The Immigration Order and the Regaining Objectivity In the Media and the Courts

Supreme CourtBelow is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the Supreme Court order lifting the stay over the Trump immigration order.  With the exception of those with bona fide relationships, the Trump Administration has the authority to enforce its travel limitations.  As discussed earlier, the order could prove not the next but final chapter of the immigration controversy given the 90 day period set under the Trump order.  However, a more immediate issue of concern should be the prior coverage and court decisions leading up to the unanimous order of the Supreme Court.

Samuel Johnson once said, “When a man knows he is to be hanged … it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” For opponents of the Trump immigration order, minds became distinctly more concentrated around 11am this morning, when the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated much of Trump’s order in a reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While the court will hear the merits in October and could still rule against the administration, these preliminary decisions often reflect a view of underlying merits.

For those of us who have long argued that the legal authority supported Trump, the order was belated but not surprising. However, the order does offer a brief respite for some self-examination for both legal commentators, and frankly, the courts. At times the analysis surrounding the immigration order seemed to drop any pretense of objectivity and took on the character of open Trump bashing.

The Supreme Court ruled the administration could enforce its immigration order under Section 2(c), which deals with the suspension of entry from six countries. The court ordered that the vetting could commence with the exception of “foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The court ruled “when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.” The preliminary ruling on this type of stay indicates that, when the final merits are decided, a majority of the court is likely to make the changes permanent and binding.

Indeed, three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — did not want any limitation on lifting the injunction and dissented from that part of the opinion. To use Johnson’s rhetoric, the date of the hanging is set for the October term absent a dramatic shift on the court. That gives us some time to contemplate how this controversy has impacted our core institutions.

I previously wrote that Trump seems at times to bring out the worst of people — supporters and opponents alike. Yet, his signature attacks often cause people to fulfill the very stereotypes that he paints, particularly among some reporters and judges. Ironically, Trump’s attacks on the media as biased may not have been true at the outset but they are true now. Mainstream media have become openly hostile to Trump.

There is often little distinction on some cable networks between the hosts and their guests in attacking Trump, who brings much of this criticism on himself in ill-considered and often insulting attacks. However, the media is trained to resist such personal emotions and retain objectivity. Throughout much of its history, it has done precisely that … until Donald Trump.

He seems like the itch that reporters and commentators just have to scratch and frankly sometimes it seems like a few are enjoying it too much. With ratings soaring, hosts and legal experts have shown little interest or patience in the legal arguments supporting his case, even though the Obama administration advanced similar arguments in court.

The hostile (and often distorted) analysis in the media was disconcerting but predictable, given the trend toward greater opinion-infused coverage. Networks are fighting for greater audience shares based on formulaic coverage — offering echo-chamber analysis to fit the ideological preferences of viewers. For the anti-Trump networks, the legal analysis is tellingly parallel with the political analysis. These cable shows offer clarity to viewers in a world without nuance. The law, however, often draws subtle distinctions and balancing tests. In this way, viewers are being given a false notion of the underlying legal issues in these controversies.

What has been more concerning is the impact of Trump on the courts. Trump shocked many in both parties by his personal attacks on judges as well as general disrespect shown to our courts. These were highly inappropriate and inaccurate statements from a president. However, once again, courts seemed to immediately become the very stereotype that Trump was painting.

Of course, the White House gave the courts a target-rich environment in the first travel order, which was poorly drafted, poorly executed and poorly defended. Yet, the courts did not just strike those portions that were problematic. Where existing case law requires courts to use a scalpel in striking down provisions, judges pulled out a meat ax. They enjoined the entirety of the order while lashing out at Trump’s most sensational campaign rhetoric.

In the second round, the judicial decisions became even more problematic. The Trump administration brought in capable people who drafted the order correctly and defended it well. It addressed glaring errors in the original order like not exempting green card holders. It did not make a difference. The trial court in Hawaii even denied the ability of the administration to study and work on improving vetting procedures in the high-risk countries (part of the order later reversed in the Ninth Circuit).

In the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, judges brushed over the obvious improvements and again relied on Trump’s own comments and tweets. It seemed like sensational tweets were more important than long-standing precedent or official statements from the administration.

The level of reliance on campaign statements by the courts was wrong in my view, as I have repeatedly stated. The record had conflicting statements from Trump and his associates but courts seemed to cherry-pick statements, relying on those that fulfilled their narrative while ignoring those that did not. The analysis of the order should have turned largely on the face of the document. While such political statements can be relevant to analysis (particularly in areas like racial discrimination), the court has always minimized such reliance in favor of more objective textual analysis.

