doomed court. In short order it simply failed to enforce the Interstate Commerce Clause as Robert Bork pointed out. What Roosevelt wanted to fight was the Court's correct interpretation of the ISC that stymied his plans for the unconstitutional transformation of American politics. Conservatives are correct to revile FDR for this. Compliant justices soon populated the Court on that issue.

    Nor is FDR's having been elected four times anything that buttresses his actions. His first campaign was conducted on a tissue of lies about his intentions and subsequent campaigns were conducted by the judicious expenditure of funds for WPA projects in key states. Perhaps the first time -- but not the last time -- that a president understood the efficacy of using taxes levied from one class of voters to purchase the votes of a different class of voters.

    Your last paragraph is the absolute truth. One aspect of Trump that concerns me is that, while I appreciate his visceral patriotism and businessman's commonsense ability to see advantage and disadvantage in existing or proposed arrangements or deals, I do not see him as a reflective man with any kind of a refined understanding of the constitutional system. Unlike Jackson, he's not equipped to assert any constitutional truths and sell them to the people.

  39. Sanctuary for illegal aliens.

    Confiscation of personal property, arrests, convictions, criminal records, cash fines, and jail time for homeless American citizens.

    Go figure, it’s illegal to be a poor American citizen who can’t afford housing, but legal to be a non-citizen / foreign national who breaks immigration laws.

    FTG.

    A Dream Denied: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities.

    http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/meanest.html

    California a Statewide Sanctuary for People Who Are in the Country Illegally.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CALIFORNIA_SANCTUARY_CITIES

    Illegal Aliens’ Constitutional Rights?

    http://www.scragged.com/articles/illegal-aliens-constitutional-rights

    Read More
  40. @Gringo
    More like 213 years since Marbury vs Madison 1804 ruled that the supremes could over rule the elected president.
    President Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling but that was the only instance of a president not obeying the court.

    I know conservatives don't like Roosevelt, but he was elected by electoral and popular vote 4 times and fought the court.

    I'm afraid that every thing Trump tries to do will be overturned by the courts. Already the environmentalists have decreed that the border wall will harm done endangered worms and weeds. The courts almost always go along with ebvirinmebtalists

    I’m not one to grind my teeth over Marbury, which was correctly decided. The prevailing view is that it was something of a power grab but I don’t think it was. Article III, Sect. 2 provides that “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . .” This is not a plenary power as the option exists to impeach justices who do not honestly interpret the Constitution. Honest interpretation is the implicit condition for all obedience to the court’s rulings.

    Nor do I find Jackson’s defiance of the Court objectionable. The Court itself punts on cases it believes involve political matters. I see no reason why a president can’t act and take his chances regarding his own impeachment and the displeasure of the voters. Separation of powers is a doctrine that needs expanding. Marbury is improperly worshiped by liberals as establishing the supremacy of Court power and they studiously ignore the existence of the impeachment option. As I like to argue, impeachment was meant to be an important check on official malfeasance, misfeasance, or non-feasance and it should be as common as WSJ editorials calling for open borders. Or unsanctioned border crossings for that matter. Or Muslim lies about plain vanilla Islam.

    So, no, it’s not authority for the Court’s power to rule supreme.

    The court that Roosevelt “fought” was a doomed court. In short order it simply failed to enforce the Interstate Commerce Clause as Robert Bork pointed out. What Roosevelt wanted to fight was the Court’s correct interpretation of the ISC that stymied his plans for the unconstitutional transformation of American politics. Conservatives are correct to revile FDR for this. Compliant justices soon populated the Court on that issue.

    Nor is FDR’s having been elected four times anything that buttresses his actions. His first campaign was conducted on a tissue of lies about his intentions and subsequent campaigns were conducted by the judicious expenditure of funds for WPA projects in key states. Perhaps the first time — but not the last time — that a president understood the efficacy of using taxes levied from one class of voters to purchase the votes of a different class of voters.

    Your last paragraph is the absolute truth. One aspect of Trump that concerns me is that, while I appreciate his visceral patriotism and businessman’s commonsense ability to see advantage and disadvantage in existing or proposed arrangements or deals, I do not see him as a reflective man with any kind of a refined understanding of the constitutional system. Unlike Jackson, he’s not equipped to assert any constitutional truths and sell them to the people.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering