The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Is POTUS Or SCOTUS More To Blame In A "Clash Of Illegalities"?
Our expectations must be much higher for the unaccountable Supreme Court than the popularly-elected President.
Today, Ed Whelan wrote a post about A.A.R.P. v. Trump II. For argument's sake, Ed assumes that Justice Alito is correct that the majority "acted wrongly in enjoining action that is probably, or even certainly, illegal." If Alito is right, how would Ed assign blame?
I am not going to argue that two wrongs make a right. That is, if we continue to assume for the sake of argument that Alito's dissent is right, I am not going to argue that the blatant illegality of the Trump administration's actions would justify or excuse the majority's injunction. But if we are going to assign relative blame, I would place much more blame on the Trump administration for its entire Alien Enemies Act folly, which quite predictably triggered an unnecessary and unproductive clash with the courts. Others might well disagree.
I disagree. I think Ed gets things 100% backwards.
Donald Trump is who he is. On the campaign trial, Trump said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act to effect mass removals, including of foreign gang members. The American people knew this, and still voted for him. As soon as Trump came into office, he kept this campaign promise, and invoked the AEA. These are statutes with very little judicial precedent. His order, even if contrary to how judges now read the Alien Enemies Act, was not foreclosed by any binding precedent when signed.
I think his actions are far more legally defensible than Biden's policies concerning student loans and the eviction moratorium. If Trump ultimately loses this litigation--and I suspect he will--he has stated many times that he will abide by the Supreme Court's judgment. But above all else, Trump is accountable. He has suffered political losses for removing aliens under the AEA, and these actions will likely help Democrats take the House in the midterm elections. Once that happens, we will be see non-stop hearings, subpoenas, investigations, and likely another impeachment for abuse of power.
But what are the consequences when the Supreme Court abuses its power? Chief Justice Roberts has lectured us that judges cannot be impeached for their decisions. The only remedy is the "normal appellate process" to the Supreme Court. But what happens when the Supreme Court is at fault? To quote Justice Alito's flag, does the only appeal go to heaven? Brutus, the Anti-Federalist, warned that Supreme Court Justices who were "independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven" would "generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself." Brutus was right.
In John Roberts's world, he is the alpha and omega: he determines what is legal, and his determinations are therefore legal. L'État, c'est moi. The standard for the Supreme Court must be much higher. The Supreme Court should avoid even the slightest hint of impropriety. Yet the Court's decision in A.A.R.P. v. Trump blatantly misstated the facts, slandered the good name of Judge James Wesley Hendrix, manufactured a new legal principle by citing a conclusory legal treatise, permanently curtailed the President's executive powers, and expanded the Court's original jurisdiction (Justice Alito's dissent picked up on this point). And all of this was done to halt a policy that invoked a two-hundred year old authority, that was the centerpiece of Trump's presidential campaign.
Only Justices Alito and Thomas had the fortitude to call out the majority. At least Justice Kavanaugh--who has really been distinguishing himself of late--would have pushed through to decide the case.
Going back to Ed's post, if we are to assign relative blame, the unaccountable Supreme Court warrants far more blame than the accountable President. I don't think this comparison is even remotely close.
On Friday, I dashed off a quick post about A.A.R.P. v. Trump II. I read the decision, and wrote the post on my phone while waiting on the three-hour queue for the new Harry Potter ride at Epic Universe. (I did a TV interview with a view of the park.) I will have much more to say about this case in due course.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Oh my god! Josh Blackman is so retarded it hurts. Trump indefinitely imprisoning people and ignoring due process, which is a constitutional violation under the fifth amendment, is defensible because making campaign promises to violate the constitution excuses it. Meanwhile Biden, who was also elected, and made a campaign promise to forgive student is unconscionable, even though it’s a mere statutory interpretation and the consequences aren’t permanent, and were reversible.
I feel second hand embarrassment for Josh, being unaware of the depths of his own stupidity, he’s neither capable of tricking anyone into taking his silly arguments seriously, nor realizing his incompetence is immediately apparent to everyone. Truly a clown with delusions of grandeur.
IANAL but I've been around humans long enough to recognize your childish language as childish. Why not address Josh's main argument, that the President is accountable by elections, while Supreme Court justices are not?
An unaccountable office has far more potential to do wrong than an accountable one. Just because the accountable one has done something you don't like is no reason to pretend your brain hurts from Josh being retarded.
Grow up. Respond like an adult.
It's really funny watching you idiots lose it over Josh. I learn more from him, and the few commenters who actually respond to him, than all you Josh haters combined, because you are so blinded that you refuse to address his points, just call him retarded and a fifth rate professor from a sixth rate school. Maybe lawyers think that is clever, but humans don't.
Well, Blackman is wrong that the American people voted for Trump - 49.5% of the electorate did. And further, if so many people vote for a president who will act illegally as the law stands, change the law first.
Trump got a majority of the electoral college, and that is what matters. He also got a majority of votes counted on Election Day.
No Trump did NOT get a majority of the popular vote. He got 49.5%. Harris only got 48%. Neither got a majority.
That is only if you count the late votes.
No doubt your definition of "late" means "after Trump won".
That's why she lost, not enough "Late" voters voted this time.
Electoral college votes count for electing the president. They don't count when you're making a claim about voters. (One of the signs of a cultist moron is when they claim that Trump won by a landslide. The EC is irrelevant to such a claim.)
Did he get a majority of lawful votes? Nope. That he got a majority on election day is the kind of argument that only a Trump-besotted imbecile could make.
I think there IS a fair argument to be made that you've got a real problem when some of the states are still counting votes weeks after the election. It didn't really have any significance in 2024, but in the occasional election it can lead to the nation not knowing who won for a long while after the election, and really incentivize dubious counting practices once people on the ground know that they're deciding the election.
I mean, fortunately California is not likely to ever be close in a Presidential election where their EC votes will decide the matter, the way Florida was in 2000. But as a general principle, if a state is still counting votes 3 weeks after an election, something is deeply wrong with their election administration, and needs to be fixed.
Electoral votes reflect the state. President Trump won a vast majority of states. We don’t have a parliamentary system here.
Nobody is arguing this. You are intentionally confusing legitimacy with "mandate". The way the US system works, Trump is the legitimate president, just as Biden was last time. But to claim a mandate for sweeping change requires more than mere legitimacy.
You are apparently ignorant of the significance of winning a vast majority of states. Winning the popular vote is just extra bragging rights.
He didn't win a "vast majority of" states. HTH.
And there is precisely zero "significance" to that in any case. In terms of whether the president has popular support, it's irrelevant since states aren't people. And in terms of whether the president was elected, it's also irrelevant since states aren't electoral votes.
Hey, you found another nit to pick!
It must be a big day for a midwit when they find some lowly nit to pick.
31 to 19 is vast enough for practical purposes, even if it isn't a Reagan vs Mondale blowout.
It is not of "zero significance" my crazy troll friend. It is controlling. He won the vast majority of states and thus won the electoral college votes for those states. Oh, and while not constitutionally relevant, he also won the popular vote. Maybe there are some other ignoramuses here that might actually believe you, crazy Dave, but they probably also still believe in the Russian collusion fraud.
It's one thing to say, wrt 2000 or 2016, "it doesn't matter whether someone got a majority of popular votes because that's not our system." But having taken that position, one cannot argue that it matters who won a majority of states, given that that's also not our system.
I know all that. I've ranted about that elsewhere. He beat the worst candidate in my memory by only 1.5%, and he's throwing away all the political capital he's built up on fighting courts over stupid illegal deportations.
But that's not my point. My point was that the Josh bashers are irrational idiots whose primary goal when they see a post by him seems to be to act like petulant little children instead of addressing his main point, such as here, where he says Presidents are at least accountable to the public, but Supreme Court justices are not.
And you are wrong that the American people did not vote for Trump. He won the Presidency in both the fictitious national popular vote and the real Electoral College vote. Harris did not.
"and he's throwing away all the political capital he's built up on fighting courts over stupid illegal deportations."
Pisses me off, too. The most on target headline Reason has run in living memory was "Trump Is Giving Everyone What They Want In the Dumbest Way Possible. Man, is that ever true.
The only thing that's keeping him from dropping like a lead balloon is the novelty of a Republican President who IS visibly trying to fulfil his campaign promises.
You know who *I* blame most? The Republican Congress. They, too, ran on this platform, and they haven't lifted a finger to help Trump fulfill it. As a result he's fighting dirty because it's the only way he CAN fight given his lack of legislative backup.
By now Congress should have funded enough immigration judges to run a decent deportation program by the book. But they haven't done squat. I assume because they're still thinking they can continue the bait and switch which has characterized the federal GOP for decades.
The most on target headline Reason has run in living memory was "Trump Is Giving Everyone What They Want In the Dumbest Way Possible.
But you told us the man is a genius.
No, I told you he wasn't a moron.
