The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
J.D. Vance to Chief Justice Roberts: The Judiciary Must Check Its Own Excesses
Did Roberts really think he could lob bombs at the elected branches and face nothing in return?
Vice President J.D. Vance sat down for an interview with Ross Douthat. They cover much ground, but I wanted to flag this exchange concerning Chief Justice Roberts:
Let me just make one final philosophical point here. I worry that unless the Supreme Court steps in here, or unless the District Courts exercise a little bit more discretion, we are running into a real conflict between two important principles in the United States.
Principle 1 of course is that courts interpret the law. Principle 2 is that the American people decide how they're governed. That's the fundamental small-d democratic principle that's at the heart of the American project. I think that you are seeing, and I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people. To be clear, it's not most courts. But I saw an interview with Chief Justice Roberts recently where he said the role of the court is to check the excesses of the executive. I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment. That's one-half of his job. The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch. You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for. That's where we are right now.
We're going to keep working it through the immigration court process, through the Supreme Court as much as possible.
Vance is exactly right.
I think the Chief Justice largely lives in a bubble where everyone is afraid to challenge him. He sees himself as a singular force of good to save the rule of law. In Roberts's mind, he can take a shot at the incoming Vice President in his end-of-year address, and everyone will simply submit to his will. No. Vance is fighting back. Roberts thinks he can lecture the President that no judge, even members of the Supreme Court can be impeached; we the people simply have to take it. No. Vance is fighting back.
And, I think, lower court judges are starting to fight back as well. Judge Ho made this same point in his concurrence yesterday, which subtly responded to Chief Justice Roberts:
It is not the role of the judiciary to check the excesses of the other branches, any more than it's our role to check the excesses of any other American citizen. Judges do not roam the countryside looking for opportunities to chastise government officials for their mistakes.
Yet Roberts does exactly that. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
There is a storm brewing on the horizon, and I don't think the Chief quite sees it. As I will explain in a forthcoming essay, Roberts's two decades on the bench have rendered him utterly unqualified to deal with what lies ahead. The arc from NFIB to AARP does not bode well for the future. Here is a preview:
It is often repeated that we have three, co-equal branches of government. But that simply isn't true. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as the "least dangerous branch." Unlike the Congress, which has the power of the "purse," and the President who wields the power of the "sword," the courts have "merely judgment." Yet, it has been deeply ingrained in our national consciousness that the foundational role of the courts is to balance the power of the elected branches. Indeed, Chief Justice John Roberts boasted that the courts must "check the excesses of Congress or the executive." But who will check the excesses of the judiciary? The greatest check on the courts can only be the widely held belief that the Court is not ruling based on politics. But if people believe the judiciary is simply a mediator that weighs political compromise, then the courts cannot long endure.
Roberts's colleagues should, sooner rather than later, cut the tether and listen to Justices Alito and Thomas. These national treasures should not retire, as they are the only ones speaking sense.
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
Roberts's colleagues should, sooner rather than later, cut the tether and listen to Justices Alito and Thomas. These national treasures should not retire, as they are the only ones speaking sense.
If I didn't know better, I'd suspect we're dealing with an example of Poe's Law here.
It’s like aliens found a way to destroy America by poisoning aging white men.
Has any working girl ever worked as hard as Blackman?
They usually get paid up front. Blackman is doing this on spec.
There is more than one Ho out there for that Fourth Circuit judgeship. It's like a crowded Republican primary election, you have to be the loudest Nazi to win.
Scott, you sound stupid. Everything with you is avoidance of specifics
My posts are not intended for an audience of people like you.
Truly. Your posts are intended for drooling haters.
Nasty Democrats here.
Great article Josh. Can't wait to read the essay.
Roberts is a menace.
tl:dr: The occasional advocate for "judicial courage" advises judges to roll over and expose their throats when talking to those in power.
Courage is only courage when Blackman agrees with the ruling.
Is the idea to constantly top the last post with something even more stupid?
Took a cue from Somin.
The idea that the branches are co-equal is a quaint fantasy.
It is only a matter of time before Congress dispels it, and it certainly will at some point in the future- hopefully a distant future!
Congress retains the ability to absolutely wreck the other branches, but it chooses not to. It withholds its fury out of reluctance, not impotence. It stays in its 'lane' out of grace, comity, and the laziness of its members.
It remains a sleeping giant, and woe be upon the branch that fills it with terrible resolve.
Congress has shoved its collective noses up the executive's ass so far that they can see what he had for lunch.
The courts wouldn't have to stop the executive branch from trampling constitutional and civil rights if Congress would do its job. It could start with resuming control of the national purse.
What does one call a judiciary that stands against a hostile Congress?
A judiciary that is going to lose.
Doesn't matter if Congress is sucking up to Trump, Biden's handlers, or any other President in the past, present, or future.
What does one call a judiciary that doesn't stand for the Constitution or the rule of law?
The one we've had since early in the FDR administration, when they gave up on enforcing limits on federal power?
If Congress had the will (and by that I mean a supermajority to break a filibuster), then there would be no need to literally act against the judiciary. In most cases it could just change the law so that Trump’s actions would no longer be violating it. Many of the lawsuits against the administration are statutory rather than constitutional, and even the constitutional issues are often statutory issues in disguise. Due process is a constitutional right, but part of the reason the administration wants to deny due process to immigrants is that it thinks it’ll lose under that process. If statutory immigration law were changed to its liking, it wouldn't have to play such games.
As a liberal, I hope Congress continues to not have the will.
comex — I am puzzled. Please explain how habeas corpus is something Congress can suspend arbitrarily.
Also, suppose some legislative attempt to empower peacetime suspension of habeas corpus for Trump does happen. Please explain what would prevent Trump from using that to undertake lawless kidnappings and deportations of his American citizen political opponents. Would you propose to rely on Trump's self-restraint?
I do not think at this point—with so much evidence from so many cabinet members—including at least Bondi, Rubio, Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Junior, Gabbard, Noem, Ratcliffe, and FBI Director Patel, that any liberal believes the Trump administration is normal. Also, consider the lawless extra-constitutional role purportedly authorized for Elon Musk, to empower his all-out attack on federal agencies, infrastructure, and information. Taken as a whole, that is self-evidently a lawless conspiracy against Constitutional rule.
I think that makes you a concern troll who supports an ongoing attempt to empower a dictatorial takeover of American government.
" Please explain how habeas corpus is something Congress can suspend arbitrarily."
It's dirt simple: The constitution says the writ can't be suspended "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Congress arbitrarily decides that there's an invasion, and that the public Safety requires it, and suspends the writ. Basically in the same way they regulate intrastate commerce by adding some silly boilerplate about it affecting interstate commerce.
Congress is, by design, the most powerful branch of government. The main limit on Congress is that no single member of Congress has a great deal of power, and the members have widely differing viewpoints.
