Tuesday Roundup, Mostly On The Judiciary
But we’ll start with Europe. Naked capitalism has a lengthy analysis of the German election—make of it what you will. What’s striking is that the parties that lost voter share in the face of massive discontent with the government’s performance … will form a new government. And the guy leading it, Merz, is said to be some sort of vulture capitalist. Sounds like a recipe for continuing and building unrest. It’s also interesting that the Euros seem to be looking to blame Trump for their troubles, based on his open disrespect for them. Well, nobody enjoys being disrespected, but in fact it was the Anglo-Zionist Zhou regime that screwed the Euros when they were all in for waging war on Russia. Trump—say what you will about his manner—is simply putting an end to a war that never was popular in the US to begin with. By contrast, no matter the screwing they got from the US, the Euros still want the war to go on. Read it all here if you wish, Germany Holds an Election in an Alternate Reality, but these poll results are what I found most interesting:
Granted, the results presented here are incomplete—only one Scandi country, and one Baltic and one Balkan country, etc. Moreover, the Ukrainian results are hopelessly skewed—they don’t count the parts of Ukraine that voted to be part of Russia, nor did they include the many millions of Ukrainians who fled to Russia. Nevertheless, among the baffling results is that Denmark is far and away the most Russophobic country in Europe. Go figure, right? I’m not aware that Denmark was ever in a war with Russia or even in any sort of confrontation. Is it their Viking past? Here a Vikingess puts on her war face while intoning the woke Danish version of a Haka, or something:
NEW:
The Danish Prime Minister said that the war in Ukraine must continue and "Peace is More Dangerous than War"
Crazy...
"I must be honest and say that I do not trust Putin. I don't think he wants peace in Ukraine. I understand that many think a peaceful resolution or a ceasefire sounds like a good idea, but we risk that peace in Ukraine could actually be more dangerous than the ongoing war," stated Mette Frederiksen, who visited Kiev today.
Not a hint that the Russians might have reasons for distrusting the people who turned Ukraine into a vast anti-Russian proxy.
Well, on to the judiciary.
Jonathan Turley is a big fan of what he calls America’s “independent judiciary.” Here he cautions against GOPer posturing about impeaching judges who seek to institutionalize the Civil Service as a fourth branch of government:
Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley
We have the oldest and most stable constitutional system in history in large part due to our independent judiciary. We should not allow the frustration with court rulings to become the defenestration of our Constitution values.
I’m not convinced that history would actually bear out this vision of the judiciary—that it’s independent, that it has reliably upheld our constitutional order. Or “values”, if you insist. Sure they’ve stood tall a few times, but other times not so much. Overall it’s a rather mixed bag from my standpoint.
Having got that off his chest, Turley turns immediately to provide an example of the judiciary defenestrating our Constitutional values, smashing “the touchstone of freedom.” It’s a useful reminder to his readers that those GOPers may have a point:
Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley
The 1st Circuit just held that parents have no right to know about their 11-year-old changing gender in school. https://ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/23-1069P-01A.pdf… This "unwritten policy" was viewed as overriding parental rights. The decision is defended as a reflection of our "pluralistic society".
Indeed, the right to raise one's children according to your own faith and values is the touchstone of freedom. Conversely, the subordination of such rights is the harbinger of state tyranny. True pluralism allows families with different norms and values to thrive. Public schools are effectively demanding that parents give up their rights to critical aspects of rearing their children as a condition for public education. It is a virtual slogan for school choice.
And for good measure he adds:
While the courts must rule on the legal basis for these executive orders, the polling shows continued support for both Trump and his agenda after the election.
In that regard, Margot Cleveland had a very sound article at The Federalist yesterday, explaining what this is all about in trenchant terms. As we discussed yesterday, quoting Alastair Crooke, this is all about the Progs wishing to substitute themselves as the sole governing power, in place of the constitutional separation of powers. They wish to neuter the elected executive, thus neutering we the people, depriving voters of a choice:
Institutional Resistance To Trump Proves The Left’s Disdain For Democracy
Those condemning President Trump’s firings of resistance officials are not attacking the executive — they are attacking our democracy.
Highlights:
Donald Trump is not acting like a dictator. And he’s not acting like a king. He’s governing as the executive — the position to which he was elected by a majority of voters.
Yet with every decision President Trump makes, the left responds with claims that our very democracy is at risk. But, as is often the case, if you allow the ignorant to talk long enough, they shine a light on their stupidity — and their true motives. ...
...
[Susan] Rice then added a further talking point — one prevalently paraded by those attacking Donald Trump: These officials “all take an oath to the Constitution of the United States. Not to any individual President or any individual leader.”
An oath to the Constitution of the United States, however, includes an oath to uphold Article II, which expressly provides “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”
...