Can you identify all the proposed bills that Trump has sent to Congress relating to immigration that Congress has refused to pass?
Um... You do know that the president doesn't write legislation, right?
" He beat the worst candidate in my memory by only 1.5%"
He beat Hillary in the EC, he would have beaten Biden if not for the Covid lockdown recession and dubious election procedure changes, and he beat Harris in both the popular and EC.
Granted they were all close races, and he wouldn't have done nearly so well against even a halfway decent Democratic candidate, but the Democrats have puked up an awful nominee three times in a row now. I'm not at all sure they have it in them to break that streak.
Every time the Democrats attack Trump as awful, they need to reflect on why they keep nominating candidates who are so bad that they could only barely beat the likes of Trump by using a pandemic as an excuse to engineer a recession and make ad hoc changes to election administration. Because that's not a card they can exactly pull out on demand.
I'm expecting the Republicans do do badly in the midterms, because the Republican Congress isn't exactly giving their voters any reason to turn out for them. They might hold onto the Senate, they WILL lose the House.
And then the Democrats will devote themselves to reminding everybody why they vote Republican; It's not because Republicans do anything worthwhile, it's because Democrats do things that need to be blocked. And we'll go into 2028 with a candidate who isn't Trump, probably DeSantis, and what will the Democrats do? Nominate Newsom? Too white and straight, I expect. Probably AOC.
I don't think Republicans need to be too worried about that matchup.
Hillary did better than Trump in the popular vote and "would have beaten" him in the election if not for the archaic and dubious EC, he lost badly to Biden by any metric, and he barely did better than Harris in the popular vote (still getting less than than 50%).
"Hillary did better than Trump in the popular vote and "would have beaten" him in the election if not for the archaic and dubious EC,"
"He would have won the football game if they'd been playing baseball!"
Look, they were, unless Hillary was a total idiot, both trying to win the EC. He succeeded. If they'd both been trying to win the popular vote, instead, maybe he'd have won that, too. We'll never know.
"he lost badly to Biden by any metric,"
232-306 wasn't doing great, but it wasn't doing impressively bad, either, by EC standards. Biden racked up that lead by some very narrow margins in swing states. He lost the popular vote by 51.3-46.8, also fairly close. Losing is losing, of course, but the election could easily have gone the other way if conducted under pre-Covid election rules, or without the lockdown induced recession.
"and he barely did better than Harris in the popular vote"
I SAID they were all close elections, now, didn't I?
My point is that the only reason the likes of Trump could win even one Presidential election, let alone two, and coming close in a third, is that the Democrats are nominating really lousy candidates. The worse you think Trump is, the worse you must admit the Democratic nominees were.
Is there any reason to think the Democrats will nominate a stronger candidate in 2028? Or is whatever dynamic driving them to nominate such weak candidates still in operation? Because, remember, in 2028 the Republicans will NOT be running Trump.
You sure do work hard for this dude you don't much like.
I sure would like out of this dynamic where each election I have to pick the lesser evil of the major party candidates, and with each election, the evil gets worse.
I'll say it again: The worse you think Trump is, the worse you have to admit your candidates were, and maybe instead of hoping the Republicans will nominate somebody SO AWFUL that even a lousy Democrat can beat them, you should try figuring out why you keep nominating such sucky candidates that even a Trump can beat them.
No serious party should have run either Trump OR Harris! Harris was a joke of a candidate, an affirmative action pick for VP who stumbled into the nomination without having to compete for it because you pretended Biden was OK until it was too late to hold primaries.
And, Trump? No, the GOP should NOT have nominated him, he might have been running on the right issues, but he'd already demonstrated incompetence at actually governing, and a disturbing tendency not to learn from experience, on top of his obvious moral failings.
DeSantis could have beaten Harris, too, and would have been boringly competent at actually being President. Rand Paul would have brought some principle and moral standing to the office. But Trump? The GOP genuinely is the stupid party.
OK, a clarification is urgently needed here. Trump was the better candidate in terms of selling himself to the American people. He is better at marketing himself than Harris is, I'll give him that.
But as to which of them would actually have been the better president, Harris would have been a mainstream president who governed from the center, maybe slightly left of center. (She is far too conservative to have been elected in most other Western democracies.) We would not have these potentially ruinous trade wars with nonsensical tariffs, she would not have destroyed relations with our allies that took decades to build, we wouldn't have had the utter chaos Elon Musk generated, she wouldn't have exacerbated the national deficit and debt with her billionaire tax cuts, and she wouldn't be trying to bully the entire rest of the world to do it her way. In other words, whatever marketing faults she may have, she would have been a sane, rational grownup.
Oh, and just wait until harvest time when all the produce is rotting in the field and lettuce is $5 a head because Trump deported all the migrant workers.
So yeah, he was the better snake oil salesman during the campaign.
Like most leftists, your definition of governing from the center is governing from the center of the left.
That's only because American politics skews so far to the right that what is considered the left here is the center in most of the rest of the world. We're an outlier. And you don't define terms based on outliers.
Democracies, free countries in general, are the outliers in the world. We're an outlier among the outliers.
It is a pity that most countries are both less free AND poorer, though.
Democracy/not democracy is a separate classification from left/right/center. A democracy can be left, right, or center, and so can a non-democracy.
The terms left, right and center are somewhat relative, but not entirely so. And by any objective measurement, US politics is significantly skewed to the right.
The claim that Kamala Harris is a leftist, or would have governed from the left, is just laughable. As AG of California she was firmly pro police. The Wall Street kleptocrats love her, the Congressional Progressive Caucus hates her. She's pro military, pro death penalty, and a foreign affairs hawk. She's only a leftist if Mussolini is the comparison.
Granted, Trump is even further to the right. But I would hate to think that he's the standard.
Takes a lot of carefully defining freedom to argue America is exceptionally free these days.
I certainly wouldn't claim that the US is exceptionally free on any absolute scale at the moment.
We are, of course, more free than most countries; Most countries are at best authoritarian, genuine liberal democracies are very much the minority in the world.
And we are more free than most liberal democracies, although mostly in terms of liberties the left dislikes.
But exceptionally free on an absolute scale? Hardly.
Exceptional is comparative off the break; I don't know what absolute freedom would mean without context - we don't live in a philosophically easy world.
And we are more free than most liberal democracies, although mostly in terms of liberties the left dislikes.
Says you. Based on your vibes. Which always veer to right-wing authoritarianism. Gotta own the libs before they get a chance to do The Camps, after all.
More like gotta own the libs before they have the chance to provide health care to poor people.
Yeah, if you don't like a liberty, you won't even acknowledge it as a form of liberty.
So here I am, free to own guns, and you don't count that as freedom. Free to say stuff you don't like, even if you'd like to call it 'disinformation'. Why, I'm even free to say a politician doesn't support freedom of speech, or silently pray near a clinic, and not get jailed. And the police don't give a damn what's in my library, either.
And, yeah, AWoNI, I'm also free to not pay for your health care.
Brett, except for not paying for health care, none of the freedoms you list are actually at risk from the Democrats. You'll find an occasional Democrat trash talk about it, but the likelihood that a government controlled entirely by Democrats would actually take your guns or throw you in jail for political speech is pretty remote.
Guess you don't know the meaning of "infringe" and "shall" in legal construction.
Bumble, I know non sequiturs are your specialty, but what did I say that would lead you to that conclusion?
"Harris would have been a mainstream president who governed from the center, maybe slightly left of center."
Yeah, right. The candidate who was so unpopular in 2020 that she dropped out before getting a single primary vote. The candidate who was so devoid of ideas that she had to copy several of Trump's ideas and spoke word salad so much she gave new meaning to "vegetarian".
She would have done whatever her woke puppetmasters wanted.
Harris would not have done all the boneheaded things I listed in my previous response. That aside, no one is denying she was a bad candidate, and a better candidate could have beaten Trump. But that's not the same as saying he's a better president than she would have been.
And she didn't *copy* Trump's ideas. Those were her positions, demonstrating she's far from the leftist the right makes her out to be.
What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion?
Two nits in one day! Man, this must be like midwit Christmas!
“Mainstream”? WHAT?????? She would have taxed us back to the Stone Age. And deficit spending, it would be the current budget on steroids who are on steroids. Her regulatory and green agenda would decimate industry. Prosecutorial abuses? The Biden regime would look like amateur hour. And foreign policy? We’d be a few steps closer to WWIII. So, I think we could do without that kind of “moderate” for a while.
You are aware that deficit spending typically goes DOWN when Democrats are in power? The rest of your claims are too silly to deserve a response.
When Democrats are in power in the House deficits go down?
I don't think that's true.
If you're trying to argue that Democrats are fiscally responsible and that spending and debt go down under their rule, you're welcome to your view.
My argument, which is borne out by cold hard numbers, is that Democrats and Republicans both spend like drunken sailors. The difference between them is that Democrats understand that someone has to pay for it, meaning higher taxes, whereas Republicans just keep throwing it on a credit card, which at some point will max out. Has anyone given any thought to what happens when we reach our limit and no one will loan us money any more? At this point China could probably destroy our economy single handedly just by calling in the loans.