Trump’s willingness to break the law has significantly reduced the role of Congress. For example, the buyout package for Federal employees should have been voted on by Congress. What happened instead is that Elon Musk sent Federal employees a buyout offer despite the fact that neither Musk nor Trump had the legal authority to make such an offer.
If two thirds of the members of each house of Congress oppose Trump on something, Congress will win unless Trump does something extraordinary like declaring martial law. (Two thirds are necessary to override a veto.) But what would convince a significant number of Republicans to oppose Trump?
Congress outsourcing it's power to the Executive for generations also has significantly reduced the role of Congress.
Have to differ a bit here. What Congress does under the Obama and Biden influence is throw out tons of shit that will get plaudits and then as it were send it on to the Supreme Court and what sticks they take credit for and what doesn't they blame on the Supreme Court. So Tuition Forgiveness is a great example. Now congressman who know something will pass will vote the opposite just to take credit. They wanted it to pass and they wanted to tell the folks back home (pro-life, term limits , less spending) I voted against it.
Do you posit that Trump has done nothing extraordinary already?
Uh, no, Congress is impotent. Worse - they castrated themselves.
Power not used is power you no longer have, take the British monarchy for example. The last Queen destroyed any vestige of control over the excesses of 'her' government through apathy. Congress is halfway there with the Executive and its all been accomplished because lawmakers didn't want to do the hard work of crafting law and left that to the regulatory agencies.
[Congress]withholds its fury out of reluctance, not impotence
Do you watch the news at all?
It sure seems you had a good time writing these Dark Portents, but I don't think there's any evidence they reflect what's actually going on.
"There is a storm brewing on the horizon" isn't any less laughable when Josh Blackman says it because he's upset that that John Roberts told the Trump administration to stop violating people's due process rights than it is when any other Qanon quack says it because he's upset that John Roberts drinks babies' blood.
He really needed a Gen Flynn reference to drive the point home.
The 'storm' has been coming for about 9years now. Reminds me of the religious predictions of the end times. Just keep pushing that goalpost back...any day now... each prediction failure is a new sign of the imminence of the reckoning.
My eyes have rolled so far back in my head I can see my own spine.
Well Roberts first defended Boasberg and within hours the 3 conflicts of interest came back. Court watchers jeered at him He knows Trump is right
So we get Clarence saying
when discussing the history of universal injunctions with Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Justice Thomas asked: "So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?"
I was there in the 60s...IF those times did not draw forth what is now epidemic (injunctions) Roberts is missing something.
Sauer responded: "That's exactly correct."
Could you please provide some identifying details as to these conflicts of interest, for those of us who don't live our lives on Truth Social?
Almost never agree with you. But here I do, wholeheartedly. I constantly refer to Alito and Thomas. But I think it undeniable that Jackson and Sotomayor are 3rd-class legal minds. Just terrible. I still haven't gotten over "We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.”
after months and months can think of no even ameliorating circumstances for such an unfounded utterly political thoughtless remark.
When you "constantly refer to Alito and Thomas," do you include references to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in "gifts" they've received from their friends?
And these are Blackman’s model judges. Telling.
HItler liked spaghetti, you like spaghetti ??? You must be a Nazi
Might use your stupid statement in college class, but a further quesiton " Is it the negative fact that means there can be no positive fact? Then why can't the positive fact mean there can be no negative fact?
What proves opposites proves NOTHING 🙂
Get thee some education
Sfnp: I still haven't gotten over "We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.”
I thought I was the only person in the world still stuck on that one. The implications, to me, are breathtaking.
(And then, from the other one, something about a premature Black baby being twice as likely to survive in the hands of a "Black doctor" than a "white doctor.")
Hey, how many people here know what habeas corpus is? You can all leave, there's no place for advocates of judicial dictatorship in the new order.
On the evidence to date, Josh will deny knowing what habeas corpus is in 3-2-...
Habeas corpus is the right of the President not to have his feelings hurt by judges questioning whether what he's going is permitted under the Constitution.
Hey, maybe you can be Josh Blackman's research assistant!
""Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to ... ," Kristy Noem, DHS Secretary
You missed the brilliance of Kristi because of your hate glasses
Watch: Noem Got Dem Senator to Accept Trump Suspending Habeas Corpus for 2 Years, And Dem Didn't Even Know It
VIDEO online
We "missed the brilliance of Kristi" only because somebody did her the not-so-brilliant favor of interrupting her. No matter how anyone tries to spin what she says (or does), her legal mind simply has no class.
"Hey, how many people here know what habeas corpus is?"
Yes. It freely translates for the Latin to "Let the bodies fall where they may". It refers to the legal principle known in Mexico as "Ley del fugitivo". In short, shoot them as they cross the border illegally and claim they were trying to escape.
NOt at all
HABEAS CORPUS Is a subjunctive uses an imperative
You are to have a body
So you can't prosecute for murder without a murder victim, more generally 'no crime, no criminal charge"
Vance is of course wrong.
"You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement". He misses the part where Congress has sole authority over immigration, and they are the ones Americans elect to make laws, not the President.
The courts need to stand up when Trump steals power from Congress. We would be a dictatorship if the courts did not block Trump.
Congress should be the first to stand up when the Executive attempts to steal their power. It shouldn't need to get to the courts.
Congress already did their job when the passed the law in the first place. What do you expect them to do, pass another law telling the president to follow the first law?
Appropriate the funds so that the President can actually AFFORD to follow the law they enacted?
Appropriation laws are laws.
Duh. How is that responsive? Congress passed immigration laws, because that's what the voters wanted. And then deliberately underfunded their enforcement, because THEY didn't want them successfully enforced, and they could pretend the failure was the President's, not their's.
When a majority in Congress want those laws successfully enforced, they'll adequately fund enforcing them, too.
So one law is legit, but the other is not?
You are not really stronging the logic here.
Who the hell said anything about legit? I thought this was about what I (Normatively, obviously!) "expected" them to do.
I expect them to adequately fund the enforcement of laws they ran on seeing enforced.
But only in a normative sense, because they were lying about wanting them enforced.
You're always crying about limited resources.
And yet, not here. Here you expect maximum funding.
You are not consistent, just angry. The MAGA way.
No, don't expect "maximum" funding, I expect "adequate" funding.
We're talking about amounts here that are a rounding error in the federal budget. The immigration law enforcement isn't being underfunded because we lack the money, it's being underfunded because Congress didn't want the laws they'd enacted to be fully enforced.
For decades, Congress has maintained a system where the law says one thing, and practice is another thing, because the voters wanted the first thing, and the almighty donors wanted the other thing.
They need to decide which master to serve, their constituents or their donors. It's as simple as that.
There is no evidence that their decisions in this regard had anything to do with "donors."
We're talking about amounts here that are a rounding error in the federal budget.
1. Take it up with Brett Bellmore, who keeps yelling we're so bankrupt only drastic cuts will save us.
2. Even ignoring your glaring inconsistency, I'm not sure that's correct. Have you done the math on what you want and what it would cost? Courts for the asylum seekers, More border patrol personnel, holding facilities, transport at scale.