Ironically, in condemning Trump for the firings, his critics confirm the propriety of the terminations. Consider Kristol’s comments from Saturday: “It’s not about Brown, or Caine, or other individuals. It’s not about reforming DOD. What it’s about, at DOD and DOJ and the FBI and the intelligence community, is breaking all institutional resistance to Trump, and ensuring as much as is possible personal fealty to Trump.”
There should be no “institutional resistance to Trump.” That’s not how the Constitution works. Article II places in “a President,” “the executive Power.” It does not give any institution, Joint Chief, U.S. attorney, or any other bureaucrat the authority to either exercise executive power or to thwart it. So too, then, Article II commands fealty to President Trump as the holder of “the executive Power.”
The very acknowledgement that there is an “institutional resistance to Trump” in the DOD, DOJ, FBI, and intelligence community then confirms the righteousness of the firings. But it does more: It proves those touting the need for “institutional resistance” and the supposed independence in the executive branch are the opponents to democracy.
After all, the only member of the executive branch elected — and elected “by the entire nation” at that — is President Trump, which is why the Founders vested “the” executive power in “a President.” Because the president cannot alone manage the executive branch, he “select[s] those who [are] to act for him under his direction in the execution of the laws.” However, as the Supreme Court has stressed, such unelected officials hold “legitimacy and accountability” only “through ‘a clear and effective chain of command’ down from the President, on whom all the people vote.”
Declaring then that executive officials should maintain an independence from, or act as a resistance to, the president, represents a perversion to our Constitution and democracy by demanding executive authority be wrested from the unitary executive and gifted instead “to a person who answers to no one and for whom no one voted.”
Said otherwise, “[o]ur Constitution was adopted to enable the people to govern themselves, through their elected leaders.” A majority of voters elected Donald Trump, and thus members of the executive branch seeking to undermine the president are actually undermining the Constitution. And those condemning President Trump’s firings of such resistance officials are not attacking the executive — they are attacking our democracy.
Last but not least, Shipwreckedcrew brings us up to date with judicial shenanigans and explains what Margot called the “stupidity” of it all in very simple terms (edited): Prog judges believe they can run the federal government. SCOTUS will never buy into that:
Jordan Fischer @JordanOnRecord
NOW: Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger — who President Trump attempted to fire in a Friday night email earlier this month — said today the mass terminations of federal probationary workers may violate the law.
Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
I'm guessing Judge Jackson is none too pleased that Dellinger has just created Exh. A for the Govt for why the Office of Special Counsel can't be a carryover from Admin to Admin.
He could have hardly done more to prove the point made by the Govt in the motion for summary judgment.
Let me summarize the circularity of what Hampton Delliger has done today:
“..., Dellinger proposes to use his “Executive Power” to cancel the exercise of “Executive Power” by the Executive from whom his Executive power originates. So, on Trump’s behalf, Dellinger proposes to prohibit Trump from taking action via the Executive Order Trump signed.”
Justin Ryland @justin_ryland
Replying to @shipwreckedcrew
Most of the legal posturing could've been short circuited by well-crafted "proposal letter" with some wording for cause. 30 days admin leave to satisfy statute, then fired. Most of these suits would then be mooted by jurisdiction.
Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
But the Trump Admin wants the fight over its Art. II authority to fire Officials without cause.
It does not want to defend a "cause" claim everytime an Executive gets rid of an Exec. Branch official.
Lawyerva @ElonSaved1stA
Replying to @shipwreckedcrew and @ProfMJCleveland
Right. Press the legal issue up the judicial chain re power of the Exec to fire any executive branch person for any or no reason. It's a fight that needs to happen
Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney
BREAKING: Judge Ali has *granted* the motion to enforce his restraining order against the State/USAID spending freeze. He has ordered the Trump administration to pay "all invoices and letter of credit drawdown requests" for work done prior to Feb. 13 — by 11:59pm tomorrow night.
Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
A Notice of Appeal and Motion to Stay will be filed in the Appeals Court by this evening.
The DOJ has been expecting this case to end up here.
So now we'll have a test of whether the Judiciary gets to direct federal government spending via TRO.
Not only do I think the DOJ expected this result -- I think they actually goaded the Plaintiffs and the Judge into this outcome.
Again, this is a fight they want to have because it is intended to hem-in the perceived authority that District Judges' believe themselves to have to direct the operations of the Executive branch.
I think they saw Judge Ali as an easy mark - he took the bait and has run with it.
The longer this continues the more certain a SCOTUS beat down of the lower court judges becomes.
Well, I for one can’t wait for the SCOTUS to drop the hammer on these clowns. I’m sick and tired of these people trying to “force” their will on the voters and the President that WE elected. It’s way past time for them to be told once and for all who the hell is in charge!
Unto the “Republic”
Not. “Our Democracy”
Why is MAGA still referring to our Republic as, Our Democracy?
Language matters
Young people need to hear “Our Republic”