A long line of cases following the decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel followed this approach. In that case, the court rejected such inquiries over the denial of a visa to a Belgian Marxist journalist. It stated that “when the Executive exercises [its] power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is consistent with this long-standing precedent. In fairness to the courts and some commentators, there are good-faith reasons to argue against the travel order. Indeed, I predicted at the outset that there would be conflicting decisions in the courts. However, it was the tenor and basis for the decisions that I found disturbing. Courts that once gave President Obama sweeping discretion in the immigration field seemed categorically opposed to considering the same accommodation for President Trump. For commentators, viewers were given a highly distorted view of the existing law — brushing aside decades of cases while supporting the notion that a major federal policy could live or die by the tweet.

The Supreme Court’s stay should cause an examination of more than the lower court decisions. It should concentrate minds in both the courts and the media on the loss of objectivity in analysis over the “immigration ban.” There seemed an inability to separate the policy from the personality in this controversy. That is a serious problem for both institutions. Injunctions come and go. Yet, integrity and objectivity are things that, once lost, are hard to regain.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest at George Washington University.

83 thoughts on “The Immigration Order and the Regaining Objectivity In the Media and the Courts”

  1. A great column by JT. Trump has exposed elitists, in the MSM and govt. for what they are. Who woulda thunk?

    1. Nick,
      I find it somewhat interesting that in a culture where relativism dominates, there is still this desire for the President to fit into a box. Of course if the President happens to be of the wrong party, he/she is already considered to be outside of the approved box. Therefore anything done by that President begins unapproved. Somewhere in there exists the actual legal argument but good luck convincing those more concerned (interested) in using lawfare as a tool for their brand of justice.

  2. “Trump’s attacks on the media as biased may not have been true at the outset but they are true now. Mainstream media have become openly hostile to Trump.”

    Is JT stretching the line to blame Trump for the media’s hostility? Certainly the media was hostile to Republican control so they would be openly hostile to Trump or any candidate, not their own. Trump may have made the hostility worse because he didn’t bend in the media’s favor and called them out. That doesn’t make Trump responsible for the hostility.

    “However, the media is trained to resist such personal emotions and retain objectivity. Throughout much of its history, it has done precisely that … until Donald Trump.”

    The media has been shown to be biased my entire lifetime. Take Walter Durante’s Pulitzer Prize in 1932 on Red Russia. They were deceptive articles that should never have won the Pulitzer Prize and the NYTimes, still cherishes that Prize. Take Noam Chomsky and the ideas that flowed from his mouth that all was well and good in Cambodia while 1/3rd to 1/2 of the population was being slaughtered. Look at Jason Blair from the NYTimes fired for fabrication and plagiarism deceiving the public with a long string of reports likely because either Blair or the subject matter was to the ideological liking of the NYTimes.

    “What has been more concerning is the impact of Trump on the courts.”

    But, then you state “ judges pulled out a meat ax. They enjoined the entirety of the order while lashing out at Trump’s most sensational campaign rhetoric.”

    The courts are the one’s that are not supposed to be ideological, not the President. No one will deny Trump’s language can be a bit upsetting at times, but he didn’t throw the first punch. The courts did. They are supposed to be neutral no matter who is President or how that President acts. You even demonstrate how political the courts were “ Courts that once gave President Obama sweeping discretion in the immigration field seemed categorically opposed to considering the same accommodation for President Trump.”

    Somehow based upon what I have heard and seen from JT elsewhere this blog might represent thoughts blaming Trump that he would strike out the discussion if these thoughts were coming from the bench. I guess those emotional thoughts combined with the strictly rational thoughts make this blog interesting.

    1. Excellent analysis Allan! I believe what Trump has done and continues to do is flush out the ideologues in the same way as a hunting dog will flush out a bird. They were there all the time hiding in their robes.

      1. Thanks Oily, I don’t think a lot of people really understand Trump. They are lost. He is like inserting a left handed pitcher where the other team hasn’t faced one and is unprepared.

  3. This blog’s commentary section is really no different than the reporting you will find on outlets like CNN and FoxNews. In many regards, what JT does in the way he writes his articles is similar to the affect Trump’s tweets have on exposing both the Left and Right bias among the contributors.

    In this particular article JT does what he normally does and that is to anchor it in existing law. From what I understand, the travel ban is not really all that complex of a legal issue. The President clearly has the authority to issue the ban. So if the constitution is clearly on the side of the President, then how do we get no backlash over a travel ban list approved by one President and mass hysteria over that same list approved by another President? Hint: it’s not anchored in the law. And more importantly, it’s sadly why elections do have consequences.