So, if you care about deficits and fiscal responsibility, vote Democrat. If you're fine with the debt continuing to go up until it no longer can, vote Republican. That's just about the only difference at this point. And the level of spending cuts required to actually fix the problem has zero political support in either party.
The ultimate problem is federal debt. Democrats will only exacerbate matters. They will not control spending. And worse, they will irresponsibly tax and regulate the country. That's what in fact Harris promised. At least tax cuts are economically stimulating and tax revenue enhancing, whatever other flaws are in the Republican proposal.
There is little data to show that tax cuts stimulate the economy. We've had 40 years of trickle down since Reagan with the result that the rich have gotten richer and the middle class has gotten poorer.
What makes you think Republicans will control spending? And Harris said she would tax the rich, which is actually beneficial since it gets more money into the economy.
And my argument is that an increase in revenues has never in the modern era actually resulted in a reduced deficit. It has simply resulted in the same deficit at a higher total level of spending. Lack of will to control spending is the problem, not lack of will to raise taxes.
Politicians spend every cent they can tax and borrow in order to buy votes, and any of them who won't borrow to buy votes fail to buy enough votes, and get replaced by somebody who will. It's the fundamental failure mode of democracy: Once it's permitted to buy votes with borrowed money, anybody who refuses to do it ends up on the outside looking in.
We are headed towards an economic reckoning, and nothing short of fundamental constitutional change to take borrowing off the table as an option can save us. That's why I support a constitutional convention, though I doubt what emerges will be much to my liking in most respects.
Brett, the numbers don't bear that out. The deficit went down under both Obama and Biden. Not enough to make any real dent in the debt.
But the real problem is that the American people want those services. Even the ones that chortle over all the federal workers that Elon Musk fired. Touch their social security or Medicare and you'll hear about it. Just wait until the red states have to start dealing with less federal money coming in. The American people have somehow convinced themselves that they can have low (or no) taxes, great government services, and a balanced budget, all at the same time. Anyone who figures out how to pull that rabbit out of a hat should be king for life.
Of course people want stuff, if they don't have to pay for it. Who doesn't? The left's whole gig is separating the beneficiary from the people bearing the cost, so that you can get Paul's vote to rob Peter. Isn't that the point of progressive taxation, that the average voter would never in a million years vote for this much government, if they actually had to PAY for it? But if you can promise them someone else will be stuck with the bill, sure, they'll vote for the amount of government you want.
But if you ask people if they want out of this dynamic, if they want a balanced budget amendment? You've got something like 80% of those polled supporting taking borrowing off the table.
No, Josh bashers are not irrational idiots. Blackman is an unprincipled partisan hack.
Because he's taken the opposite position about things he opposed in the past, like student loan cancellation and Obamacare. Despite there being a recent vote by the American people, where the winning candidate campaigned on those things.
His hatred for John Roberts was fully formed when the chief voted to uphold the Obamacare insurance mandate as a tax. No talk about the judiciary yielding to the will of the voters there.
Please STG. It does little for your overall credibility here when you say you learn so much about the legal world, from Blackman's constant, screamingly whiny distress, as he sallies forth from the Harlan Institute and South Texas College of Law Houston, in support of what rational observers accurately judge as radical revanchist destructionism—yesterday's alt-right consuming the once broader right and currently demonstrating such self-delight in making so much chaos of what they once considered worth conserving.
President Trump won a majority of states. Ask your AI tool to explain the electoral college if you don’t understand. As for the symbolic popular vote, he won that too.
So what we have here is an election denier. Good thing for you the repulsive Biden regime is out of power and Harris lost. They tended to take harsh actions against anyone who challenged them.
Nobody denies that Trump won the majority of states, nor that he won the EC. But that is not the same as saying that the American people voted for him - Josh's claim, nor that he won the majority of the votes - he didn't. (Two out of three times he comprehensively lost the popular vote.) Winning the EC entitles you to the office of president. It does not in itself entitle you to claim a mandate for all your policies - disclosed or not. For that you require something more. Trump never got that.,
Yeah, it actually does mean he has a mandate. First he won. He’s the president and sets executive policy. Second, he won the popular vote. Third, he won a vast majority of states. It’s called federalism. Again, look it up. You claim to understand how presidents are elected but you really don’t.
First, winning is not a mandate. Mandate means you are so overwhelmingly popular voters are endorsing all your ideas, and Trump is as popular as raw sewage. Second, Trump is exceeding his executive powers. Winning an election doesn’t give you the right to violate the constitutional constraints. Third he did now win a vast majority of States, nor does it matter. You have to win the electoral college no states. Carter won only 23 in 1976.
If you like being ignorant, that's up to you. But in case you're interested you are fundamentally wrong. You win the electoral college by winning states. It is definitional and controlling. And President Trump won a majority of states by a wide margin. Even if he hadn't, he has a constitutional mandate just from winning. He doesn't get just a percentage of the executive power in proportion to his victory. But, nonetheless, he also won the popular vote. We call that a mandate.
And if Kamala Harris had won by 1.5 points, I'm sure you would be saying she now has a mandate to govern by executive order and ignore the courts too.
No, it would be mindlessly posting that she stole the election and isn't the president at all.
No, I'd be living in the hellscape that she would have made of the country and the world.
But would you apply the same mandate standard to her that you're applying to Trump? She won so she can govern as she likes?
I agree she could have and definitely would have governed us straight to the hellscape referred to above.
You claim to understand how presidents are elected but you really don’t.
You're confusing two things, either because you're stupid or because you're dishonest. How the president is elected is not the same as a mandate. I will bet not a single cultist who thinks that Trump has a mandate this time thought that Biden had a mandate last time or that Obama ever had a mandate, though they both had more claim on one than Trump.
He won the popular vote and won a vast majority of states. Winning states is how presidents are elected. That's expressed in the electoral college vote. Enough of your nonsense. Democrats lost the election big time. Get over it.
1) He got less than 50% of the popular vote.
2) He did not win a vast majority of states.
3) Winning states is not how presidents are elected. Winning electoral votes is. Winning California (1 state) counts for more than winning all of Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Alaska, Delaware, D.C., North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming (14 states, counting D.C. as a state for this purpose).
4) Trump won the election small time. Get over it.
1) He won the popular vote
2) He won a vast majority of states
3) That's exactly how presidents are elected. They win the state and thus win the electoral votes for the state. President Trump won the electoral college vote
4) It goes without saying but you're just a sad pathetic little troll.
Yup. In other words, 50.5% of the electorate voted against Trump.
Trump is a lunatic with severe pathological disorders including malignant narcissism and lack of grasp on reality. He’s not accountable to anyone because he’s psychologically divorced from reality with no feelings of political pressure. Trump is unaccountable and dangerous because he’s a belligerent nut job in need of serious medication.
Ooooh, Mr Shrink with his diploma on the wall, proudly pulled from a box of corn flakes no doubt.
We know you are, but what about Trump?
Another example of the spastic ultra-Hitler genre.
You are only insulting 80 million voters and proclaiming yourself and extraordinary human being whose mere word must be accepted.
In other words, you are a loon
Stupid,
To be fair, Josh, does make more dumb posts (and more dumb arguments in his various OPs) than all other VCers combined. So there's that. People give lots and lots of substantive responses to Josh's OPs.
There are VC members who do have the integrity to read the posts on their own OPs (including Orin, Eugene, Bernstein, and probably others) and often respond. This invites some measure of civility. Josh never does this. Due to fear or cowardice? Due to a lack of respect for his readers? Due to some other reason? Who knows the actual reason(s) why . . . Josh has never explained. So we gentle readers are left to speculate.
I will say that Josh obviously has a real intellect on him. Given that; I believe that the only explanation for many of his posts is absolute bad faith . . . that some of the arguments he has made in the past are so full of shit [a] that no one (who is not mentally deranged/retarded) could be making them in good faith, [b] that Josh is not, in fact, mentally enfeebled; and therefore [c] that he is indeed posting in bad faith, to [d] troll us, or [e] raise his profile to get some sort of appointment from Trump, or [f] some South Park gnome-profit of some sort.
Look at the responses here.
cannpro: childish, not responsive. Twice.
SRG2: not responsive.
Roger S: wrong and not responsive. Three times.
santamonica811: again with the insults.
Kazinski: not responsive. But at least not childish.
Lathrop: off in the weeds someplace.
Botaglove: political rant.
MaddogEngineer: political rant, not responsive.
Josh R: barely on a subtopic, ignores the main topic.
Vryedni: pulls in impeachment contrary to what Roberts said; not responsive and apparently can't read.
Here's what Josh said which no one has discussed:
In short: Presidents are accountable. Supreme Court justices are not; Chief Justice Roberts says it's not fair to impeach judges for their decisions, only, presumably for corruption or fraud or some other high misdemeanor. No one has addressed that. Not one single commenter.