3. You fall back on the old 'everyone would agree with me if they were honest' canard.
They also ran on reducing the deficit and spending and firing lots of federal employees.
You're saying, "When Congress passes a law i like, that's Congress doing the will of the voters. When Congress passes a law I don't like, that's Congress thwarting the will of the voters and enacting its own preferences."
Bingo
""You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement". He misses the part where Congress has sole authority over immigration, and they are the ones Americans elect to make laws, not the President."
And where is the contradiction? The American people keep on electing Congressmen who promise immigration enforcement, too. It's just that the Congressmen were lying.
If the Congressmen—presumably better judges of political conditions in their own districts than Bellmore—were lying, then that suggests pretty strongly that Congressmen whom Bellmore would support could not get elected in those districts.
But go ahead, Bellmore. Do what you can to get forthright Congressmen elected.
But here is a hint to keep in mind along the way. The corrupt dark money political system is your first adversary. It keeps those dishonest folks in Congress, so they will do what dark money donors want. If you do not want to waste your time, organize a way to overturn that dark money system first.
Approach it that way, and I will join your effort. But mainly because I would expect success to favor my politics, not yours.
"If the Congressmen—presumably better judges of political conditions in their own districts than Bellmore—were lying, then that suggests pretty strongly that Congressmen whom Bellmore would support could not get elected in those districts. "
Bzzzt! The lies were uttered because the Congressmen understood them to be necessary to be elected. So it suggests the exact opposite.
Vance is of course, correct. The judicial branch is not supreme, notwithstanding the name of the court. Who will check the excesses of the judiciary?
You are as uusal wrong
Congress is elected on a staggered schedule and not all occur at time of Presidential election.
So I saw this amazing headline
Most Hispanics now support mass deportation of illegal migrants in US: poll
Latino voters demanding a crackdown on human traffickers and drug smugglers at the southern border (82%) and an expansion of additional border patrol and security funding (58%).
And this is just what my Hispanic students surprisingly offered to me years ago.
Why you are unbelievable I've said many times on here: When we passed 10 million unvetted immigrants did the current situation not seem inevitable to you? SO WHY WERE YOU QUIET UNDER BIDEN-HARRIS but a hellhound now ????
So because 49.5% of voters voted for Trump, he's entitled to break the law. Gottit.
Yeah Vance’s take is dumb. If the deportations violate immigration laws passed by Congress, or if they violate the Constitution, then it doesn’t really matter how many people voted for the President. The job of the President is to faithfully execute the laws of the US and uphold the constitution. The people need to vote for Senators and Representatives who will pass immigration laws that give the President the authority he is seeking, and if need be, amend the Constitution to make those laws constitutional. Otherwise, the job of the courts is to overturn executive actions that violate the law or the constitution.
But they don't.
That's the correct take. If "the people" decide to elect a president that campaigned on lawlessness, that doesn't mean "the people" get what they voted for. If congress is willing to stand down and allow the lawlessness, the courts are the only remaining check until the next election. A lot of damage can be done between elections, including the possibility of imperiling the next election itself. The court gets to weigh in and give its take, and even if the administration and "the people" reject that take, it would be worse if the court chose to stand down out of fear of the possibility of rejection by the administration and "the people".
The Constitution is the highest law. And he ain't breaking it.
Do you agree that if Trump attempts to carry out a promised policy in a way which violates the Constitution, the judiciary is entitled to forestall his efforts, and it is irrelevant that he was elected president to carry out said policy?
I think the more relevant question is the one posed by VP Vance. But who will check the excesses of the judiciary? The latest excess is a standing order automatically enjoining the executive following the filing of a habeas petition, regardless of the merits. Now there apparently is a presumption that the executive is acting illegally. The courts are doubling down on their abuses.
Quis custodiet...? etc
But meanwhile, how about answering my question?
"It would force me to admit I'm full of it to answer your question, so I'll just decide to change the question."
ANd if Harris had won , then she would be entitled. What a master of logic you are.
ANd if Harris had won , then she would be entitled. What a master of logic you are.
That doesn't follow from what I aid, it's not a statement I made, nor would I have done. You're the one making deductive leaps, you fuckwit.
A Josh Blackman post about a Ross Douthat interview with J.D. Vance. That's three strikes right there.
The video of the interview is worth watching. If it all were in a movie, nobody would believe it all because it is so far-fetched. But since it is actually real, no effort is required trying to suspend disbelief.
Fun how Blackman doesn't even pretend to care about the Constitution or the law in general anymore.
He must be getting super frustrated that Trump hasn't nominated him to the Federal judiciary yet!
Imagine the bubble you’d have to live to think it was remotely possible for a conservative lawyer in DC to occupy such a bubble.
When Lord of the Rings was made into a movie, Peter Jackson created a specific orc character to be one of the primary antagonists because personalizing the villain to a specific 'person' rather than just a horde of orcs made for better drama. Blackman is doing roughly the same with Roberts. Nothing he says about what Roberts is doing is actually Roberts; it's the Supreme Court. But it's much easier to single out Roberts to attack than to just demonize a group of people.
When friends or coworkers have asked me to define "reify," I sometimes struggle to give an easily-understood example. [Definition: to make (something abstract) more concrete or real.]
I think your LOTR example is one that I will use in the future. But I could probably use Chief Justice Roberts as well. I had not thought about him in that sense before...but I think you're probably correct. Interesting observation.
Reify is best illustrated by Freud
There isno ID , EGO, or SUPEREGO,they are merely words with no referent Very much like Kant's Noumena. He says there is the Phenomena which we perceive and the Noumena about which we can know nothing --- well then how does HE know that ??????????????????????????.
So, we have the Warren Court. The Rehnquist Court. But there is no Roberts Court? Remind me again, are you the smart troll here?
“Principle 2 is that the American people decide how they're governed. That's the fundamental small-d democratic principle that's at the heart of the American project. I think that you are seeing, and I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people.”
I’m shocked that the good professor doesn’t understand we do not have a democracy. We have a republic—and for good reason. If the country was a true democracy, rights could be changed with every administration or taken away completely. It is the job of the judiciary to check excesses if they violate the constitution.
Swing and a miss.
It would be more accurate to say that we have a liberal democracy, in which all government actors are chosen, directly or indirectly, by the people, but are also constrained both by the Constitutional structures of federalism and separation of powers, and by a set of Constitutional and common law protections for individuals and non-governmental entities.
Noscitur a sociis, thank you for that link. That piece by Professor Volokh is insightful and entertaining. It provided examples of references to "democracy" or "republic" provided by the Founders and Framers in important and insightful respects.
More interesting to me (and maybe to you given your handle) is the fact that Professor Volokh neglected to discuss the words actually in the single most important source of information about this issue: our Constitution. Our Constitution never mentions democracy. Instead, it expressly emphasizes that every branch of national government has the duty to "guarantee to" (not merely "in") "every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
"We the People of the United States" did "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" to "guarantee" a "Republican Form of Government." Then, We the People required every state and federal legislator and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" to promise "to support this Constitution."