    So is it difficult to identify commentators here that are ideologically indifferent to the law? Nope.

  4. I think the best thing about Trump being president is his constant rocking the boat of the status quo and exposing the unbelievable amount of collusion the media has with the DNC. Occasionally before him the right wing press would generate something that showed direct ties between the White House and the CAP but regularly got brushed off with a shrug and smug “too bad” attitude from the MSM. Loretta Lynch and Lois Lerner’s behavior as example.
    His ability to constantly keep the poor little Katie Turrs of the world from getting a straight answer delights me to no end. Honestly how can anyone consider Katie Turr objective when Town and Country magazine gave her the title of ” Modern Swan”?
    The Left has turned into a pathetic losers club and are currently exposing most of their membership.
    Collusion? I got your collusion right here pal.

  5. The ban was for 90 days. Has it not already been 90 days? Have they not upgraded their vetting process in that time? Do they need to stop immigration in order to change the vetting process? Have we had any terrorists attacks by Muslim immigrants? It seem to me that the ban order is already moot.

    1. Too many ISIS migrants spoil the broth. Look at the daily terror attacks in Europe. It is the wages of sin. The colonial powers let the former colonial servants come into their respective countries for decades since they let those pirate territories go free. Europe is chock full of em. We don’t need no religious terrorists over here. Moot? Jeso.

  6. Trump is the exact Ying the biased media needs to get over their run amuck Yang. CNN is down for the count. The NYT times faces Sarah Palin armed with Hulk Hogan’s lawyers in a slam dunk libel case that threatens its precarious existence. And the public trusts the MSM in about the same proportion it believes in Bigfoot. Couple those facts with alternate platforms for getting news and you find an industry that needs to get back to its core business of truth and impartiality. If not, the last reporter you see might be in a museum.


    There is growing concern and recognition – even among supporters, and liberal papers like the New York Times – that courts appear to be adopting a new jurisprudence called “TrumpLaw” aimed uniquely at this President; a method of judging cases which is aimed specifically at countering some of the practices of President Trump, even if this development means creating new legal principles and/or overlooking (or at least minimizing) other established ones.

    Even more alarming is that even those in favor of this new approach to deciding cases appear concerned not only that it will extend too far and possibly hobble the new president, but that the new principles being developed will create legal precedents which will carry over and adversely affect other presidents, and even agency heads in the future.

    For example, a New York Times Op-Ed described this new method of deciding cases as “a set of restrictions on presidential action that only apply to Donald Trump. This president cannot do things that would be perfectly legal if any other president did them, under this standard, because the courts will rule against his past demagogy rather than the policies themselves.”

    The Times piece is worried that the various court decisions staying them establish “a precedent that would further politicize an already-partisan judiciary, by licensing judges to constantly look beyond the law for excuses to rule against politicians (liberal or conservative) they dislike.”

    Moreover, suggests the Times Op-Ed, such rulings – e.g., illegitimizing the immigration order as unconstitutional religious discrimination – could hobble efforts to protect against a “Manchester-type terrorist attack (or something even worse)” because “the most important terror threats are Islamist, and any move to safeguard Americans is likely to have a disproportionate effect on Muslims,” and thus courts are “automatically going to rule against Trump on any counterterrorism issue that touches on Islam.”

    David French of the National Review, who has been described as a NeverTrumper, nevertheless warns about this “strange madness [which] is gripping the federal judiciary. It is in the process of crafting a new standard of judicial review, one that does violence to existing precedent, good sense, and even national security for the sake of defeating Donald Trump.”

    In his words, “when existing precedent either doesn’t apply or cuts against the overriding demand to stop Trump, then it’s up to the court to yank that law out of context, misinterpret it, and then functionally rewrite it to reach the ‘right’ result'” – “an otherwise lawful order is unlawful only because Donald Trump issued it. . . . All this adds up to Trumplaw, the assertion by the federal judiciary of the legal authority to stop Trump.”

    Law Professor Paul Horwitz, who supports some of TrumpLaw to achieve a desired result, and says he could be persuaded to support all of it, defines it as “about lower courts developing a form of what some critics call ‘TrumpLaw,’ law responding to and designed especially for the Trump administration” and “may be seen as a radical departure from existing law and in effect a lawless set of actions.”

