Unfortunately, attempting to bring disciplinary action against judges, regardless of whether such discipline is based on alleged violations of rules of conduct for attorneys or judges, is practically impossible. The vast majority of state disciplinary boards are staffed to the hilt with committed leftists. Such boards have sought to discipline or outright disbar attorneys that challenged the 2020 election results, efforts which have occasionally been successful. By contrast, the former DOJ attorney that was convicted of submitting falsified evidence to the FISA court has already been rehabilitated.
No, for good or ill, both bench and bar are largely self-regulating. You'll never bring either to heel that way.
These are the acts of the vanguard of the pro-Blob partisans, temporarily pushed back but rallying their forces.
Such people don't believe in separation of power or restrictions or political norms. They're certain that they're right, and so those things become tools when they're helpful and disregarded when they're not.
The judges are doing exactly what the Constitution demands.
What you are asking for is a dictatorship where the single person elected gets to do whatever they want.
When Executive Orders relate strictly to the operation of federal employees within federal authority and are not contradictory to the laws passed by congress or state legislatures then they are lawful and must be carried out by those federal employees.When they are contradicting state or federal law, or require action from persons who are not Federal employees than they are not required to be obeyed.
If there is any doubt as to the legality of an EO then the correct procedure is to put it in front of a judge.
Who decides what are "legitimate constitutional grounds". Not Trump or the Cabinet, but the courts, specifically Federal and the Supreme court.
The only way to challenge the Constitutionality of an EO is via the courts.
Yes, the DoJ was weaponised against the GOP and Trump by Obama and Biden, so fix it. Trump wants to abolish the court system and have the whole world do what ever he tells them.
Trump or Musk cannot decree actions that are contrary to law, specifically the congressional labour laws. If the law passed by Congress or a state, does conflict with an EO the only place to argue it out is in a court.
The President is not supposed to be a dictator. It seems that Trump has forgotten this or believes that democracy means that 51% can just kill off the 49% because "Hey its' a democracy" and elections have consequences.
The fact that half the country don't like Trump's decisions and the other half want the first half to be quiet is what defines America.
It took 30 years for the 'woke-democrats' to get where they are and you think that they can be removed in days?
Trump runs the executive branch and only the executive branch. Since Clinton the executive has been grabbing more and more power, you did not like it under Obama and Biden why do you suddenly think that it should have more power.
By all means use the constitution to remove judges who are corrupt (Merchan) and to ensure that they stick to the laws as passed by the Congress. But don't give more power to the executive. Trump and the GOP will not be in power for ever and it was Bush who really pushed the dictatorial agenda.
This is all wonderful, PJ, but from a political standpoint, what it implies is that, since the Left took a few decades to ensconce itself in the federal judiciary (with plenty of help from the so-called "Right"), what the populist Right (aka the MAGA movement) needs to do is initiate a Constitutionally-compliant countermarch through those same institutions over the next 30 years or so to regain the judicial "high ground" (with zero help from the Left). That "high ground" is now occupied by a coterie of federal judges whose Left wing jurisprudence effectively acts as a veto against anything the Right wing manages to muster, which typically isn't much and typically doesn't last long.
Too bad, so sad, right? Buck up and deal. Bide your time, trust the system, play by the rules, and stop electing Right Wing sellouts (RINOs) to Congress. That's the Constitutionally pure way to effect lasting change in government.
Well and good. But let us suppose for the sake of argument that the MAGA movement manages to maintain its focus and electoral appeal over the next 12 years (Trump plus two terms of Vance, plus maintenance of majorities in the House and Senate): a (very) long shot at best. Let us further suppose that through fully Constitutionally-compliant means the worst excesses of the federal judiciary are expunged, and that MAGA-sympathetic judges now hold sway in the federal courts. Does anyone believe that a future Left wing (so-called "Democratic") government would not pull out all the stops mentioned in this article to moot the power of the federal judiciary, and that it would do so without apology?
Again, too bad, so sad. Two wrongs don't make a right, and so on.
It's all well and good to be a Constitutional purist until one realizes that, from an historical standpoint, the Constitution became a dead letter as soon as Marbury v. Madison (1803) was decided. As I'm sure you know, that ruling established the principal of "judicial review" over federal and state laws, effectively making those laws subject to the good graces and political leanings of the federal judiciary. Paraphrasing a quote often attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild, "Give me control of the federal judiciary, and I care not who makes its laws". As you yourself state, "Who decides what are "legitimate constitutional grounds". Not Trump or the Cabinet, but the courts, specifically Federal and the Supreme court."