That's why I call all you clowns Josh bashers.
I know you ANAL. Blackman’s premise would undermine if not overrule 200+ years of precedent regarding judicial review. That’s a cornerstone of our constitutional order. Yes, judges are not “accountable” to voters, and that’s by design. So they’re independent of shifting political whims. And Blackman only cares when they don’t get what HE thinks is the correct ruling. Where was his disdain when they overruled Roe v Wade?
It’s fine to complain about the rulings. But Blackman is laying a foundation for Trump to ignore the courts entirely. That’s what the people like Blackman and Trump are going for. And that’s awful for everyone.
And yet something soooo obvious wasn't brought up by any body here except you, and then only because I ranted about no one bringing it up.
This is why I have no respect for Josh bashers.
If your argument is 'that's a good point, but because no one else has made it I will ignore it' you are more interested in Internet fight club than discussion.
No, dummy, try reading in chronological order. My complaint BEFORE his post was that NOBODY was answering Josh's main point. Then he brought it up, AFTER my complaint.
You are missing the point. The problem is not that judges are not accountable to voters. That is by design. The problems is that they are not accountable to anyone, and whether this is by design is highly debatable. The three checks against the judicial branch are (i) court-packing, (ii) impeachment, and (iii) circumscription of jurisdiction. History reveals that all three are very clunky to implement. While judicial review is most certainly baked into the constitution's framework, and the evidence is that most of the Framers understood this, it is less clear that most understood the implications as well as Brutus. The lack of practical accountability means that it is essential that the Court exercise self-restraint. Blackman is correct.
I am missing what point? Yours?
My complaint is that none of you Josh bashers answer his point. I could give a rat's ass what point all you Josh bashers want to throw into the kettle.
My response was directed at Darwinnie, and I'm hardly bashing Josh. Kindly read more carefully.
They’re trolls. It’s what they do. I’d suspect some lucrative “nonprofit” was paying them given the volume of comments but I thought President Trump shut that down. I guess there could be a few hiding in the shadows.
SRG2: not responsive.
How not? I: didn't argue against everything but I made one correct point against him.
You also forget, many posters here have seen Josh posting for years and years and after originally posting responsively, are probably tired of doing so when the same meta-argument keeps getting presented. If someone were to post that the earth is flat, how long before people would stop addressing his argument and merely respond, you're a fuckwit, or words to that effect. So it is with Josh.
“ some of the arguments he has made in the past are so full of shit [a] that no one (who is not mentally deranged/retarded) could be making them in good faith.”
But this is fully consistent with bad faith and stupidity not being mutually exclusive. If Blackman weren’t a complete moron I’d expect him to come up with at least a halfway convincing argument from time to time. He engages in bad faith because he’s incapable of keeping his arguments consistent from one O0 to the next and he is an imbecile because each made up argument is so transparently stupid.
The three things you fail to understand is that these decisions will be the political converse of the Dobbs decision -- that core Dem voting blocks -- Blacks and *legal* Hispanics -- want the Illegals gone. Particularly the drug dealing gang members.
We are going to see a lot of "Willie Horton" ads about how Trump tried to make your neighborhood safe, but the evil Supreme Court prevented him -- so help him by voting for a Congress that will let him do it.
And Herr Roberts is wrong -- Judges can be impeached for political views, and (unlike Sameul Chase) they also can be convicted. Gerald Ford put it best -- "an impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House says it is."
And the true wild card is a replacement for Sotomayer. Her health isn't the best, and if Jesus calls her home next Tuesday, things will get interesting...
Umm... the people who the Sup Ct prevented from being renditioned to El Salvador are being detained/are in jail. Most recently, in the northern district of Texas. They are not getting out based on the US Sup Ct's decision. And assuming they are here illegally, they will be eventually deported under the INA. Being deported is not the same as renditioned. But the vast majority of people already renditioned were not convicted of any crimes here or in their home country. So the question I would ask you... is why are people who have not been convicted of any crime, here or elsewhere, being indefinitely detained in prison in El Salvador on the US taxpayer's dime?
Is that really a winning argument? Sure the administration can spin it they are 'terrorists' and the 'worst of the worst' but the reporting is already out there that this is for the most part, patently false. Cozying up to dictators and potentially committing breaches of international treaties and agreements isn't likely to help.
https://www.newsweek.com/venezuelan-voters-miami-dade-florida-trump-2068811
Because if the President spent the campaign promising that he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act to impale his political opponents on the White House Lawn, the fact that the American people elected him on that promise would neither expand the Act to authorize those impalements, nor make them less of a violation of the 8th Amendment. The Supreme Court would tell him to knock it off, and they wold be right.
Elections don't confer divine right. They give the President limited powers within the existing Constitutional and legal framework. If he oversteps, it is the courts' job to rein him back in.
+1
-1, now we're back to where we started
In light of recent judicial abuses, perhaps time to take seriously impeachment. Judges, including S.Ct. Justices, only hold their office during good behavior. They haven’t been too good lately.
So play it out. MAGA GOP rep Marge Green files articles of impeachment against Chief Justice John Roberts for subverting the will of the voters and impeding President Trump's big beautiful agenda. What are the chances he is convicted and removed?
Are 2/3rds of the Senate going to vote to convict over a disagreement on legal rulings?
I think you would need a bit more meat on that bone for you to get even 40votes to convict...all GOP. And what would that failure look like after?? Bunch of whiny babies big mad that the President can't violate the constitution? Pshhhh
Please do it. Embarrass the GOP on the world stage again.
Trump is term-limited. He's not politically accountable to anyone any more.
Theoretically, he can be removed by impeachment but let's be real: the present Senate wouldn't convict him of literally any offense, nor would the post-2026 Senate even if the Democrats ran the table in midterms.
He is politically accountable in the same sense any President is in their second term: He stands to lose the support of Congress for what he is doing, and he can scarcely be said to have had much support from the judiciary to begin with, and if both those branches are against him, it becomes very easy for the bureaucracy to revolt against him.
Once that happens, he can issue orders, but they'll be largely ignored.
it becomes very easy for the bureaucracy to revolt against him.
This is schrodinger's bureaucracy. All powerful, with a leftist agenda all their own, but paralyzed as Trump wrecks it, because Congress is on Trump's side because silence is consent.
Once that happens, he can issue orders, but they'll be largely ignored.
You don't understand people at all.
Because (a) that's not a legal argument; and (b) is false. Trump is not a candidate. He — like SCOTUS — is accountable at this point only through impeachment.
"I learn more from him, and the few commenters who actually respond to him, than all you Josh haters combined..."
That...doesn't really seem to make the point you think it makes.
Especially if true.
IANAL but I've been around humans long enough to recognize childish language as childish. And to understand it's considerably more important when the said childish language comes from the President of the United States,
...and at least bit more important when it comes from a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston and the President of the Harlan Institute, than from random internet commenters.
But only a bit.
NO, you don't even understand due process !!!!
Since the latter part of the nineteenth century, however, the original understanding of the due process clause, including the meaning of “liberty,” has changed enormously...Towards the end of the nineteenth and into the twentieth century, the courts used the due process clause to review state regulation of businesses, industries, and utilities in the area of economics to see if such regulations were “fair” and “reasonable” or whether they violated the “property” rights or “liberty” of the proprietors.
Josh is "retarded"?? are you sure he's not a big Poo-Poo head with stupid hair?? and speaking of being "retarded" maybe I am to, because for the life of me, I don't understand your
"...and made a campaign promise to forgive student..."
One thing I do know, you're an ugly chick,
like Clint Eastwood in "The Line of Fire"
"I know things about people, it's my job"
Frank
are you sure he's not a big Poo-Poo head with stupid hair??
I'm not at all sure.
"Trump indefinitely imprisoning people and ignoring due process, which is a constitutional violation under the fifth amendment, "
Now tell us how you feel about Obama ordering the assassination of US Citizens without a trial. That's (D)ifferent.
Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout.
The worst part of the whatabout is how retards use it not based on actual inconsistencies but based on hypothetical ones. If someone here had said "Obama's drone strikes were great!", pointing that out would still not be a valid defense of Trump, but at least it would make some sort of argument. But nobody even said that!
Best to adopt the rule that any whatabout concedes the substantive point.
Hence Armchair concedes that what Trump is doing is a constitutional violation. Obviously he doesn't care when his guy breaks the law.
I think Trump* should be able to use the AEA for what he characterized as a foreign incursion.
With two caveats:
1) he should not be able to use the AEA on people Biden paroled into the US, that's not what a foreign incursion looks like.
2) he should give them meaningful opportunity to file habeas petitions as SCOTUS ordered, meaningful to me means about a week.
He got one bite at the apple with Boasberg, and got a win. He tried to play it too cute with the 5th circuit case and got rightly called on it.
