Below is my column in the Hill on the call of professors for President Joe Biden to simply defy the Supreme Court and decide for himself what is constitutional and what is not.
Here is the column:
“I shall resist any illegal federal court order.”
When “the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is egregiously wrong,” the president should refuse to follow it.
Those two statements were made roughly 60 years apart. The first is from segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace (D). The second was made by two liberal professors this month.
In one of the most chilling developments in our history, the left has come to embrace the authoritarian language and logic of segregationists in calling for defiance and radical measures against the Supreme Court.
In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.” Thus, in light of the court’s bar on the use of race in college admissions, they argue that Biden should just continue to follow his own constitutional interpretation.
The use of the affirmative action case is ironic, since polls have consistently shown that the majority of the public does not support the use of race in college admissions. Indeed, even in the most liberal states, such as California, voters have repeatedly rejected affirmative action in college admissions. Polls further show that a majority support the Supreme Court’s recent decisions.
So despite referenda and polls showing majority support for barring race in admissions, academics are pushing to impose their own values, regardless of the views of the public or of the courts.
However, even if these measures were popular, it would not make them right. It is precisely what segregationists such as Sen. James Eastland (D-Miss.) argued, that “all the people of the South are in favor of segregation. And Supreme Court or no Supreme Court, we are going to maintain segregated schools.”
Tushnet and Belkin cite with approval Biden’s declaration that this is “not a normal Supreme Court.” Biden’s view of normalcy appears to be a court that agrees with his fluid view of constitutional law, by which he can forgive roughly a half of trillion dollars in loans or impose a national eviction moratorium without a vote of Congress.
Tushnet and Belkin know their audience. Biden has previously evinced little respect for the Constitution or the courts. Take the eviction case. In an earlier decision, a majority of justices had declared that Biden’s actions were unconstitutional, confirming what many of us had said for months.
Even after the majority declared it unconstitutional, Biden wanted to reissue the national moratorium. White House counsel and most scholars told him the move would be blatantly unconstitutional and defy the express ruling of the court. Instead, he consulted the only law professor willing to tell him what he wanted to hear and did it anyway. It was quickly again declared unconstitutional.
Other commentators and academics have gone from implied to open contempt for our constitutional norms.
Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks was celebrated for her appearance on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” after declaring that Americans are “slaves” to the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.
MSNBC commentator Elie Mystal called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should simply just dump it.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has questioned the need for a Supreme Court.
In a New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the Constitution to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
So the danger is now “constitutionalism,” as opposed to what Tushnet and Belkin call “popular constitutionalism.”
Many have called for the court to be packed with liberal appointees to bring it back to what Biden views as “normal.” Some of these calls before Biden’s Supreme Court commission echoed the same views as Tushnet and Belkin. Indeed, they cite Harvard professor Nikolas Bowie, who rejected the notion that “the constitutional interpretation held by a majority of Supreme Court justices should be ‘superior’ to the interpretations held by majorities of the other branches.”
The Framers saw the Supreme Court as playing a counter-majoritarian role when it is necessary to protect individual rights and constitutional norms. The alternative is what the Framers viewed as a tyranny of the majority, where popularity rather than principle prevails. For that reason, the Court has often stood with the least popular in our society and, since Marbury v. Madison, has had the final word on what the Constitution means.
Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.”
That finality has been essential to the stability of our system for generations. While presidents such as Andrew Jackson taunted the court for its inability to enforce its rulings without an army, it has never needed one. Respect for the court is in our DNA. No matter our disagreements with a given decision, Americans will not tolerate defiance of the institution and the rule of law. That is why, despite the support for court packing by many law professors (including Tushnet, Belkin and Bowie), the public remains staunchly opposed to it.
What is most striking about these professors is how they continue to claim they are defenders of democracy, yet seek to use unilateral executive authority to defy the courts and, in cases like the tuition forgiveness and affirmative action, the majority of the public. They remain the privileged elite of academia, declaring their values as transcending both constitutional and democratic processes.
The problem is indeed “constitutionalism,” and their view of “popular constitutionalism” is a euphemism for “popular justice.”
Tushnet and Belkin show the release that comes with rejecting constitutionalism. They declare that it is not enough merely to pack the court: “The threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage.”
In other words, they are calling for Biden to declare himself the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and to exercise unilateral executive power without congressional approval. He is to become a government unto himself.
No doubt a new variation of “popular constitutionalism” would then be crafted if a Republican were ever elected and proceeded to mete out an alternative view of justice.
This is what Tushnet has advocated in “taking the Constitution away from the courts.” Once the courts are removed from constitutionalism, however, we will be left where we began centuries ago: with the fleeting satisfaction of popular justice.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University.
Turley’s cherry picking is on full display today, Alabama’s governor issued a statement Friday that the map she was ordered to change was not, and she intended to defy a federal court order, upheld by the SCOTUS. The unambiguous directive from a federal court affirmed by the Supreme Court was ignored and the map the court wanted changed was not changed for a new congressional map. So the cult is running wild with today’s article from Turley, but the facts are the republican governor of Alabama is doing just that, defying a federal court order, affirmed by the SCOTUS.
More what-aboutism deflection, that’s all your side has today. Your side – the actual cult – has not provided a single comment actually defending these law professors. Why not admit Professor Turley actually has a point? It’s just so pathetic, so childish . . . and so predictable.
OldManFromKS,
Well said.
As I commented earlier, our leftist friends seem very ‘whataboutism’ today. Almost desperate to deflect from the good professor’s article. Much ‘whatabout” nothing deflectism.