And that, my friends, is how our "democratic republic" works, or, at least, how it has come to work. The people vote; the courts decide. If the people vote in accordance with the political leanings of the federal judiciary, all is well. If not, a "Constitutional crisis" occurs. In the last election, the people did NOT vote in accordance with the political leanings of the federal judiciary, 2/3 of which were appointed by Democratic (sic) Presidents, whence all the talk by the Left about a "Constitutional crisis". Since the courts have veto power over the agenda of the Executive branch, it is clear that under the current electoral paradigm, it is the federal judiciary that should be elected, not appointed by Presidents that have maximum terms of 8 years versus the typical federal judge (15 years minimum with the possibility of reappointment).
Again, your answer would likely be, "So fix it. Constitutionally." <sigh>
I take issue not with your exhortation to Constitutional probity by the Executive Branch of our government, which exhortation is highly commendable and beyond reproach; my issue is with the expectation that Jonny Fairplay will play fair if only his competitors do, and even if he doesn't and you lose, at least you have maintained the moral high ground. In the scrum that is the reality of electoral politics, that is a recipe for failure.
Are there limits to the legitimate exercise of Executive Branch power? Yes. Have those limits been reached, or even tested, by the Trump administration to date? I think not.
My personal belief is that the only positive form of government is a "Benevolent Dictatorship". a La Bernadotte. Where does one find such a dictator?
Putin and Xi are examples, one whose sole aim and promise is to "protect Russia' and the other whose sole philosophy is Confucian (with a slight touch of Genghis Khan). Their effects on the welfare of their country's citizens is incredible.
I firmly believe a one-party (no party) system is superior to a multi-party system and Lycurgus who studied society-governance came back and gave Sparta a system that lasted more than 600 years exemplifies that concept. The Ottomans also did pretty well.
The idea that anything of meaning can be built in two years (don't forget the mid-terms) is ridiculous. But the plebs want bread and circuses or beer and football with a crucifixion or beheading on high days and holidays.
It is all intellectual as I don't actually give a toss what they do.
I find myself in general agreement with all your major points, PJ. European history has a few examples of monarchies that were exercised as a form of "benevolent dictatorship", but one has to wade through politicized (mostly English) "histories" to find them. As for "liberal democracy", I hold it to be a sham from the get-go, and my initial comments were not intended to be a defense of the current American political system, or any political system for that matter.
There is no political system, of any size, that cannot be undermined by the predations of those with a "will to power". As Thucydides opined in his History of the Peloponnesian War, "The strong do what they can, and the weak endure what they must". That said, if one holds ordered liberty to be of value, as many or most have in the post-"Enlightenment" West, the smaller the size of the polity, the greater the chance that political perfidy can be exposed and countered, although not necessarily successfully.
From that standpoint, the Founding Fathers of the American political system were onto something with the Articles of Confederation, which, while certainly not perfect, was far better than the Constitution in terms of its recognition that small, independent polities (the states) were essentially countries of their own, with a sovereign right to decide both internal and external policies for themselves.
With regard to American history, I am generally a Rothbardian (small l) libertarian, whose landmark series Conceived In Liberty views the trajectory of American history from the colonies through to ratification of the Constitution in terms of the interpretive lens "liberty versus power", with power winning out in the end with the framing of the Constitution, which document has become the subject of obsequious adulation, a totem if you will, by so-called American "conservatives".
As for myself, I agree with you: I don't give a toss what they do. Why? Because it all ends in the same place.
Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments.
This was stated in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Supreme Court decision by Justice Hugo Black: “The President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”
that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
“The President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,” Justice Black wrote in his majority opinion.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order withholding federal funds from “sanctuary cities” that did not share immigration and citizenship status information with federal authorities. Citing Justice Jackson’s test in Youngstown, the panel majority found that “because Congress has the exclusive power to spend and has not delegated authority to the Executive to condition new grants on compliance with §1373, the President’s ‘power is at its lowest ebb.’” The case was appealed to the Supreme Court but vacated after Joe Biden became president.
-
As I stated "...and are not contradictory to the laws passed by congress .."
I must confess I hurry to read your post, since i never found one I disagree with.
Onward, my firend!
I have always thought that our judiciary had the airs and arrogance of a feudal aristocracy.