And unlike Roberts characterization of the judges as refs, some of them clearly see themselves as players, and they have picked a side.
* I don't think Trump is actually directing the tactical strategy, he gave Hohman, Noem, and the lawyers their marching orders to get the illegals out and they are doing their best to comply despite skating very close to or over the line with the Courts.
"1) he should not be able to use the AEA on people Biden paroled into the US, that's not what a foreign incursion looks like."
That's what a foreign incursion aided and abetted by a President looks like.
"2) he should give them meaningful opportunity to file habeas petitions as SCOTUS ordered, meaningful to me means about a week."
This I'll agree with. They have to be given due process, and in the end that's not a lot of process, really.
a foreign incursion aided and abetted by a President
This is your political thriller, with your own conspiracy and your own definition of words.
Not even the Administration is making this argument.
Yeah, right. You're still pretending that illegal immigration didn't shoot up the moment Biden took office as a matter of deliberate policy. Despite the fact that Trump has twice now demonstrated that it's possible to secure the border with the same resources Biden had.
Biden didn't WANT the border secure. He literally had the border patrol going around ripping out barbed wire, instead of laying it down!
High levels of illegal immigration were a policy objective under Biden. You can deny that all you want, you just look silly.
You're intentionally missing the point. Bad Biden policy does not equal invasion.
Bad Biden policy does not equal invasion, but it could certainly be intended to facilitate an invasion, once you grant that illegal border crossings can qualify as an invasion.
Not only are you back to your usual conspiracymongering, but you're also doing it irrelevantly, since we're talking about the AEA, not "illegal immigration."
As I have said before that the AEA is a sideshow, over 14, Venezuelan, member of TdA, at most a few thousand, a lot of them already gone.
The CHNV temporary parolees is part of the real deal, about 500k, and now Trump has authority to take them all into custody, and deport them.
It's important not to be distracted by slideshows, or put all your effort into using the AEA, when all of.them are reportable under other authorities.
And the best thing about it from Trump's perspective is that doing so will still leave him with all 20 million of the 10 million illegals here to use as bogeymen!
No.
"* I don't think Trump is actually directing the tactical strategy, he gave Hohman, Noem, and the lawyers their marching orders to get the illegals out and they are doing their best to comply despite skating very close to or over the line with the Courts."
Trump directs neither strategy nor tactics. He outsources the cruelty is the point strategy to Stephen Miller, and the really stupid tactics to Tom Homan and Kristi Noem. He usually leaves the lawyers alone, until one tells the truth in court and must be fired.
Trump really doesn't care as long as everything stays in general alignment with his life-long distaste for brown people—other than entertainers and sportsballers who don't challenge him—and impresses his voting 'He hates the same people I do!' base.
The party to blame is mostly the party which acts, not the party which reacts. But probably cases differ. Which party threatens greater harm is a point worth consideration.
Stephen Lathrop 10 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
The party to blame is mostly the party which acts
Correct - the whole problem stems from the democrat party's activism in promoting the illegal immigration at the start of the Biden administration and continues today.
Coupled of course with the denial of the democrat party's behavior
https://x.com/JoshEakle/status/1924600067249344578
Joshua Reed Eakle
@JoshEakle
These people entered the US legally and ended up with a life sentence in a foreign concentration camp.
Unthinkable evil.
There are no other words to describe it.
No, they did not enter the country legally. That article only calls it legal if they can make an asylum claim.
Maybe he forgot the 'i'. Enter the country illegally, and ended up with a life sentence in a foreign concentration camp.
Better?
This is the classic fake distinction.
You say they entered illegally and then you say it shouldn't matter because they shouldn't end up in a foreign concentration camp. but you were utterly blind as milliions poured in. Really that 10 million illegals later you are surprised ????? While criticizing Trump you are bashing Biden AND DON"T EVEN KNOW IT
The only safe option is to self deport now.
Evil.
They are, aren't they? that's why they should self deport. They can come back when a DemoKKKrat wins in 2032 or 2036. (actually they won't, because only way the DemoKKKrat's become competitive in Presidential erections is to take more main stream positions)
...or really, really fortify the election.
Some people said holding J6ers charged with misdemeanors pretrial without bail and using a white collar criminal provision to upgrade the charges to a felony was evil.
They were told they are just vigorously enforcing the law.
The law says they have to go home, and the best way is self deportation, and the administration is even offering free airfare and $1000.
Sorry, no. Campaigning on doing something of questionable legality does not make that illegal thinglmagically legal. It doesn't matter whether the thing is forgiving student loan debt or invoking the AEA. That's the opposite of the rule of law.
Only a partisan hack would suggest otherwise. Because I'm pretty sure you always thought forgiving student loan debt (absent congressional action) was illegal.
We have 10-20 million illegal aliens. No one knows exactly. Trump was elected to do something about them.
Roger S, I have been lax on site maintenance. Thanks for the reminder. Muted.
A note to others, once again. If you hesitate to mute the least reasonable commenters, you miss a double benefit. First, it improves your experience on this blog to do it, and, second, you have a chance to discourage crap commentary.
I comment on this blog to test my own views against opposition. Hence, to mute quality commentary for reason of viewpoint discrimination is the last thing I want to do. But I do want better comments, across the political spectrum. So I encourage good commenters to mute bad ones.
Let's try to do together a task the proprietors maybe ought to be doing, but have chosen not to.
Capt. Dan smiles.
Again, the situation Trump inherited has no bearing on the legality of his AEA invocation.
My criticism here is not really about Trump invoking the AEA. It's Blackman's unprincipled partisan hackery defense of it. Because in past contexts (Obamacare), Blackman criticized judges like John Roberts for doing what he demands here. That a recent electoral mandate somehow makes a presidential action less illegal.
This is bad lawyer strategy because it is illogical and self-refuting.
Rule of law is not YOU deciding that invoking AEA must be wrong.
There is an AEA ergo there must be a legal invocation that exists.Secondly,
Supreme Court allows Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans who risk deportation --- so your assumption that legal protections are inseparable from just having your physical asss here can't be right
Notice that you jumped from "questionable legality" to "illegal". If something is of "questionable" legality that means there are arguments for it being legal.
Invoking the Alien Enemies act is definitely in the "questionable" zone, in that there are arguments both ways. It's not a slam dunk in EITHER direction.
Are they necessarily great arguments for it being applicable? No, not really. But after 3/4 of a century of constitutional Calvinball, it's pretty clear that arguments don't have to be great in order to prevail. Our constitutional jurisprudence would look wildly different by now if only good arguments won before the Supreme court.
Bellmore, maybe rethink that last paragraph. It sounds too aspirational, in a bad way.
It's not an aspiration, it's an observation. I'd love it if only reasonable arguments could prevail at the Supreme court, but that would make a hash of a great deal of current precedent, so it's simply not happening.
It's nihilism.
The Court doesn't agree with your take, so bad faith by the admin is fine.
I'd say it's your view that's nihilistic, in that you deny the possibility that human reason can actually arrive at valid conclusions about the meaning of constitutional text, and so you just declare anything they rule to be the truth.
Unless you don't like it, of course.
BrettLaw is not human reason, it's your overconfidence.
And even if you are indeed the One True Arbiter of The Constitution, that doesn't mean you get to decide that you'll make an exception for this administration since no one else is following The Word of Brett either.
That's not how principles work. It is how nihilism works.
You apparently don't understand my point here. I have no special status as the arbiter of the Constitution, or truth in general. We all hold that office in regards to ourselves, if nobody else.
It is an abdication of human reason to ignore the product of your own reasoning just because someone disagrees with it, even if they happen to be in a position to enforce their own views. Having that power isn't an argument that their own position is right, it merely means that it will be enforced.
If you want to advance arguments that I'm wrong about something, go for it. That the Supreme court ruled to the contrary is not an argument. Why they said they ruled to the contrary might be.
Now you're just doing hubris. I'm not sure how I can tell you that elevating your own take as the only valid one is not good when you have to live with other humans and you are not a king.
And I would like you to apply "It is an abdication of human reason to ignore the product of your own reasoning just because someone disagrees with it, even if they happen to be in a position to enforce their own views" to Trump declaring an emergency. You in the past said actual definitions don't matter because he's the one with the power.
Consistency is not for Brett's.
I said that for legal purposes the normal definition of the word doesn't matter, because the statutory definition was effectively, "The President say so."
Feel free to mock the President saying so, and expect that mocking to be as consequential as my mockery during the previous administration.
The word was in English. The President doesn't get to just redefine English words.
That's more what a king could do.
Point is, my personal judgement involves trusting other people. Yours does not.
When living in a society, yours is the worse paradigm.
"The word was in English."
Oh, like that's an argument you ever cared about. I can tell you the Constitution is written in English all day long, and you don't care.
I guess you think the Court is composed of kings, not judges?
We disagree on how to interpret the Constitution. Neither of us has discarded the English language (even if you accuse me of doing so).
