mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
separation of powers
Why Democrats Might Be Thankful for the Roberts Court
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Tom

    What makes you think the hyperpartisans will do anything of the kind?

  • Andrew Allison

    More hypotheticals about what Trump might do. Let’s just stick to the facts, such as his cabinet appointments (which today’s WaPo says are “brilliant”!), his not waiting for the traditional challenge to a new President from the PRC, etc.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Exactly. So far (and I will grant, it is very early on), Trump has shown himself to be reasonably careful in terms of personnel (and any businessman will tell you, personnel *IS* policy), relatively restrained in rhetoric, and generally quite professional. This compares quite favorably to what we saw in 2008, when president-elect Obama’s people spent most of their time celebrating the new era that would surely come to pass, and precious little preparation for the actual work of governing. What I see are that adults are back in the driver’s seat.

      Will all of this work out well? Of course not…this is the real world and there will be disappointments and failures, as there are in any administration. So far, however, I like what I see.

      • Andrew Allison

        Yup, the Trump-bashing continues — Willick appears to be doing his best to drag TAI into the MSM cesspool.

        • f1b0nacc1

          I stopped taking old JW seriously a while back. Sadly, he manages to combine a rather turgid prose style with the backbiting pettiness so common in academe. Perhaps WRM can recognize this and move away from it before it undermines his own work….

          With this in mind: https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/03/what-exactly-is-the-nevertrumpumpkins-problem/1/

          • Andrew Allison

            “Over two generations the press have gone from defining news as “what happened yesterday” to “what we think might happen later” to “what other unnamed people tell us they think might happen tomorrow”—in other words, from concrete reporting to “analysis and context” to blue-sky speculation.” (http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumps-chumps/article/2005648) sums it up.

  • Fat_Man

    Take a chill pill dude. Nothing has happened.

    And, no, Indiana did not make it easier to “discriminate against LGBT individuals” on the basis of religious conviction in 2015. That is a complete misrepresentation of what Indiana did. Of course, we are used to that coming from you liberals.

    You should be much more worried about the willingness of “corporate leaders” to join the howling mobs of crazed “social justice warriors” as they pursue the debasement of the middle class. Back when they stayed out of politics because they understood that half of their customers would be offended, they were less of a problem.

    And no, the Supreme Court will not protect you. They never have. They didn’t stop FDR from stealing the people’s money. They didn’t protect Japanese Americans during WWII. They didn’t stop Obamacare. They won’t protect you.

    Fortunately, you are in no real danger, except from your fevered imagination.

    • Geraldinehallen

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj134d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj134d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://www.career6.Com ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj134d:….,….
      Go to the site and Click Home Tab for More Info And Details………

  • FriendlyGoat

    Roberts and Kennedy might (might) see themselves as the single remaining brake with some power to prevent complete rollover of ordinary people on at least a few issues. Thomas and Alito are hopeless cases and the new Justice will be Trump indebted. Kennedy might be expected to follow Roberts’ lead (whatever it is, case by case) and I would expect Roberts to follow in part the leading of his wife (whatever that is, case by case). It has always been my pet theory that Roberts’ wife influenced the double (partial) upholding of PPACA against challenges—merely a guess.

    • Tom

      List of sitting justices who voted for Kelo v. New London: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer.

      Yes. Staunch upholders of the rights of ordinary people, indeed.

      List of sitting justices who voted against Kelo v. New London: Thomas

      Indeed. Truly a hopeless case.

      • JR

        None are as blind as those who refuse to see….
        — Somebody smart

      • FriendlyGoat

        I assume you don’t know the president-elect’s stance on eminent domain, right?

        • Tom

          I do know his position on eminent domain. I despise it.
          However, your point is still wrong.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, the point that you appeared to not know what your own side elected in Trump by throwing up Kelo as demonization of left Justices seemed reasonable to me. With Trump, we have a guy who is in full support of eminent domain for private sector projects.

          • Tom

            My point was that your demonization of Right justices and hagiographizing of Left justices is based on bad history and a short memory. Which should have been obvious.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I actually have a little hope for Roberts. He might wake up and realize he is about the only person in the USA who is in a position to say “no” to Donald Trump any day on any case for the rest of his life. So many people are captured. You, for instance. Most of GOP Congress. Most church leaders. Roberts is not, so maybe a sense of duty to mitigate the monarchy will overcome him.

          • Tom

            Sorry. Still didn’t vote for the guy. Still think he’s not going to be a good president. Still think your candidate was going to be as bad or worse.
            As to the monarchy–who was using her last name to legitimate her claim to power? Wait…I believe that was–your candidate, wasn’t it?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Three weeks in and now maybe Hillary is “as bad as” Trump. That’s an upgrade for Mrs. Clinton from where you have been. Stay Tuned. So much more is coming to whack people for so long a time into the future.

          • Tom

            No, that’s where I always was.

    • JR

      OR alternatively, we don’t have to use the 1st Amendment as a suicide pact and act out against speech that is about KILLING us. I hope the next Justice is very clear on that.

    • Disappeared4x
    • Anthony

      Kind of “late in the day” reporting but worth a read just the same: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498

      • FriendlyGoat

        Thanks. I know I test your patience a little by blaming these effects and consequences on America’s protestant churches, but there is no one else to blame.