So why do people insist that we have a democracy? Is it because Democrats like how democracy sounds like the name of their party? Is it because people just like how the word sounds? Is it because of the appeal to antiquity? Whatever the answer, insisting that the United States is a democracy does nothing at all to help people understand what we really have (a written Constitution) and what it says and means.
You are using an outdated definition of "democracy" that is too narrow. The people electing representatives under a constitutional system is a type of democracy.
Corpus of Founding Era American English (COFEA) or
Historical Dictionary of Democracy (Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements Series)
by Norman Abjorensen
both will confute all answers given so far.
And Tocqueville published Democracy in America
with his own definition
MollyGodiva, it seems that Not Unreasonable was not using an outdated definition of democracy. It's true that people electing representatives is democratic. So only our representatives in one branch of our national government are chosen democratically. Individual voters don't elect any of our representatives in the executive or judicial branches.
If the U.S. were a democracy, we would have only one government: a national government (as Federalists commonly called it) or consolidated government (as Anti-Federalists commonly called it).
See, e.g., Federalist No. 39 ("The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles").
Whatever reason anyone has for saying that we have a democracy, it does nothing to help Americans understand what we really have (our written Constitution) and what it says and means. "We the People of the United States" did "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." We did so by requiring all three branches of our national government to "guarantee to" all a "Republican Form of Government."
> Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
This strikes me as basically untrue. It is true that people push back against things they disagree with, it's not true that they push back equally. There are structural medium to long term changes in society because different actors have different leverage and weight, different endowments of soft power, etc. and that leads to one side winning. And most conflicts are not zero sum: it is possible for a winning side to "win more" than a losing side "loses" in a wide variety of issues, including in most court cases.
All of these strike me as just really basic features of not only law, but also discursive human institutions generally. It seems really unbelievably strange to me that anyone wouldn't be aware of that.
The Supreme Court has not told the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for--they've only said the American people are not allowed to get what they voted for using means that are illegal or unconstitutional. Or, to the extent that the illegal or unconstitutional means ARE what the American people voted for, then it is the Court's job to tell them they can't have that. This is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.
If the president wants more power to enforce immigration law than current law provides for, then his proper path is to ask congress to give him more power. The blame does not fall on the judiciary simply for correctly holding that current law does not permit the government to commit extrajudicial kidnapping and rendition to foreign torture camps without hearings.
The President and Vice President are not elected by the people. They are elected by a college of electors appointed by the states in such manner as their legislatures direct. Only Congress is elected by the people.
Congress provided for limited immigration enforcement with checks and balances, whose limits the administration has repeatedly exceeded. More fundamentally, it has refused to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, by which the administration is bound. If the Vice-President doesn’t like that, he can talk to the folks who actually were elected by the people.
That can't be right. Congress didn't give Biden-Harris any warrant for 10 millioni plus unvetted immigrants to be released and lost in the general population !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Biden-Harris lost reelection. That chapter is closed now. Nothing they did justifies criminal actions by the current executive. The options are follow the law or change the law. The option is never to break the law, especially if you’re the government itself. A government unconstrained by laws is much, much more dangerous than even a hundred million unvetted immigrants.
Both sides here need to do a better job of distinguishing actual Constitutional excesses from perceived moral excesses.
Sir Thomas More: You threaten like a dockside bully.
Thomas Cromwell: How should I threaten?
More: Like a minister of state. With justice.
Cromwell: Oh, justice is what you’re threatened with.
More: Then I am not threatened.
I suggested before that Josh Blackman might end up like John Eastman, but maybe he'll end up like Thomas Cromwell!
I assume from A Man for All Seasons? Haven't seen that in years, what a classic.
It was recommended by my architecture professor almost fifty years ago. I'm sure his focus was on the scene where More speaks of the law as refuge and haven - but my professor was seeing that from the perspective of self-imposed aesthetic rules and guidelines providing a safe haven for aesthetic decisions. There was great emphasis in our early education on discovering rigor in design choices.
Of course it's fascinating to see the contrast between A Man for All Seasons and the Wolf Hall books / television productions. In many ways, they're total mirror opposites. I'm inclined to mostly split the difference, with More not being the saint (pre-canonization) of A Man or the snide villain of Wolf. Likewise, Cromwell could hardly be the mild-tempered Mark Rylance given all he did, but was certainly more than the snarling thug of Seasons.
Probably Hilary Mantel drifted more into revisionism than Robert Bolt and the Catholic Church. The latter is thinking of making a saint out of the Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí. I recently did a project for the Church, and hoped it might knock a few thousand years off my time in Purgatory. Alas, there were problems and now I fear my situation is even worse!
You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for.
Vance is nuts. We can have all the legal enforcement Trump wants. But not enforcement that violates the Constitution. That Trump was elected doesn't mean he was given the right to ignore the Constitution and the statutes, which is Vance's claim.
The man is repulsive.
Exactly this. The whole point of the Constitution is that it defines and restricts the powers of government. "The American people" can elect Idiocracy all they want, but that doesn't mean the Constitution no longer applies. And if "the American people" don't like the guardrails the Constitution requires, amend it.
That Blackman has no problem with Vance's statement is troubling. Put a Democrat in the White House and it is post after post about how that President is violating this law or that constitutional provision, but once Trump is in there lobbing executive orders around, well, let's re-think Marbury v. Madison! Really?
It isn 't a claim if you make up or don't give quotes.
VANCE NEVER SAID "he was given the right to ignore the Constitution and the statutes"
bathetic liar
I sense a growing LOATHING of Roberts by the masses. Still somewhat amorphous but that dismissive haughty smug talk about MS-13 and Tren de Arague pisses off parents and city dwellers
Funny, I meet lots of working class people who complain about the price of eggs or dolls, and a lot of UMC people who complain about the performance of their 401(k), but I never meet a single person in either group who says a word about John Roberts. Maybe you live in some sort of bubble, full of the sort of people who use all caps to express themselves.
Typical comment by you. Glad to let it stand to show what a spineless complainer you are.
Dude, only about 15% of American adults even know who he is.
Which makes my point !!
2 of 3 Americans Wouldn’t Pass U.S. Citizenship Test
A survey found that people aged 65 and older were more likely to pass the test than those aged 45 and younger.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-10-12/2-of-3-americans-wouldnt-pass-us-citizenship-test#:~:text=About%20two%2Dthirds%20of%20Americans,Woodrow%20Wilson%20National%20Fellowship%20Foundation.
THose who know are the 1 out of 3
"It is not the role of the judiciary to check the excesses of the other branches, any more than it's our role to check the excesses of any other American citizen. Judges do not roam the countryside looking for opportunities to chastise government officials for their mistakes."
Sheesh. Judge Ho continues to keep trying to convince me (as if I wasn't convinced years ago, by that time where he editorialized in an opinion that "if you don't like big money in politics, then you should oppose big government in our lives" https://x.com/OrinKerr/status/987016941461098496 ) that while I would have voted to confirm the vast majority of Trump I judicial nominees, I would have actively opposed him.