We do not disagree on what emergency means. In that case, you have discarded the English language, and argue it doesn't matter.
It is an abdication of human reason to ignore the product of your own reasoning just because someone disagrees with it,
It is also an abdication to go through life refusing to accept that you could be wrong about something, and thinking you are so obviously right that anyone who disagrees is part of some plot or conspiracy, because no objective person could disagree with you.
If you want to advance arguments that I'm wrong about something, go for it.
That's been done, including my me, many times. To my knowledge you've never conceded a point, often going to absurd lengths to try to refute the criticism.
Either that, or you slink way, not even trying to respond.
Well, I absolutely could be wrong. But until somebody demonstrates to me that I'm wrong, what is there for me to do but proceed on the assumption that I'm right?
We are not going to be able to reason you out of something you did not reason your way into, even if you've convinced yourself its so correct no one could possibly disagree in good faith.
You predicted post-election civil unrest from the Democrats.
You predicted The Camps if Biden was elected in 2020.
No concession you were wrong about anything. No lessons were learned at all.
As always, you completely miss the point, Brett. There is no "the meaning" that is "the truth." What they rule is what counts, because that's the system. Everyone is free to disagree with their interpretation, of course. But that doesn't have any meaning.
When the referee ejects the player for an egregious foul (doesn't matter what sport), the player is out of the game. It doesn't matter how many instant replays you watch from how many angles, and how firmly you conclude that the foul wasn't that severe or wasn't intentional. The player is still out of the game.
" There is no "the meaning" that is "the truth." "
Yes, that's the actual nihilism at play here: A basic rejection of the capacity of language to transmit meaning.
A basic rejection of the capacity of language to transmit meaning.
Trump and the language 'emergency.' And 'invasion.'
Also of course DMN isn't saying that, he's saying civic institutions matter more than your strongly held opinions.
I was specifically addressing Blackman's suggestion, that campaigning on invoking the AEA somehow, magically, eliminates any questions about its legality--that judges should follow election results.
No. That's not how any of that works.
Democrats tried the same thing with student loan forgiveness.
Of course Blackman doesn't actually believe this philosophy, because he denounced it years ago when Democrats insisted Obamacare had electoral legitimacy no matter the constitutional issues. It crystalized his hatred for John Roberts when the chief found a way to turn the insurance mandate into a tax. Because, perhaps, the chief was following the election returns.
Sure, invoking the AEA is fine. But, shipping people out in the middle of night when a judge said stop and almost shipping them out when SCOTUS said stop is far, far worse than the blame SCOTUS gets.
Baloney. SCOTUS justices can be impeached as surely as POTUS can. I wonder if Josh really believes his own bullshit.
And you can't read.
Trump has never claimed he can't be impeached. Roberts has. Which one has more potential to be a tyrant?
Well, Trump, obviously. Because Trump has an actual army.
Roberts can say that he can't be impeached for his decisions all he likes. If Congress does it anyway, fat lot of luck he's going to have putting up a fight about it.
I mean, neither of them has a lot of potential to be a tyrant, but when the rubber hits the road, Trump has more.
Wow, now there is an uninformed statement.
If anyting the Army is pro-Trump mainly because it HATED the Biden picks so disgusting to our troops
LIke this MAN
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Admiral_Rachel_L._Levine.jpg/1200px-Admiral_Rachel_L._Levine.jpg
Huh? That wasn't any sort of slam against Trump at all. I was just addressing the question of who had more 'tyrant potential', a President or the Chief Justice.
And obviously it's the former. The latter can only act like a tyrant so long as the elected branches feel like tolerating it. Presidents have actual power they can deploy.
Roberts needs to get it through his head that he has absolutely no say whatsoever about on what basis he might be impeached, if Congress feels like doing it.
Yes, the executive branch has the most dangerous potential, but history shows that that constitutional checks and balances have been very effective at preventing, limiting and reversing terrible abuse. The checks on the judiciary are both limited and clumsy as a practical matter, which is why it took 50 years to reverse an obviously lawless Roe and a civil war to allow for the reversal of an equally lawless Dredd Scott. The most likely cause of a perceived constitutional crisis will be a judicial branch that refuses to exercise self-restraint. As Roberts notes, probably correctly, judges cannot be impeached for their decisions even if they are obviously wrong and simply an exercise of power being abused. That leaves court-packing and circumscription of jurisdiction as the only remaining expressed constitutional remedies, and we know from history that these are tools are both clumsy and potentially ineffectual, probably more so than the Framers anticipated. The temptation of the executive branch to ignore lawless decisions is real, and the fault of any "crisis" ensuing from such an inter-branch disagreement would rest at least as much with the judicial branch as the executive.
I have long believed that while most of the Framers anticipated judicial review, they did not fully appreciate its potential for constitutional abuse by the so-called "least dangerous branch." That said, it is quite possible that the Framers understood the executive branch's ability to simply ignore a judicial branch order or decision to be an implicit check against overt judicial misbehavior.
"judges cannot be impeached for their decisions"
Why not?
“An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” Gerald Ford
It's not that judges can't be impeached for their decisions, as a theoretical matter Roberts is absolutely wrong about that, and as a matter of legal theory, too. The House has plenary power to impeach, and the Senate to convict, anyone holding an office subject to impeachment, regardless of the basis they choose to do so on.
But, as a practical matter, even rogue judges like the notorious Reinhardt have the sense not to issue decisions that are so lacking in political support that you could get a Senate conviction over them.
Why do you bother talking to people when you can just shoot them?
"When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk" (HT Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez (AKA "the Rat")
Ok Brett, the adjective should have been "likelyhood" rather than "potential", but -- in common usage -- the meaning is the same.
And you assume the military would obey Trump -- I don't. It didn't the last time, remember General Milley?
What order did Trump give that Milley — who, btw, wasn't in the operational chain of command — disobeyed?
Except Roberts didn't say Trump couldn't be impeached for his decisions. He said he couldn't be criminally indicted, with impeachment was the only remedy.
If Trump were to go too far, having an army wouldn't help. Because that army has been trained that they should only follow lawful orders. Obviously that's a bit tricky, because soldiers are not lawyers. But of matters of great import, it should become obvious if any order is legal or not.
Roberts did not claim he can't be impeached. You and Josh are lying here.
Josh, your only hope of becoming a Trump appointee is a wizard or skilled surgeon making you a blonde woman. You need to find a backup plan and soon
I guess you missed it, Josh got an appointment.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/05/president-donald-trump-names-advisory-board-members-to-the-religious-liverty-commission/
Ooohhh what a burn on Gregory!!, I'm guessing you're a Pusher of the Wood Kaz? (for the culturally illiterate that means "Chess Player")
Lenin and Stalin were bad Dudes, but brilliant in requiring every Russian to learn the basics of Chess (and Hockey, they'd have chosen Baseball, but Spring practice in Murmansk? (May 20, and the high is 43). Chess requires anal-yzing your every possible move, and more importantly, your opponents responses to your move. It's why there hasn't been a Non-Russian men's champion since Bobby Fischer won in 1972
Frank "P-K4"
Pretty sure that's not the one he wants.
[Though I'm not sure I buy the instrumental thesis for they Blackman's posts are so bad; tribalism and slight increases in fame combine into a helluva drug.]
"You need to find a backup plan and soon"
Once there is a 5th circuit vacancy, we'll see if your snark holds up.
“If Trump ultimately loses this litigation--and I suspect he will--he has stated many times that he will abide by the Supreme Court's judgment.”
They’ve already been ordered to facilitate the return of a detainee, and that detainee has not been returned. They are not respecting the Supreme Court’s judgment, right now. Its just as simple as that.
Article III court's have no authority to order the excutive branch's exercise of its discretionary diplomatic powers. In other words, courts have no jurisdiction over Garcia, a El Salvador citizen in the custody of the El Salvador government. Garcia's fear claim is moot. The Barrio 18 have been either locked up or fled the country. Harmless error. Garcia recieved all the process he is due. Most people are tired of hearing about it.
Josh thinks that the Trump admin will respect the rulings of SCOTUS, but I think their views are closer to yours. They do not care.
I have two points to make though.
First, Garcia did not receive all the process he is due. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is one of our oldest Constitutional principles and he was denied the hearing it demands.
Second, I'm sorry that you're tired of hearing about it, but I have really bad news on that front. You are going to be hearing about these people for the rest of your life.
We know that a bunch of these people are totally innocent, and we know that they are never coming back. As time moves forward, the permanence of this and the evil of it will be more and more clear. People who DO care about our Constitution will never allow you to forget it.
Article III court's have no authority to order the excutive branch's exercise of its discretionary diplomatic powers.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't say they can't order the summary executions of Ill-legal Aliens either, so would that be Kosher?
Dirtman: "Garcia recieved all the process he is due."
Several years ago, Abrego Garcia did receive meaningful due process, the outcome of which was that the government could not deport him to El Salvador.