    He writes that in some instances “it constitutes utter resistance to the Trump administration and its policies,” although “one might argue that the worse and more dangerous the administration’s actions are, the more necessary it is to resist them per se.”

    Attorney Scott Greenfield, writing on his blog, argues regarding TrumpLaw that: “the exercise of authority going forward will be subject to judicial approval of the president’s ‘bona fide’ intent behind facially constitutional exercises of authority. Every act, every burp, despite its being completely within a president’s power, will be subject to a judge’s post hoc approval of her underlying intentions. All one would need to stop the president from doing her job is a district court judge who finds her secret, hidden purposes improper. And by improper, it means different than the judge’s sensibilities.”

    Law Professor Todd Henderson sums it up simply: “This is @realDonaldTrump-specific law, which is lawless.”

    1. This is the best analysis of the whole judicial mess created to “Stop Trump”.Hopefully,Gorsuch et al will de-politicize the debate and revive the Rule of Law.

    2. “It is found good, from time to time, to impeach one Judge to encourage the others.” — Voltaire

      The House decided that “arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials” was an impeachable offense when it impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. Chase was acquitted by the Senate.

      Maybe impeaching one or two judges, even if they are acquitted, will “encourage the others”, as Voltaire said.

    3. JOHN,

      Do you seriously believe that the NYT is a liberal paper? Based on what? Because they are not as pro Trump as you would like?

      1. bill mcwilliams – the fact that you don’t think the NYT is a liberal paper says much about you. I gave up my subscription when they started masturbating over Obama’s name.

  8. These were highly inappropriate and inaccurate statements from a president. However, once again, courts seemed to immediately become the very stereotype that Trump was painting.

    You’re very concerned people should be deferential to those who merit no deference. If the courts wish to be treated deferentially, they need to earn that deference. You know perfectly well why they lost it.

  9. Trump isn’t ‘bringing out the worst in people’. What Trump does is provoke reactions in which our worst people reveal themselves. There is intense intellectual and moral corruption in the courts system and legal academy, intense intellectual and moral corruption in higher education, a complete breakdown in professionalism and ethical baselines in the major media, a collection of unprofessional partisan Democrats ensconced in federal agencies, widespread arrogance gross foolishness in the professional-managerial class generally, and (in the black population) a kultursmog of ugly ethnic particularism (which white leftists feed with Miracle Gro).

    The country would benefit from what Gottfried DIetze called a diffidatio, one in which the Bourbons in the legal profession and higher education are deposed and exiled.

  10. If judges do not want to be disparaged they need to stop acting like legislators.

  11. Please stop making a fool of yourself by continually suggesting that it’s trump”s fault that the media is insane or corrupt or both. It just diminishes you to a patronizing fos establishment elites due to whom I don’t watch msm anymore ! Reason I read your blog is when I compare you to the rest of the liberals you are reasonable but continued suggestion that victim is in some way responsible is as offensive as suggesting that your daughter was in some way responsible for her rape , do you get it ? No your daughter is not perfect but she is not responsible for her own rape ! Give me break !

  12. To take the edge off, and also demonstrate comparatively how most of today’s pop music is assine, I offer The Cranberries.

    1. Oh my God make me puke. The Cranberries with Dolores at the helm were pathetic pablum spewers for pussies who couldn’t handel GNR, Pearl Jam and Nirvana.

  13. Turley’s remarks regarding main stream media and how they are increasingly against Trump has a certain veracity. However, the media does, in large part, reflect the people. People gravitate to the media that is in sync with their opinions. The bias, however, is to be found on both the for and against Trump/GOP vehicles. The quality of media coverage can also be examined on both the left and right. The bias on the main or core left side media exists but is nothing compared to the bias on the right. Read the Washington Times or Fox News and you will find an entrenched anger routinely directed at Obama, complete with lies and exaggerations. You will find next to no reporting of the travesties created by Trump, his idiocy, and general opinion in the US and around the world. Read the Washington Post and the New York Times and you also find over the top reporting on Trump’s activities and the intransigence of the GOP. You will also find neutral reporting of Trump and his rare more rational moves. You will also find criticism of Clinton, Obama, and the Democrats. Clinton and both her and her husbands’s nefarious affairs and possible transgressions have been examined in depth on these horribly biased rags. That is the nature of the media. In France there are four major political parties, each with a main stream media newspaper. When you read Le Figaro, Le Monde, etc you understand their bias. You also understand that the news is the news.