        “I’m telling you the demons have been unleashed” said the Republican Congressman in the article. Indeed that is true. The church is supposed to be our demon fighters, not our demon cheerleaders, apologists, or pals. Well guess what, the political spirit over many of our churches is sick to a fault. Dumbness and meanness is going to really hurt so many people for such a long time and we have too many people thinking Trump is going to save the rusty bird while they yelled for years that Obama is a Muslim.
        It is the job of citizens to put the blame for the hurt squarely where it belongs—-on the people who were supposed to have the discernment to promote kindness instead of mouthy, mouthy hate.

        • Anthony

          No, you do not test my patience and I understand your Protestant lamentation. Vileness, hatred, etc. may trace to both gullibility and muddle-headedness (no exculpation, just looking at behavior frankly – generically speaking). Both are functions of insufficient intelligence. The gullible must believe in something if only in “believing” so here we are.

          But (and this important to me), I referenced Politico’s article because it reports awful governance at country’s expense since 2009 yet much, much too late to impact voting public with “news” that truly matter.

  • Disappeared4x

    Cynical DNC GOTV tactics to mobilize tribal voters as needed in the Age of Identity Politics became ‘major civil rights issues’ needed to
    ‘dismantle bigotry’ in Obama44’s ‘fundamental transformation’ of America:

    The War on Women: Abortion rights; then birth control mandates in Obamacare
    BlackLivesMatter
    Transgender bathrooms
    Next up? Sanctuary Cities; and using the Standing Rock protest to use Native Americans for the ‘climate change’ GOTV

    ALL cynical DNC GOTV tactics.

    Bonus points for a jobs program for CTRL-Left lawyers in the Federal branch, dispensing regulations to support cynical GOTV tactics.

    How do we re-educate the pundits?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cca1297ea1c5330825255ff5771716615027bb0aa26cd37f2b341e058f5bbdce.png

    Harry Hay.

  • JR

    Laws can be interpreted VERY broadly. I personally don’t think the Trump Administration will be as impotent as Odumba and will act with force against a constant stream of Muslim attacks on the general populace. Muslims seem to be unable to police themselves. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be policed.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Much more to the point, since there is good reason to believe that Trump is likely to behave as a deal-maker (i.e. he will attempt to engage the various stakeholders, including congress) rather than simply trying to rule by decree, he is likely going to get a whole lot more support for lasting changes than our current big-man-wannabe.

      • JR

        The best way to undo executive fiat by Obama is not by executive fiat but by submitting the, to Congress and have Congress kill them. That way there is a greater chance of them staying killed.

        • f1b0nacc1

          Sometimes, yes, but the only problem is that an executive with little regard for the law (the current one as an excellent example) can simply ignore congressional intent and order as he chooses. If Congress doesn’t enforce its perogatives, then don’t expect prior statements or legislation to be self-executing.

          The best approach, of course, is to get congressional buy-in, preferably with a strong gesture of support from the people as well. This takes time, however, and sometimes the best approach is to quickly undo the damage, then get congress to move on appropriate legislation. Change the facts on the ground first, then worry about what the whinging Left will do to obstruct.

          • JR

            Some of the more egregious examples can, and should be overturned, by executive fiat. But killing things like Iran deal and Paris treaty is best done with Congress in tow.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Absolutely agreed, though let me point out that the Paris Treaty is not a treaty (well in name it is, but not in substance), and has no legally binding impact upon the US. Obama’s people signed on without going through Congress, and there is no Senate approval, hence it is merely an executive agreement or statement of intent. Trump can vitiate it with the stroke of a pen, or simply ignore it.

            With that said, I would prefer a bit of legislation along the lines of the ‘Screw You Greenies Act of 2017’ in which Congress declares that the Paris agreement was signed without proper legal authority and has no impact upon and imposes no obligations upon the United States of America.

          • JR

            I hope it goes that way too. There are a lot of Democrats up for re-election in deep red states. Time for people to go on record.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Precisely right. 2018 is likely to be a VERY bad year for the Dems, and if Trump is even remotely clever (and clever he is, even if he is not very bright) he can make it far, far worse for those who decide not to cooperate.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    The Supreme Court has become the “lap dog” of the other 2 branches of Government. This is the most glaring flaw in the US Constitution, which gives the “power hungry” Executive and Legislative branches the right to pick the Justices of the 3rd branch of Government.

    The Justices are supposed to protect the rights and authorities of the States and the People. But, since they aren’t even considered for the job unless they’re agreeable to the Executive and Legislative branches, they have no motivation to protect the rights and authorities of the States and the People, and they’re already in favor of giving more power to the Government Monopoly.

  • Beauceron

    Obama has been happy to use his executive powers to rule by fiat.

    Court’s have repeatedly overturned his executive orders as unconstitutional. State AGs have repeatedly sued to stop his actions.

    Don’t recall you sweating about that so much.

  • CapitalistRoader

    None of this is to say that all of the conservative Roberts Court precedent works against an aspiring authoritarian;

    Well, it certainly worked against the authoritarian Obama administration, which has the worst Supreme Court win/loss record of any modern presidency. But I expect Trump’s “authoritarian bent” is just a figment of the left’s fevered imagination.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service