It is possible to modify the outcome of previous due process, by by legally following further due process, which could realistically result in the outcome you desire.
And, after the government mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador("Oopsie!" ), violating the previous court order, he has received the initial steps of further due process, resulting in SCOTUS ordering the government to do what it can to restore conditions to what they were before the mistake, and then proceed from there. The Head of State has acknowledged he can do that, but does not intend to.
St. Abrego ain't coming back.
I agree. None of these people are coming back, despite clear court orders to the contrary.
The Trump Administration does not care about SCOTUS or ancient Constitutional principles like the "Great Writ." They want to look like tough guys on Fox News. There is no way they can bring any of these people back while looking tough.
There are ways to make Trump look less tough, if he refuses to comply with Court orders. Problem is, they require a Court motivated to make Trump look less tough, which seems not to be this one. Like Congress, the Roberts Court ought to defend its own powers before it even considers other issues. Neither branch seems wise enough to understand that.
The nation is living out a Founders' nightmare. All 3 branches lapsed into fecklessness together.
Kill-more Garcias is in El Salvador, you know how those Salvadoras are, they don't exactly do things with alacrity, and maybe he doesn't even want to come back, he looked pretty happy drinking Margarita's with that Congressman.
And that right there is the problem.
When you make this argument, it sounds like Frank doing his regular round of trolling. Fits perfectly between "Ear-aq" and the V occasional fancy about having people you don't like murdered.
When Trump makes this argument, he sounds like, well, you. The President responding to the Supreme Court shouldn't sound like a smirking, mid-rent internet troll.
This Country was founded by "smirking, mid-rent internet trolls" (OK, AlGore hadn't invented it yet, but Benny Franklin's Almanacs were the 18th Century version of "Blogs)
and you want to see the very definition of a "Smirking Troll" just look at any random photo of the "Wise (Ass) Latina" Sonia Sotomajor
Frank
"ordered to facilitate the return"
A letter was sent by State making a request. El Salvador said no.
That's all the facilitation required.
It's amazing to me the left still clings to this talking point.
Its amazing to me that "the right" is totally OK with sending obviously innocent people like Andry Romero to a foreign prison without a habeas proceeding, and then the exact same people will turn around and say that they care about the Constitution, and post on a forum like this about legal and Constitutional issues as if they cared about it.
Did Trump pick up the phone and call Bukele and ask?
Thats stupid even for you.
"Did Trump pick up the phone and call Bukele and ask?"
No. He's not a party though.
The Secy of State is I think. He sent a diplomatic note.
There is no such diplomatic note.
The New York Times sys otherwise:
"The Trump administration recently sent a diplomatic note to officials in El Salvador to inquire about releasing a Salvadoran immigrant whom government officials have been ordered by the Supreme Court to help free, according to three people with knowledge of the matter." El Salvador Is Said to Have Spurned U.S. Request for Return of Deported Migrant By Michael S. Schmidt Alan Feuer Zolan Kanno-Youngs Maggie Haberman and Maria Abi-Habib April 30, 2025
No, Trump personally asked Bukele when he was sitting next to him in the Oval Office.
I'm not sure if other diplomatic communications were made, or if they became public.
He did not. A reporter asked Bukele, and Bukele sneered about being unable to "smuggle" Garcia back into the U.S. Trump didn't pipe in and say, "No, no, if you release him we'll allow him back."
"A letter was sent by State making a request. El Salvador said no."
Meanwhile, back in the real world, no such letter has been transmitted and no such response has been received.
Furthermore, even if such an effort had taken place, it would hardly be sufficient! This is not a mere matter of satisfying a legal technicality. This is a crystal clear matter of right and wrong.
The US government has rended obviously innocent people like Andry Romero to a foreign prison without the Constitutionally required Habeas proceeding. This is an ongoing situation - these people are being tortured right now, and there many people in our country who bear, each day that this goes on, personal responsibility for it, either because they personally worked to facilitate it, or because it is being done on their behalf, with the impression that they support it.
I'm curious, what constitutionally required habeas proceeding do you think Andry Romero was due? I'm unfamiliar with his situation. I am familiar with the fact that many people think aliens are due more process than they have been receiving, which is why I'm curious about this case.
Being a crystal clear matter of right and wrong may not align with what the law requires. Being morally wrong does not make something illegal. It makes it immoral.
Andry Romero was deported under the AEA. As the courts, including SCOTUS, have now made clear, he was entitled to notice that he was going to be deported under the AEA as a TdA member and that he had the right to a court hearing as to whether that was applicable. And then, of course, he had the right to an actual court hearing, to determine whether the AEA was properly invoked and whether — if it was — he was a deportable TdA member.
The People, when creating their constitution, set limits on themselves and the politicians they may hire. They were well aware of the gift of gab, and abuses of "emergency! Gimme power to deal with it!" in the downfall of historical democracies, or hell, things remotely like it.
Not making stuff up.
You are compoletely fabricating a clash. The Executive does not take an oath to uphold the Constitution as the SCOTUS sees it. With that attitude Lincoln would have let Dred Scott unchallenged. I know you think this is a cutting edge question but it is a non-question in traditional Constitutional law
Pesident Reagan : “[T]he framers knew unless judges are bound by the text of the Constitution, we will, in fact, no longer have a government of laws, but of men and women who are judges.”
So now Brown and Sotomayor , as unhinged as can be
Thomas Jefferson warned that "if the Constitution means whatever judges want, it would be like “a mere thing of wax, that they could twist and shape it into any form they please.”
You won't deny first principles to save face will you ??????
"“Nowhere in Article III does it say that the judges have the same legislative power as Congress or the same executive authority of the president. They can’t enter a judgment that’s comparable to the laws created by Congress and enforced by the president"
Normal folk see this clearly and know that objections are in the main just ideological
There is a management principle here that everybody misses. You can see it Drucker and Deming clearly.
Supreme Court AVOIDS a stand
Divide responsibility and nobody is responsible.
W. Edwards Deming
So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for people to work. Drucker
And about legal BULLSHIT ,which is the main SCOTUS output lately, esp Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown
“No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.” ~Peter Drucker
About Kamala and Joe and the upset of the election
[A] dissatisfied customer does not complain: he just switches.
All that we have has come from people that are responsible only to themselves, only themselves to satisfy.
ON stupid judicial precedence
Experience teaches nothing. In fact there is no experience to record without theory… Without theory there is no learning… And that is their downfall. People copy examples and then they wonder what is the trouble. They look at examples and without theory they learn nothing.
In other news, apparently New Orleans has been running a facial recognition system on 200 cameras, automatically sending text messages to nearby officers when it registered suspects.
Yeah...panopticon.
Do not build tools of tyranny. Then they cannot be abused.
Maybe they should try hiring some competent jail guards.
Krayt and me, and we agree. Rare moment.
Prof. Blackman does not really set up the comparison, which is between (1) the President issuing an illegal executive order that immediately affects the constitutional rights of thousands of people, and (2) an order of the Supreme Court TEMPORARILY enjoining the enforcement of that executive order to allow the courts to adjudicate the legality of that order before its effects are imposed.
Obviously, if it comes to blame, the movant causing the problem is the obvious one, and that's the President. But if we also consider the scope of harm, it is clear that temporarily halting an illegal act in order to properly adjudicate its legality is preferable to the Court simply throwing up its hands and doing nothing (or only doing piecemeal acts). If the rule of law is to mean anything, it must be able to minimize illegality. Temporary injunctive relief is available in those narrow circumstances where irreparable harm is imminent from an act or law that appears on its face to conflict with established law.
Perhaps Blackman can explain what wonderful things are being lost by having a President temporarily restrained from enforcing an illegal executive order. We can then compare that to the alternative. If, for hypo's sake, the SCOTUS is "abusing its power" by issuing the temporary injunction, okay: tell us how that act is harming the country MORE.
Sadly, Blackman's post needed more thought before it was published.
I will add that if the problem is "unelected justices get to decide matters of law and that's worse if the SCOTUS is wrong on the law," the answer to that is what it always has been: SCOTUS can correct itself later on. SCOTUS has reversed itself on a number of precedents. If you consider Roe v. Wade to have been "illegal," in that it created law that should not have been created, we've all seen how that got reversed. But that problem is not evident here. SCOTUS has not yet ruled on the merits. Blackman assumes that SCOTUS will rule against the administration, yet he claims Trump's position is "far more legally defensible" than Biden actions SCOTUS struck down (student loans and the eviction moratorium). Is he going to claim that any loss by Trump here means that the Court is abusing its powers? Really? Because that would be a truly interesting argument to hear more about -- and right in line with Trump's habit of accusing any court that rules against him as abusing its powers.
I'll also note that Blackman does not try to argue that the SCOTUS has handled such injunctions differently against Trump than against other presidents.
And finally, boy is it funny to hear someone claim that Chief Justice Roberts is acting all "alpha and omega" when Trump is the one claiming that he runs the world, that America is like a big store that he alone controls, that he is the only one that can solve whatever problems beset us, and so forth. Meanwhile, the Chief is one vote out of nine. Jesus, have some awareness.