    The fact of the matter is that Trump is the least popular President in a century or so. This may be created to a degree by the left leaning media but he is also defended by the right leaning media in an excessively biased manner. After the BS, it appears that just as almost 3 million more Americana voted against him, that number would probably be much greater today and growing. Trump is not a product of the media, only reflected in it.

    The constant ranting against the media seems to reflect the depth of the ranter. Those on the right, not so deep.

    1. The people are turning against the media not The Donald. Oh, the media can interview a Trump voter and have him express regrets. But go out yourself and yak with folks who voted for either side (Trump or Hillary the 8th) and you will see more Trump support and extreme media disgust.
      The media has been disgusting in regard to the migration executive order. “Oh, its a ban on Muslims– it is religious bias!”
      The media wants the public, its viewers, to think that Trump is like Hitler and wants to round up the Muslims (Hitler rounded up Gypsies and Jews). But the flip side of such an argument is that Trump is not anywhere near where FDR was when he tried to control Japanese in this country after WWII started. FDR rounded up those of Japanese ancestry even if they were born in this country– and FDR put the in concentration camps. The camps were almost all in California. The Supreme Court backed this policy in the case of Korematsu. That case needs to be discussed on the blog.

      1. To have an objective opinion, an opinion based on reality, you must include the media in its entirety. Read the Washington Times and Fox News, and your opinions become nothing more than the bias that can be found in these right wing rags, pro Trump and anti Obama, Clinton, and everything Democratic. That’s the revealing and spooky part, you have met your enemy and your enemy is you.

        1. OMG Isaac, let’s talk about reality. Have you noticed the way much of the media has gone out of its way to NOT ask Bernie Sanders any questions about the train murder in Portland by one of HIS supporters? Or the attempted assassination of Republicans on the baseball practice field in Alexandria by a crazed Bernie supporter who actually had a hit list with the names of six other Republicans in his pocket? Or the fact that Bernie and his wife have lawyered up because they are under FBI investigation for possible bank fraud?

          The media won’t even ask these questions of Bernie. Imagine that. That, my friend, is also called bias, Bias by omission.

          Go back a few years and constrast the coverage and the questions Sarah Palin got (and still gets) after the Giffords shooting. It’s disgusting. I was so glad to see that she filed suit against the New York Times.

    2. Fixated on the meaningless vote totals but even then you’re wrong. All the recent studies show that despite his unpopularity, he would beat Hillary again.
      As for the media, its job is not to simply reflect its audience. It has a place in providing information, acting as a check as a check on government excess, and bringing issues forward for public consideration. The problem is that the majority of the media have squandered their credibility.

      It was amusing to watch a portion of the press briefing yesterday when Sarah Huckabee Sanders commented on the media losing credibility. Some disheveled clearly out of shape reporter who looked more like an overworked bookkeeper than a journalist, started hyperventilating about her “inflaming” the situation even as he became increasingly shrill.

      One of the few benefits of a Trump Presidency is that it has removed all pretext of objectivity from the media and large swaths of our judiciary. Now that it is undeniable, maybe we can fix it.

  14. Either the acts of the executive branch comport with the law and Constitution or they don’t.

    The authority is the Constitution and the People.

    The judicial branch is not subject to election by the voters and does not have any authority

    to legislate, modify legislation, amend or conduct political, ideological acts.

    Americans don’t need to be subjected to the infinite, convoluted obfuscations

    the judicial branch is capable of.

    All Americans can read the Constitution and statutes.

    Americans don’t need the judicial branch to “legislate from the bench” or

    “legislate through interpretation.”

    America only needs to know if legislation needs to be remanded to Congress

    or if the Constitution requires amendment.

    1. I watched, that day in traffic court, the complete arrogance and supreme indifference of a white judge demanding from the largely black defendants either their money or their freedom. Most of them were guilty of minor offenses, such as driving without insurance, “unsafe” vehicles or expired licenses. Some of their offences were more serious, but most of them seemed related to their poverty. Sometimes one doesn’t buy new tires if what little money one has must be spent for food.

      Jailing many of these offenders is so fraught with injustice that it rankles one’s conscience, but there are other considerations. Placing a man in jail usually makes it impossible for him to work, provide for his family, and supports a prison-judicial complex which has an interest in keeping him within the system. Step out of line and the defendant is sucked back in, but with greater penalties this time, not unlike a loan from the Mafia which can never be completely satisfied.

      And the exploitation of the poor doesn’t stop when they are released. Many are told to get a job in order to pay off the system which exploits them, make regular visits and contributions to a parole officer. and do hundreds of hours of community service work. How does one explain to a prospective employer that the required “community service” requires time the employer may rightfully call his own, not the court’s.