Judges don't roam the countryside, but if someone brings a valid case presenting an illegal excess on the part of the executive, you better believe it's the role of the judiciary to check it, by finding it unlawful (and where the word applies, unconstitutional).
It's actually a funny statement, because of course Judge Ho is roaming the countryside looking for universities whose administrations he disapproves of, and trying to punish them, albeit in petty ways that hurt individuals without affecting the institutions at all. It doesn't seem that either Ho or Blackman has enough wit to see the contradiction and hypocrisy here.
While the rights at issue here are not found necessarily in the Bill Of Rights, the sentiment expressed by Justice (Robert) Jackson strikes me as correct.
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
A vote by the people to elect a President and their subsequent actions, or a vote by Congress on legislation does not translate to innately legitimate action. To borrow and paraphrase a more modern quote: "rights don't end where your feelings begin, even when your feelings are expressed by vote."
One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote, but they are subject to interpretation.
Ex: The right to free speech has not been interpreted as the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
If courts are going to interpret laws and rights, they should do so in ways that do not harm the nation and its interests.
An attitude of the "law is the law, the rules are the rules and damned be the consequences" if an overly zealous application of these should cause harm to the nation's interests and frustrate the will of the people, is not the proper attitude to have.
Judges should rule in ways that prioritize the wellbeing of citizens as well as the national interest first and foremost, while still taking reasonable and moderate care that the rights of individuals are respected.
What constitutes "the nation's interests" is largely a matter of opinion, especially in this case. Not exactly a compelling reason to abrogate constitutional rights and protections.
As the Jackson quote was intended to convey, the "will of the people" doesn't override constitutional rights and protections. Rights wouldn't mean much if they were that easily dispensed with.
What exactly constitutes the "well-being of citizens" is also a matter of opinion, but if the all the government has to do is allege that someone is a a gang member or in the country illegally or whatever characteristic they claim justifies denying a person habeas corpus or any due process then citizens will be harmed. Because at that point the government can make those accusations against an actual citizen and they will also be denied the right to challenge it. There is no way to determine who is entitled to due process or to challenge habeas corpus except to afford it to everyone.
Love the sloppiness of "not found necessarily' Try that before the Supreme Court.
Vance is wrong, insofar as it is the obligation of each branch to check the other two (as they are able), when they overstep. It's too bad he (and others) got the vapors because the chief acknowledged the current particular controversy. Having won a recent election changes nothing.
If Vance did somehow qualify his comments elsewhere/later to comport with that, I amend/withdraw my observation.
Courts do not have the power of "judgment," they have the power of persuasion. They rely on other branches (the executive) to enforce judgments. Without persuasion and buy-in from the executive, judgments are ignored. Planes do not get turned around. I think Roberts is about to discover he no longer has the power of persuasion, either.
The poll results I have seen indicate that it is the Trump administration which lost the power of persuasion on the various issues before the federal courts.
Various perfervid commenters here and elsewhere suggest periodically that Trump should send the military to remove the Supreme Court from power: at that point we might discover who has persuaded the military.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN comes immediately to mind
Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government, practically just so much.”
Speech at Chicago, December 10, 1856
“Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the enforcement of them, else impossible.”
Note for speeches, circa October 1858
“Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.”
Debate at Ottawa, August 21, 1858
“No policy that does not rest upon philosophical public opinion can be permanently maintained.”
Speech at New Haven, March 6, 1860
Good thing the courts have done no such thing.
I don't understand why people think a president being elected who ran on immigration enforcement think that gives him the right to act without any regard for what immigration law actually authorizes. Because many of the enforcement actions people want enforced are not authorized by law. He has no inherent Article II authority to deport aliens at will. Claiming an invasion of 20 million illegals does not make it okay to just deport whoever you want, without a process.
I am not saying that everything Trump has done is illegal. Because the other problem is that the liberal/pro-immigrant side has gotten so used to non-enforcement, they are no squealing about legitimate immigration enforcement. It's pretty clear that some these advocates would like to see a right to counsel and access to federal district courts, despite the reality that the INA specifically denies district courts jurisdiction. Of course that hasn't stopped an unholy alliance of activist lawyers and sympathetic district judges from pursuing these cases.
Two wrongs don't make a right. That's both the Trump administration (pushing the law to its limits) and pro-immigrant activists trying to establish new/bad precedents because of it. Yes, some courts have been complicit in that, trying to hearing cases where they lack jurisdiction. Because of a mistaken belief that everyone deserves their day in court. Sorry, not always the case. At least not for all aliens.
10 million with their day in court.
Whoever complains about Trump but was silent as death as this flood came across, I ignore them for their obvious --- one of the other-- callous stone heart or utter stupidity to see what was going to inevitably come
There is no connection between prior illegal immigration and the authority of the next president to deport them. None. Zero.
The only authority the president has to order deportations is what is given to him by law, which he must follow. He has no independent Article II authority to deport any alien.
Although judical review took hold in America, largely due to Blackstone's championing of Coke, it didn't take hold in the U.K. There, Parliament is supreme (technically, 'the King in Parliament,' and recent structural reforms in the courts have also complicated things).
I'm not sure what institution it is that appears to be making a claim against judicial review here. It's not the Presidency, as a President elected with just as strong of a popular mandate, but without a Congressional majority, would have much less power than the current office-holder wields, and presumably wouldn't be making the claim.
To say that half the job of the Supreme Court (presumably referring only to the certiorari portion of the docket) is in checking the power of the courts fundamentally misreads both the balance of power and the concept of certiorari jurisdiction. The latter is literally an ascertainment of the position of the courts, in order to ensure that the law--conceptually--is functioning harmoniously.
Well... Yale, you know.... Old Eli's become a bit sociological.
Mr. D.
In the matter of illegal immigration, there are two conflicting interests.
The government's interest is to expel foreigners who are in the country illegally as quickly, economically and expeditiously as possible so as to mitigate the harm, disorder and disruption they might cause.
The court's interests is that rules, laws and procedures be followed.
Nonetheless, the courts should not prioritize an excessively scrupulous or fussy adherence to the rules, procedures and laws if this should impair or hinder the security of the Nation and the wellbeing of American citizens.
An attitude of the "law is the law, the rules are the rules and damned be the consequences" if an overly zealous application of these should cause harm and frustrate the will of the people, is not the proper attitude to have.
Judges should rule in ways that prioritize the wellbeing of citizens as well as the nation first and foremost, while still taking reasonable and moderate care that the rights of individuals are respected.
Well there go all of the rules of evidence and criminal procedure, and the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendments.
Well, not really. That is just silly.
How so?
You seem like the silly one, suggesting that a bunch of itinerant construction and agricultural workers constitute a threat equivalent to the Confederacy which somehow justifies the suspension of habeas corpus.