Justice Sotomayor made the right point. How would this blog react to a future Democratic president declaring the epidemic of school shootings an emergency and sending law enforcement to collect citizens' handguns?
Obviously unconstitutional action. But we should all wait for the cases to wend their way up to the Supremes (who need not grant cert to the first case presented, mind you) because district courts should not grant nationwide injunctions and SCOTUS should not grant emergency injunctions either.
Anyone think Prof. Blackman would stand his ground in that case?
"How would this blog react "
Both sides would change their positions of course!
Problem for Whelan is that the president has acted in accordance with the law, so there is no clash of "illegalities".
Whelan should confine himself to identifying wrong suspects for fantasy sexual assaults.
One of the better Blackman blog posts I've read! Well said.
The problem, as I see it, is the prior administration made a deliberate choice to simply not enforce the law, allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter the country. Trump was elected, in part, to fix the problem.
Problem is that the current system is too slow and cumbersome to deal with the problem in any meaningful manner. So Trump looked for a shortcut, and someone thought of the AEA as a short circuit gimmick. Unfortunately, it does not work.
What Trump should have done, and still could, is
(1) introduce comprehensive immigration reform, including a streamlined system to deport illegals quickly and consistent with Due Process. Which is not much, certainly not the same as a criminal trial. And there will have to be a significant investment in resources -- hire thousands of immigration judges, if need be.
(2) go the country and tell the people to pressure Congress to enact the bill.
This is what Ronald Reagan would have done. Trump is lazy, so he looks for shortcuts.
In the debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump bragged that he knows how to work the system. When it comes to this, he has not shown that ability.
(Other reforms are substantive. One, if you are here illegally, you are deported, unless there are very extreme circumstances in your home country, like particularized political persecution.
Two, if you came here illegally and had a child, the child is a citizen. You are not. You will be deported. You have a choice of taking your child with you (he or she can return when they are 18) or giving the child up for adoption.)
As Whelan has correctly noted, the AEA is an attempt by Trump to avoid doing what he promised to do. It's a complete waste of time, attention, and resources to deport a few hundred people — many of whom are not here illegally — instead of millions of purported illegal immigrants.
...and what would you suggest as a way to expedite the removal of these "purported" illegal "immigrants"(aliens)??
Instituting a permanent Police State, of course. Not really my suggestion though, but it is Stephen Miller's (cult idea man) and Russell Vought's (architecture & execution).
the prior administration made a deliberate choice to simply not enforce the law
What part of the law?
You are so good a playing(?) stupid.
The three checks against the judicial branch are (i) court-packing, (ii) impeachment, and (iii) circumscription of jurisdiction.
Various laws regulate the ethics of judges. Few judges are impeached, and a simple ethical violation is not going to result in an impeachment. Nonetheless, these laws are a check.
The Supreme Court can be regulated by these laws. It has been loath to acknowledge the point, but they follow the rules in a variety of ways. Five justices recused in the same case on Monday [see Fix the Court] in pursuance of ethical guidelines.
Regulation of jurisdiction can be a serious check in a variety of ways. For instance, the attempt to "judge shop" can be addressed by regulation. National injunctions can be regulated, including channeling them to a certain circuit.
Criminal laws apply to judges. If a judge takes part in bribery, they can be prosecuted. The same applies to civil laws. Civil suits can be brought against a judge who sexually harasses a secretary.
The media is also a check on judges, as shown by the reporting of ProPublica. Lower court judges also have internal restraints that result in various consequences, including removal from trying cases for a certain period. Congress can provide legislation under its power over lower courts to clarify this.
Congress can also investigate judges, including having public hearings with witnesses. It can also address specific rulings, including by passing a new law to address statutory interpretation. Congressional inaction repeatedly empowers judges.
The courts also rely on Congress for funding and other pieces of legislation necessary for their business, and the Constitution only bars a reduction of judicial pay.
The executive also has various ways to address judicial overreaching, aside from its power to enforce the law. The courts have no power of the purse or sword.
This is just a summary. Others can fill in more details. Overall, the courts are not free from restraint, at least in theory.
To quote JB:
Donald Trump is who he is. On the campaign trial, Trump said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act to effect mass removals, including of foreign gang members. The American people knew this, and still voted for him.
The presidents and senators who nominated and confirmed the justices are who they are. The public had a general idea of who they were voting for. The public significantly votes with an eye on judges. We have "no Souters" on this Court.
If we are appealing to democratic will, what of the judges? Dobbs was a result of people voting for Trump in significant part because they figured he would choose certain justices.
But what are the consequences when the Supreme Court abuses its power? Chief Justice Roberts has lectured us that judges cannot be impeached for their decisions.
If the decisions were a result of blatant bribery, for instance, they could be impeached. Yes, simply as a disagreement of the merits has not been understood to be a reason. Even Chase was not merely impeached for that -- the overall argument was that he violated due process. And, his say-so isn't the determining factor.
Anyway, my previous comment provides options. If there is a will. I don't see many limits on Trump's power if we are just talking about what is actually happening. Impeachment is a paper tiger.
In John Roberts's world, he is the alpha and omega: he determines what is legal, and his determinations are therefore legal.
A majority of the Supreme Court, not "he," determines things.
The power of the Supreme Court remains limited, which influences its decisions, including the still quite limited restraints it put on Trump. The court does interpret the law.
The executive still has lots of power, including the power to deport people in various legal ways. It also has the raw power to do so illegally, even if the courts, eventually, after let's say 50 people are wrongly deported & can't come back, rule.
"If the decisions were a result of blatant bribery, for instance, they could be impeached."
Bribery is a crime regardless of what the recipient does. If a government official accepts a bribe to vote a certain way, and then calls in sick with the flu, he is still guilty of bribery.
True, but could you explain your point's relevance to JFtB's comment?
I dispute the premise that blameworthiness is a function of how easy or difficult it is to remove the actor from power. If we are presuming for the sake of argument that both actions are illegal, then comparing the actions on purely *moral* grounds primarily requires looking at the consequences of the actions themselves. Which act does more harm to our values? It is beyond me how any mature small-r republican could think it less harmful to core values to send someone to life imprisonment in a foreign concentration camp with no opportunity to challenge the legality of that action than it is to halt that action until the legal merits can be determined in orderly fashion. The former condemns human beings who whose alleged crimes are unproven to a lifetime of suffering that might never be redressed because our government disclaims any authority to return people once they've been sent to the concentration camp, however erroneously. The latter keeps those same people in custody until their legal rights can be determined. Perhaps the best test is this: which of the two illegalities can more easily be undone if it is later proven wrong? Under that test, the executive deserves more of the blame here.
That said, I don't know why we are assuming that the Supreme Court acted illegally. It seems there are at least two justifications for its exercise of jurisdiction here: (1) the Supreme Court acted to preserve its appellate jurisdiction by enjoining actions that would make any future appeal moot; and/or (2) the harm here was so extraordinarily imminent, severe, and irreparable that the District Court's failure to act immediately was tantamount to an appealable denial of an injunction. Both those theories are persuasive to me under these facts, where the executive was literally bussing people to the airport to be flown to a foreign concentration camp, after which the executive would claim that no court nor even the executive itself could order their return, thus making an appeal moot if the executive position is correct. The executive acted in bad faith, creating an emergency so in need of immediate intervention that yes, any failure of a court to rule within minutes really was the functional equivalent of a denial of an injunction. This was no clash of illegalities. The Court's action was extraordinary, yes, but nevertheless a legal means to prevent an extraordinary crime being carried out by the executive.
Where core, unambiguous, unequivocal constitutional rights are concerned, and especially where the Executive is violating them intentionally, courts frankly get to do what they need to do to preserve them. This whole idea that if the lawyers can come up with some clever box based on some precdent or other from Henry II, courts have to stay within it, is total hokum as far as judicial protection of core constitutional rights is concerned. Courts get to change the law - make shit up - if they need to do so to preserve core, unambiguous, textual constitutional rights. They absolutely can.
I have said federal courts should be reluctant to create new substantive law and new constitutional principles, as this is the job of legislatures and Framers. But they can absolutely create new jurisdictional rules and new remedies to preseeve existing, established, unambigous laws. Especially when it comes to springing people out of clever legsl traps would-be tyrants’ lawyers have created to trap people in.
Preserving core constitutional rights is the Judiciary’s core job. The Executive cannot keep them from doing it.
The judiciary’s job is limited, and its powers are limited by its job. But within those limits, when it is doing its core job and not straying into other people’s, its powers are nearly plenary.
It is most emphatically the province of the judicial branch...
To say what? "The law is."
To say "what the...." (Law is.)
To say, what, the law is?
To say. What? The law is.
To... Say what? The law is.
To say what the %&^$ law is.
&c, &c.
Mr. D.