      We must have a rule of law, but that law must be tempered with compassion. Without it the law becomes
      a greater force for evil than the criminal.

      1. Then we should decriminalize drugs and get rid of for profit prisons to start.

        1. Americans have the freedom to ingest substances under the 9th amendment.

          Laws against drug use are unconstitutional.

          Deleterious behavior shall be legislated against.

          People are accountable for their behavior as it affects other people.

          Alcohol ingestion is not unconstitutional while DUI is illegal.

      2. The judicial branch is not the legislative branch.

        The judicial branch has no constitutional authority to legislate,

        modify legislation or amend the Constitution.

        The judicial branch has no latitude unless latitude is legislated.

        The People may petition the legislative branch regarding legislation.

        If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

  15. Since Carter had done this when Iran had our hostages, this should not have been treated as it was.Presidents can control immigration, period.

    As to the media, journalism is pounding its last nail in the coffin. A remarkable story that a private citizen felt he had the ability to be President, ran, and won. I have seen nothing but a hard-working man working diligently trying to solve problems of eight years of Obama. Today Susan Collins, Senator, apparently thinks she’s smarter than not only the President, but the many people in DHS who have studied this and insist the CBO numbers can’t be trusted. CBO’s numbers have proven to be wrong most of the time. Based on that she will vote no on the Senate Health Care Bill. So the House, the Senate, and the President are unable to keep campaign promises of fixing Obamacare. If not fixed, the whole thing comes crashing down and millions will be impacted. And the Republican Congress might lose their majorities, which guarantees chaos for those signed on. How pompous of Senator Collins to assume she knows best. As we watch Obamacare crash and burn, Susan can be proud listening to voices of the suddenly uninsured as they cry out for help, which is offered now. I hope she spends the July 4 weekend rethinking what she’s doing to those of us who donated and worked hard for this Republican opportunity. All but one.

  16. Let my add my wishes to the listr as two Mikes are better than one with this bit of information. CBO figures are they different than other budgeting methods? Certainly., One reason not to get all wrapped around the axle and overly concerned when CBO is trotted out. Not sure what it’s purpose was suppose to be but accuracy was not one of the requiements.

    CBO does not count in it’s totals various congressional gimmicks such as smoke, mirrors, off budget, no markups, no pork and no campaign fund sweeteners. especially those billings moved to the following years, decades or centuries.

    OMB from the Treasury Department counts everything and lists debt as debt and short falls as short falls. Savings are not savings if they have been spent elsewhere. Cuts are not cuts if they are reductions in requests for unapproved future budgets. When the OMB creates a final tally for any fiscal year it often takes one or two years with the built in complexities.

    Promised reductions or increases are not included until they are real,

    The third type of budget is a White House Budget. even more out of tune with reality.

    The trick is to know which type of budget is being quoted.

    The biggest sin of all is the CPI using a market basket that has little to do with anything but wishful thinking when used to adjust COLA. Then there is the cuirous reliance on GNP without deducting costs and comng up with Net National Product.

    But enjoy your 4th of July weekend and uuh shuu rel or don’t sweat the small stuff as they day in Romania.

  17. Hard to know what to do with an incompetent president, worse in his own way than Buchanan, one many people think is less than fully sane.

    Nonetheless, while I am no lawyer, this ruling by the supremes smacks of “legislating from the bench”.

    1. Hard to know what to do with an incompetent president, worse in his own way than Buchanan, one many people think is less than fully sane.

      That’s not the situation we’re in, but if fantasy helps you feel better, I suppose it’s largely harmless.

  18. But, if some of these Judges take meat-axes where precedent requires a scalpel, then isn’t Trump entitled to point this out—that Judges are often just acting out of politics, and not a respect for the law? Why is this supposed to be a state secret or something.

    If the criticism is justified, then what is wrong with criticizing them?

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Even if it’s not justified, did he forfeit his First Amendment rights when he took the oath of office?

    2. I totally agree. Those on the new radical Right despise Trump. Some would like him dead.
      It would help the rest of us understand this hysteria if they could, say, list those things they find objectionable and why.

  19. Not withstanding the media, there is also a perception question in the long term that the United States has to be concerned about as underscored by this note that the Administration seems not to realize–we need to go beyond the strict interpretation of the law (which is an implicit objective of Professor Turley’s view here) because the US is losing its’ advantage folks–whether we like it or not:

    On a happier note, wishing you Professor Turley and all in the JT Community a safe and Happy 4th!!

Comments are closed.