What rulings so far have been "excessively scrupulous or fussy adherence to the rules" that "impair[ed] or hinder[ed] the security of the Nation and the wellbeing of American citizens"?
One interest that seems extremely important but you left out is the interest of every *individual* in being able to have a neutral arbiter determine whether or not they actually fall into the category of "foreigners who are in the country illegally" in the first place. Unless everyone has that right, then no one has that right, including people who are in fact citizens.
Another interest you may be neglecting is the interest of foreigners who are in the country illegally to only be punished in accordance with the law and not, for example, be imprisoned for life in a central American concentration camp for a mere civil violation. This one only matters to people who care about justice, though, so it's not as easy to put in terms that are meaningful to a purely self-interested citizen as the interest described above.
Perhaps you are already including these individual interests as part of "the court's interest that rules, laws and procedures be followed."
I would hate to see what type of well-being citizens have if all their government has to do is accuse them of some characteristic (such being a gang member or being in the country illegally) in order to deny or diminish their ability to merely challenge the government's assertions. No one will be doing well if that comes to pass.
Where do either of these two show up with Biden or Harris.
Biden finally acts on border crisis, showing he could've done something about it all along
Immigration, along with the economy and inflation, has soared to one of the top issues on voters' minds as we head toward the presidential election.
Ingrid Jacques
USA TODAY JUNE 2024
JB yet again asserts, without explaining how, that the courts are exceeding their authority. Maybe if he actually graduated from law school he would have heard of Habeus Corpus.
Muphry strikes again!
I saw waht you did there.
Second congujation hardest hit.
In addition to everything else wrong with Blackman/Vance's commentary, the Supreme Court has (to the extent one wants to look at it that way) been checking the excesses of lower courts. It has repeatedly narrowed or vacated TROs/PIs issued against the administration.
When asked about judicial independence, Roberts responded that the Court's "job is to obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require a degree of independence."
I don't see how that's a controversial statement. In the process of deciding a constitutional case the Court must determine whether the executive or Congress has exceeded the scope of its powers. To be able to perform that role effectively, judges must have a degree of independence from the other branches. If the president could remove a judge unilaterally, then any judge who finds the president exceeded his authority would face immediate removal. This is US Government 101 material.
Of course, Josh's expertise is in political rhetoric, framing every political and legal decision as a battle between conservative and liberal. In this example, the rhetoric of "the people control" is helpful because of the current political makeup of the institutions. When that make-up switches (which it inevitably will, as it's done for 250 years) Josh's rhetoric will focus on the rule of law and constitutional rights as protection against the will of the people. It's just so basic and predictable.
It's controversial because sometimes it makes Trump unhappy, and when Trump is unhappy, Josh becomes maniacal, chanting monotonously, "Suprema Curia est delenda."
(Actually, it's unlikely that Josh's Latin is any better than his grasp of Constitutional theory.)
We know that the Latin of almost all lawyers even Constitutional is defective
\See link on this page
https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2018/07/robert-natelson-on-latin-in-constitutional-interpretationmichael-ramsey.html
: Why Constitutional Lawyers Need to Know Latin.
I am utterly amazed at how few people understand Vance's point, because it's a pretty big point in political theory.
You can't, as a practical matter, analyze these things as though the law were a perfectly closed system that will always prevail. According to the law, the Articles of Confederation are still in effect, because the Constitution wasn't adopted in compliance with them! According to the law, the British empire still rules the US!
The system that is the law works until the disconnect between the law and the public will reaches some critical level, and then things BREAK.
Vance is pointing out that the judiciary can only push so hard before things break, and they stop being able to push. And if they want to be able to enforce the rules, they need to keep that in mind.
Now, Vance might be wrong about where the breaking point is, (Or he might be right, people are getting pretty pissed off about illegal immigration.) but he's not wrong that there IS a breaking point.
The Articles of Confederation were replaced with the ratification of the Constitution. Our allegiance to Britain ended with the Declaration of Independence (and the war that largely followed it). Neither just fizzled out because people stopped paying attention to laws. If JD Vance wants to overthrow the Constitution because he doesn't like that it prevents him from arbitrarily declaring brown people to be illegal enemies of the country and shipping them off toe South Sudan or El Salvador, let's have him say it outright.
Let’s take you on your terms.
Let’s look at President Trump’s poll rating, currently 42% approval. It’s been going down steadily since he took office. Stephen Miller had to tell Fox to fire their pollster to preserve the illusion of mass approval.
Now let’s look at the Supreme Court’s approval rating, it’s been going steadily up in the last few months and is now above 50% for the first time in years.
The fact of the matter is, the majority of the country doesn’t want the US threatening Canada or theatening Denmark over Greenland, doesn’t want the National Weather Service and FEMA and other government agencies to have sudden mass layoffs that render them impotent and unable to warn about or respond to weather disasters, and doesn’t like all this talk about suspending habeas corpus. It may not even like arresting and deporting perfectly legal Venezualian immigrants with no criminal records in the middle of the night because some neanderthal in ICE thinks any tattoo he doesn’t recognize must be a gang symbol.
It’s not clear to me the humbug behind the curtain is aware yet that people are starting to get that he’s not quite the great and powerful wizard that he thinks he is.
Vance is pointing out that the judiciary can only push so hard before things break, and they stop being able to push. And if they want to be able to enforce the rules, they need to keep that in mind.
I think I'll apply this same logic to overturning Wickard. Don't argue for that if you want the Republic to stand!
Oh, and striking down all gun regulations! And whatever else your radical BrettLaw Constitution requires.
See, once you decide that the judiciary should be cowed by threats and not stand for the law, you've not got much of a judiciary at all.
Of course, you have plenty of personal projects you'd like the judiciary to take on. That's not consistent with your hostage taker logic, but you've not been a consistent guy since Trump.
Yes, Sarcastr0, it IS the same logic as produced Wickard: The New Deal was, according to long standing constitutional understandings, well rooted in text, unconstitutional. And it was the job of the Court to say so. If they'd kept to their oaths, they would have said so.
But the Court decided that they'd lose their power to say "no" entirely if they said "no" to the New Deal, so they started ruling differently. The Court blinked. They've been regularly blinking ever since, which is how we ended up with a federal government this powerful.
Now, is the situation analogous right now, and the Court will blink, or lose its power? I don't really think so, but evidently Vance does.
I'm not terribly happy with this phenomenon, I'm the sort of guy who likes the clarity of the Court saying, "You may ignore us, you may hang us from the nearest lamp post, but the Constitution still says this, and so we will rule. If you want us to rule otherwise, amend the Constitution!" I love grand, futile gestures, the cowboy who insists he'd rather have his horse shot out from under him than shoot the horse himself.
But I understand the phenomenon Vance is referring to, and I think so do you. You just can't admit it, because Vance is the enemy, and the enemy never has valid points to make.
Vance thinks Trump is an FDR type figure who can win a confrontation with the Court, and force them to blink. I think Vance is wrong about that. I hope Vance is wrong about that, because Trump IS proceeding in an illegal manner even if I like his goals.