Unfortunately, attempting to bring disciplinary action against judges, regardless of whether such discipline is based on alleged violations of rules of conduct for attorneys or judges, is practically impossible. The vast majority of state disciplinary boards are staffed to the hilt with committed leftists. Such boards have sought to discipline or outright disbar attorneys that challenged the 2020 election results, efforts which have occasionally been successful. By contrast, the former DOJ attorney that was convicted of submitting falsified evidence to the FISA court has already been rehabilitated.
No, for good or ill, both bench and bar are largely self-regulating. You'll never bring either to heel that way.
Yes, yes, yes and yes
These are the acts of the vanguard of the pro-Blob partisans, temporarily pushed back but rallying their forces.
Such people don't believe in separation of power or restrictions or political norms. They're certain that they're right, and so those things become tools when they're helpful and disregarded when they're not.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/leviathan
The judges are doing exactly what the Constitution demands.
What you are asking for is a dictatorship where the single person elected gets to do whatever they want.
When Executive Orders relate strictly to the operation of federal employees within federal authority and are not contradictory to the laws passed by congress or state legislatures then they are lawful and must be carried out by those federal employees.When they are contradicting state or federal law, or require action from persons who are not Federal employees than they are not required to be obeyed.
If there is any doubt as to the legality of an EO then the correct procedure is to put it in front of a judge.
Who decides what are "legitimate constitutional grounds". Not Trump or the Cabinet, but the courts, specifically Federal and the Supreme court.
The only way to challenge the Constitutionality of an EO is via the courts.
Yes, the DoJ was weaponised against the GOP and Trump by Obama and Biden, so fix it. Trump wants to abolish the court system and have the whole world do what ever he tells them.
Trump or Musk cannot decree actions that are contrary to law, specifically the congressional labour laws. If the law passed by Congress or a state, does conflict with an EO the only place to argue it out is in a court.
The President is not supposed to be a dictator. It seems that Trump has forgotten this or believes that democracy means that 51% can just kill off the 49% because "Hey its' a democracy" and elections have consequences.
The fact that half the country don't like Trump's decisions and the other half want the first half to be quiet is what defines America.
It took 30 years for the 'woke-democrats' to get where they are and you think that they can be removed in days?
Trump runs the executive branch and only the executive branch. Since Clinton the executive has been grabbing more and more power, you did not like it under Obama and Biden why do you suddenly think that it should have more power.
By all means use the constitution to remove judges who are corrupt (Merchan) and to ensure that they stick to the laws as passed by the Congress. But don't give more power to the executive. Trump and the GOP will not be in power for ever and it was Bush who really pushed the dictatorial agenda.
This is all wonderful, PJ, but from a political standpoint, what it implies is that, since the Left took a few decades to ensconce itself in the federal judiciary (with plenty of help from the so-called "Right"), what the populist Right (aka the MAGA movement) needs to do is initiate a Constitutionally-compliant countermarch through those same institutions over the next 30 years or so to regain the judicial "high ground" (with zero help from the Left). That "high ground" is now occupied by a coterie of federal judges whose Left wing jurisprudence effectively acts as a veto against anything the Right wing manages to muster, which typically isn't much and typically doesn't last long.
Too bad, so sad, right? Buck up and deal. Bide your time, trust the system, play by the rules, and stop electing Right Wing sellouts (RINOs) to Congress. That's the Constitutionally pure way to effect lasting change in government.
Well and good. But let us suppose for the sake of argument that the MAGA movement manages to maintain its focus and electoral appeal over the next 12 years (Trump plus two terms of Vance, plus maintenance of majorities in the House and Senate): a (very) long shot at best. Let us further suppose that through fully Constitutionally-compliant means the worst excesses of the federal judiciary are expunged, and that MAGA-sympathetic judges now hold sway in the federal courts. Does anyone believe that a future Left wing (so-called "Democratic") government would not pull out all the stops mentioned in this article to moot the power of the federal judiciary, and that it would do so without apology?
Again, too bad, so sad. Two wrongs don't make a right, and so on.
It's all well and good to be a Constitutional purist until one realizes that, from an historical standpoint, the Constitution became a dead letter as soon as Marbury v. Madison (1803) was decided. As I'm sure you know, that ruling established the principal of "judicial review" over federal and state laws, effectively making those laws subject to the good graces and political leanings of the federal judiciary. Paraphrasing a quote often attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild, "Give me control of the federal judiciary, and I care not who makes its laws". As you yourself state, "Who decides what are "legitimate constitutional grounds". Not Trump or the Cabinet, but the courts, specifically Federal and the Supreme court."