But I do at least understand what he's getting at.
Good lord you're a weasel.
'I don't agree, but I understand' but from your treatment of the argument, it sure looks like you agree.
A great sign you agree is you deploy your bad faith telepathy engine to tell me that my condemning the hostage taking argument you hiding behind Vance are making is only because I'm too partisan.
You only pull that shit when you're committed.
Your demand that I profess a failure to understand anything I disapprove of is duly noted and rejected.
Just like your support of Trump, what your profess and what your comment actually indicates are two different things.
You defend Vance's position. Elsewhere on this page you defend it again, on the grounds that the courts are illegitimate.
You can say you're explaining not supporting, but you're not just explaining. You're arguing like someone who supports the Vance's threat. In a number of different places with a number of different arguments.
Okay but it was a point of ROMAN LAW that no ruler can bind his successors
In Roman law, a praetor's rulings, while legally protected, were not strictly binding on their successors. Successors could draw upon the useful parts of previous edicts, creating a kind of precedent, but were not compelled to follow them verbatim.
And this is fully consonant with ORIGINALISM
See section on precedent in
Originalism's Promise: A Natural Law Account of the American Constitution
by Lee J. Strang
J.D. Vance: "You cannot have a country where . . . the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for."
Josh Blackman: "Vance is exactly right."
Does that mean that when the American people elected Barack Obama on the promise of passing a national health care law—a promise that Obama not only ran on, but that he was able to get through the United States Congress as legislation— that Josh would celebrate John Roberts for voting to uphold that Congressionally-enacted law and not interfering with the will of the American people?
It's been a while, but I don't recall Josh's commentary following that script.
Amen. Preach, Brother!
You're misremembering the shenanigans and hijinks pulled to get that hunk of garbage passed and the whole pickup truck Senator from MA. It was questionably unconstitutional with their gutting an already passed bill.
Remember how the people elected a Republican Senator in MA in that special election to block Obamacare?
P.S. You forgot to log into your sock puppet account.
You are saying that laws you don't like are unconstitutional, laws you like are the will of the people and must not be challenged by pointyhead judges?
No, he's not misremembering any of that. Nothing like that impacts the legal force of the Affordable Care Act.
Just like Trump running on immigration enforcement doesn't give him the legal right to deport any alien he wants.
Ah, but enactment of the ACA did involve some procedures which would have resulted in it being struck down if the Court were actually upholding certain parts of the Constitution.
To be specific, the "Origination clause", Article 1, Section 7, 1st clause: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”
The ACA was a "bill for raising revenue", Roberts ruled that in upholding the mandate as a tax. And it originated in the Senate.
It's true that the Senate put an "HR" number on the bill, instead of an "SB". But the bill still originated in the Senate, as the only part of it that had anything to do with the House was that "HR", taken from a previous defeated bill that was utterly unrelated.
The Supreme court doesn't enforce the origination clause, or really any of the Constitution's procedural demands against Congress; Under the Enrolled bill doctrine, as long as the leadership of the House and Senate say everything is fine, they will resolutely refuse to look at any proof that they're lying.
But that doesn't mean the clause wasn't violated, it just makes the Court complicit in the violation.
that doesn't mean the clause wasn't violated, it just makes the Court complicit in the violation.
BrettLaw.
It's a flawed system, I'm afraid, trusting you to be the Arbiter of Truth.
You swing between functionalist and formalist to get the outcome you want.
Seems the Founders may have had some wisdom in them by setting up institutions to govern by both cooperating and checking one another.
The Brett Bellmore the superjudge just doesn't seem workable in the long run.
Yes, it's a flawed system where the highest law of the land demands that things be done in a certain way, and the judiciary declares that they don't care, as long as certain people say the rules were followed, they will not pay attention to proof they weren't.
It would be a flawed system where the courts followed a "Signed EO" doctrine, too, and declared that if the President said an executive order was legal, they wouldn't listen to any evidence it wasn't. Would you like that, too? I bet Trump would.
The House and Senate formally abided by the requirement in the Constitution.
You may take functional issue, but the court's allowed to roll formalist without being illegitimate.
YOU on the other hand, continue to be really inconsistent on when you insist on formalism and when you insist on functionalism. And you always insist your way is the only legitimate possiblity.
Your 'signed EO' thing is not following any requirement other than your own.
No, Brett. The bill originated in the House. Yes, the Senate amended the bill after the House originated it. Which is something that happens with every bill ever considered (beyond perhaps proclaiming August to be National Barbecue Appreciation Month or the like). But the constitution doesn't say, "A bill to raise money must pass word-for-word as originated in the House." So your complaint amounts to "But they amended this one 'too much.'" Which is not a justiciable standard.
It should embarrass you to be advancing this argument. This happens all the time, throughout history--the Senate gutting something the House has already passed, to satisfy the origination clause on spending bill. Because it happens all the time, and there was no way the Court in this instance was going to strike down the ACA, because it was notorious enough to motivate a challenge. There is no germane constitutional requirement to the origination clause.
YOu are correct.
And let's not forget what is ugly and stupid about Obamacare
Obamacare, was approximately 2,700 pages long when it was signed into law in 2010.
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men
of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so
incoherent that they cannot be understood . . . .”
—James Madison, Federalist 62
Obama was/is a terrible man
Speaking for normal people, that's very good, but egregiously incomplete. You could and should say Trump is a terrible president (because of his crazy mutable tariffs and is vicious viral retaliation against various individuals and entities for exercising the freedom of speech and press and freedom of association) based on the full sentence from Federalist 62:
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
Literally nobody (including Trump) knows how Trump's viral whims will mutate regarding tariffs or abridging the freedom of expression and association from one day to the next.
Also from Federalist No. 62 about the crazy constantly-changing, constantly-unconstitutional "government" of Trump:
In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.
But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.
Sick co-blogger burn
Yes, I've been making this same point commenting on several of Blackman's posts. He wanted John Roberts to resign over his Obamacare decision.
Such a dishonest, hackery position.
"He wanted John Roberts to resign over his Obamacare decision."
A reasonable desire. But a John Roberts who would have resigned over the Obamacare decision is a John Roberts who wouldn't have perpetrated it in the first place, so it isn't a reasonable expectation.
But an entirely reasonable desire.
A reasonable desire.
'Court did thing I don't like, Chief Justice should resign' is a tantrum; it's not a reasonable anything.
If Roberts double parked, I wouldn't like that.
If Roberts ruled that Trump could suspend the writ of Habeas, I wouldn't like that.
But that doesn't make those actions comparable, and so here, too.
No, it was a stupid desire, at least at the time. Not defensible or reasonable, given his supposed legal philosophy.
Because with Barack Obama in the White House, Blackman would have replaced a chief justice who sometimes voted his way, with someone who almost never would.
That just shows how retarded Blackman is, because he seems to value ideological purity over results. Even though he is thoroughly a results oriented guy, despite professing a desire for conservative originalism.
But logically any answer to your question has no effect on what Vance says. If you say that there is no force to what people vote for, you are denying everything
The problem with Roberts is not that he has abandoned conservatives when we needed him. That is obviously a part of our dissatisfaction with him, but there is a larger issue at play that the author touches upon.
His problem is that he is an unprincipled, weaselly man who always tacks to the middle, believing it to be appropriate in all circumstances---the middle, of course, being defined solely by John Roberts when he thinks one side is going too far.
He is like the teacher who after a student gets bullied relentlessly and finally stands up to the bully, stands in the middle and tells the two boys that they need to "work it out."
Of course, there are times in law and in life where the best position is a compromise between two extremes. Roberts believes that compromise is ALWAYS the best and will bend law and bend principles to get to that compromise--the place where John Roberts thinks his underlings need to be.
That's frustrating for everyone because when you are correct---whether your position is left or right---you deserve a WIN, not a nudge in your direction. His jurisprudence is not law but practical outcomes.
No more was that on display than in the ACA case. He came to the conclusion that Obama should be allowed to enact his health care reform law that he was elected to do. The law wasn't on his side so he comes up with a John Roberts solution that was wholly unsatisfactory to everyone and unfaithful to the law.
He tried to do that in Dobbs. If Roe and Casey remained good law there is no way that MS's 15 week abortion ban could stand. None. Everyone agreed with that position. A 15 week ban was absolutely inconsistent with Roe or Casey. Either the law had to go, or the abortion precedents had to be overruled. Not CJ Roberts, though. He can always find an unprincipled middle ground.
This is stupid and dishonest. And stupid. And dishonest. Did he "tack to the middle" when he decided that Trump could be on the ballot despite being an insurrectionist? Did he "tack to the middle" when he decided that Trump could commit crimes with impunity? Did he "tack to the middle" on Shelby County? Did he "tack to the middle" on Heller? On any of the campaign finance cases?
My point is not whether any of these are right or wrong (the first two are very very wrong); my point is that he has no qualms about taking an uncompromising position.
What he "tried to do in Dobbs" was stick to the actual case before him. The QP was about a 15-week ban, not about Roe/Casey, and so he would've upheld that ban and not gone further than necessary. Right or wrong, that's not a "compromise." That's just a conservative — small-c — approach.
Did he "tack to the middle" when he decided that Trump could be on the ballot despite being an insurrectionist? Did he "tack to the middle" when he decided that Trump could commit crimes with impunity?
El-oh-fucking-el. At least you told us that you were being stupid and dishonest. And stupid. And dishonest.
Dave's making sure that the Jersey Shore cast aren't the worst example of the shit that comes from the asshole of America.
What's your substantive beef with DMN's point about Roberts' opinions not being invariably from the middle?
I know you usually just do drive by insults, but I have seen you actually engage before.
" Did he "tack to the middle" when he decided that Trump could be on the ballot despite being an insurrectionist?"
What the Court did there was to identify the legal process necessary to establish that Trump WAS "an insurrectionist": Convicting him of insurrection.
Do that, and you can legally treat him as an insurrectionist all day long. Don't do that, and he retains the presumption of innocence, just like anybody else who has not being charged or convicted of a crime.
There is no "presumption of innocence" because being excluded from the ballot isn't a prosecution in the first place.
"presumption of innocence" what a quaint notion when we are talking about DJT.
He tends to take the least principled position.which still remains many times highly controversial.
Trained attorneys should not be confusing what they want with what the legal read has to be.
Vance is precisely wrong.
Vance: "You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for."
One of the chief functions of the Supreme Court is to check tyranny of the majority. When the majority demands something that does not comport with the Constitution, regardless of what that might be, and whether it is Congress or the Executive that tries to carry it forward, it is emphatically the job of the Judiciary to stop it.
Then Attorney, we should find some post from you foreseeing what happened now as bound to occur with 10 million plus immigrants let in and then lost track of. But we will not find that, will we.
Not my job, and not the Court's job--nor the Executive's. That's a job for the Legislature. Which should, respectfully, get off its rump and do its job in a Constitutionally sound manner.
Vance: "You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for."
Blackman: "Vance is exactly right."
Utter nonsense. Vance is not right. The courts are not telling the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for. The courts are telling people they're not allowed to use unconstitutional means to have what they voted for. It's a big difference, no? I'm surprised that someone like Josh, who knows all about constitutional history and doctrine, doesn't see that.
You, sir, are correct.
Congress structures the inferior courts and funds all the federal courts. Congress has reorganized the courts before, and it's time to do it again. Special attention should be paid to courts that ignore the Constitutional separation of powers and pretend to rule on matters beyond the matters and parties under consideration.
Professor Blackman, you're right that Vance is right that the duty of SCOTUS and the Chief Justice includes "check[ing] the excesses of his own branch." But you must be wrong that "[t]he greatest check on the courts can only be" a mere "widely held belief that the Court is not ruling based on" an unconstitutional basis. The restraints on the court cannot constitutionally depend on merely what "the people believe the judiciary is" doing. You're arguing for nothing more or less than a faith-based system that is essentially the state establishment of religion with judges as priests. Article III emphasizes that we are to judge all federal "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts" by their "Behaviour." We are not meant to merely "believe" in them or whatever they say.
You're also obviously wrong (as is Vance) about the contention that we "cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for."
Clearly nobody ever elected "immigration enforcement." At most, people elect members of Congress and merely indicate approval of the president and vice president. No matter how many people elect or vote for any representative in the legislative or executive branches, every public servant (in all branches and all levels of all government) is bound by and must support our Constitution (not merely whatever some public servant says or implies "immigration enforcement" might mean).
If the people could merely "elect" a policy or practice by voting, they could effectively amend our Constitution by voting. Article V emphasizes that would be violate our Constitution.
Chief Justice Roberts's 2024 Year End Report appropriately emphasized one way to hold federal judges accountable:
“Chief Justice Taft is the only person to have served as head of the judicial and a political branch [as chief justice after having served as president]. As he put it, ‘Nothing tends more to render judges careful in their decisions and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than the consciousness that every act of theirs is to be subject to the intelligent scrutiny of their fellow men, and to their candid criticism.’”
“It should be no surprise that judicial rulings can provoke strong and passionate reactions. And those expressions of public sentiment—whether criticism or praise—are not threats to judicial independence.”
“In [our] democracy” with “robust First Amendment protections—criticism comes with the territory. It can be healthy. As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, “[a] natural consequence of life tenure should be the ability to benefit from informed criticism from legislators, the bar, academy, and the public.”
The Founders of our nation and the Framers of our Constitution (and a respectable quantity and quality of SCOTUS justices) emphasized that sometimes in some ways public servants should be "intimidated." Doing so is not only proper, but even necessary. See, e.g., "October 26, 1774, a Date that Should Live in First Amendment History" at https://open.substack.com/pub/blackcollarcrime/p/october-26-1774-a-date-that-should?r=30ufvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false