And that, my friends, is how our "democratic republic" works, or, at least, how it has come to work. The people vote; the courts decide. If the people vote in accordance with the political leanings of the federal judiciary, all is well. If not, a "Constitutional crisis" occurs. In the last election, the people did NOT vote in accordance with the political leanings of the federal judiciary, 2/3 of which were appointed by Democratic (sic) Presidents, whence all the talk by the Left about a "Constitutional crisis". Since the courts have veto power over the agenda of the Executive branch, it is clear that under the current electoral paradigm, it is the federal judiciary that should be elected, not appointed by Presidents that have maximum terms of 8 years versus the typical federal judge (15 years minimum with the possibility of reappointment).
Again, your answer would likely be, "So fix it. Constitutionally." <sigh>
I take issue not with your exhortation to Constitutional probity by the Executive Branch of our government, which exhortation is highly commendable and beyond reproach; my issue is with the expectation that Jonny Fairplay will play fair if only his competitors do, and even if he doesn't and you lose, at least you have maintained the moral high ground. In the scrum that is the reality of electoral politics, that is a recipe for failure.
Are there limits to the legitimate exercise of Executive Branch power? Yes. Have those limits been reached, or even tested, by the Trump administration to date? I think not.
So what is the alternative?
Term limits for Judges seems to be one solution.
That raises many other issues.
Throw out the Constitution and replace with ..?
My personal belief is that the only positive form of government is a "Benevolent Dictatorship". a La Bernadotte. Where does one find such a dictator?
Putin and Xi are examples, one whose sole aim and promise is to "protect Russia' and the other whose sole philosophy is Confucian (with a slight touch of Genghis Khan). Their effects on the welfare of their country's citizens is incredible.
I firmly believe a one-party (no party) system is superior to a multi-party system and Lycurgus who studied society-governance came back and gave Sparta a system that lasted more than 600 years exemplifies that concept. The Ottomans also did pretty well.
The idea that anything of meaning can be built in two years (don't forget the mid-terms) is ridiculous. But the plebs want bread and circuses or beer and football with a crucifixion or beheading on high days and holidays.
It is all intellectual as I don't actually give a toss what they do.
I find myself in general agreement with all your major points, PJ. European history has a few examples of monarchies that were exercised as a form of "benevolent dictatorship", but one has to wade through politicized (mostly English) "histories" to find them. As for "liberal democracy", I hold it to be a sham from the get-go, and my initial comments were not intended to be a defense of the current American political system, or any political system for that matter.
There is no political system, of any size, that cannot be undermined by the predations of those with a "will to power". As Thucydides opined in his History of the Peloponnesian War, "The strong do what they can, and the weak endure what they must". That said, if one holds ordered liberty to be of value, as many or most have in the post-"Enlightenment" West, the smaller the size of the polity, the greater the chance that political perfidy can be exposed and countered, although not necessarily successfully.
From that standpoint, the Founding Fathers of the American political system were onto something with the Articles of Confederation, which, while certainly not perfect, was far better than the Constitution in terms of its recognition that small, independent polities (the states) were essentially countries of their own, with a sovereign right to decide both internal and external policies for themselves.
With regard to American history, I am generally a Rothbardian (small l) libertarian, whose landmark series Conceived In Liberty views the trajectory of American history from the colonies through to ratification of the Constitution in terms of the interpretive lens "liberty versus power", with power winning out in the end with the framing of the Constitution, which document has become the subject of obsequious adulation, a totem if you will, by so-called American "conservatives".
As for myself, I agree with you: I don't give a toss what they do. Why? Because it all ends in the same place.
Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments.
LOL. Art-3 judges have zero authority over Art-2 decisions implementing Art-2 authority, no matter how badly you desire it.
Obviously, the courts don't agree.
-
This was stated in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Supreme Court decision by Justice Hugo Black: “The President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”
that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
“The President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,” Justice Black wrote in his majority opinion.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order withholding federal funds from “sanctuary cities” that did not share immigration and citizenship status information with federal authorities. Citing Justice Jackson’s test in Youngstown, the panel majority found that “because Congress has the exclusive power to spend and has not delegated authority to the Executive to condition new grants on compliance with §1373, the President’s ‘power is at its lowest ebb.’” The case was appealed to the Supreme Court but vacated after Joe Biden became president.
-
As I stated "...and are not contradictory to the laws passed by congress .."