How can 27% of the states population, the blacks, expect to control over 28% of congressional districts, 2 of 7, unless they are segregated ?
You libs tell us everyone should be mixed up equally in equity distributions, so if they have around 27% in each district, they shouldn’t control even one on the map !
They currently control one, so they are already getting more than they deserve.
Now you libs want them given another one. Are you for segregation ? You must be with those kinds of math issues.
So blacks should be over 50% in two Congressional districts out of 7 statewide when they are only 27% of the population up against 73% ?!
So you have to make special segregated smaller districts to accommodate 2x out of 7 !
I wouldn’t do it either. It’s total affirmative action manipulation and segregation you libs tell us is against the law !
Only the States can amend, or amend by interpretation, the Constitution of the United States, the only way the States can amend the Constitution of the United States is by Article 5 of the Constitution of the United
States.
Which today is impossible because congress is not properly assembled and operated, and all the States legislatures are likewise improperly assembled and operated, so they can’t form the quorums to operate in congress to agree on what is contained in the amendments, the States can’t form a quorum of the States to discuss and agree on the amendments, and no State can ratify an amendment, much les 3/4 of the State Legislatures.
You constitutional experts and geniuses have a strange interpretation of the Constitution of the United States and all your interpretations are based upon fallacies. For example, where in the Constitution of the United States does it empower the President as a leader and decision maker? If you actually read Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States you will find that all presidential powers are conditional on decisions made by congress and specifically the Senate, and that the role of the President is no more than a manager who reviews laws, and when necessary, returns those laws for review and reconsideration, the President is a headhunter who makes lists of qualified candidates to fill vacancies in the Executive and Judicial departments, a number of nominees the States assembled in the Senate determine they require to do their deliberations for advice and consent, a negotiator who represents the united States, in congress assembled, when making agreements with foreign nations or entities, based upon the parameters and what constitutes an agreement determined by the
States assembled in the Senate for advice and consent on every treaty, or negotiation with a foreign nation or entity, and the President receives foreign dignitaries when they visit the United States, the President has absolutely no other powers, not even the power to pardon, because the presidential pardon is for crimes against the united States, in congress assembled, the Union, which is like insurrection against the assembly operation of the federal government, since all federal laws must concern the States and interactions between the States.
The Supreme Court is also not for reviewing laws for their constitutionality or interpreting the Constitution, because laws properly made by a properly assembled legislative body cannot by definition be unconstitutional, because to constitute means to form or assemble, and the only thing formed and assembled by the Constitution of the United States is congress as a legislative assembly of the States governed by legislative processes to reach a majority consensus of all the States as the Union. Therefore, the assembly and operation of congress can be unconstitutional m but the laws cannot be unconstitutional because they are made by a consensus agreement of All the States as the Union. Furthermore, the Supreme Court deciding cases of this type creates mutability of government where as the ideological balance on the Court changes, so do the opinions of the laws, which is why we have 50 year old decisions for abortion being overturned and idiotically being returned to the States to make laws with their improperly assembled and operated legislative assemblies.
So much for your expertise with respect to the Constitution of the United States!
Turley, considering their Dear Leader wants to terminate the constitution. And having the Justice Department under Trump’s control, what’s the point? So cherry picking BS like todays article is pointless, Trump’s cult could care less about the rule of law, or order. Unless it’s about Hillary or Hunter…….
Fish, so any comment about Hunter and THE PRESIDENT being caught taking bribes or do you only have enough bandwidth for Trump?
The lengths the left will go to overlook Joe Biden’s corruption, as well as his dementia, are shameless. The right finally called on Nixon to resign, the left never, ever, ever gives in to reality. They are just a bunch of foot stomping spoiled little brats.
Well, if you have the evidence to prove all that, maybe you should give it to Jorden and Comer. Because they can’t prove it. Not in Congress or the courts. Or do they have more “witnesses'” that are missing? Alternative facts, really don’t add up do they………
Why not have a nice snap impeachment and find out?
House Oversight Chairman Comer says ‘Joe Biden lied’ about family business dealings
“The House committee is finding evidence that first son Hunter Biden brought his father into his deals with foreign nationals from Ukraine and China. ”
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/james-comer-says-joe-biden-lied-about-family-business-dealings
Secret tapes and coerced payments: Top 10 Biden-Burisma bombshells from FBI informant memo
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/top-10-biden-burisma-bombshells-fbi-source-doc
Let me guess, you are just going to ignore or ‘whatabout’ this evidence.
Why not have a nice snap impeachment and find out if there is anything to this?
Well, if you have the evidence to prove all that, maybe you should give it to Jorden and Comer. Because they can’t prove it.
FishWings, you supported two impeachments of President Trump based on allegations of impeachable offenses. So given your capricious attitude towards criminal and constitutional law, please articulate what evidence would persuade you to support an impeachment of President Biden. Would a phone call do it? Video? Bank records? Shell companies? CHS testimony? Devon Archer testimony? Whistleblower testimony? Emails? Would laptop evidence do it? What?
Bribin’ Biden’s Justice Department:
cut Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal
couldn’t find out who had brought cocaine into the White House
but is now suing to make sure Texas can’t secure the border
FishWings gonna fish
Fish,
How dare you insult NK Rocket Man.
Illustrious and Glorious Supreme Dear Divine Leader Kim Jong Un.
Dear Leader is taking care of a US soldier who defected to NK…The best care ever!
These people who want to rule us are the Elitists. They care not about what is constitutional. They hate those they rule over. Ultimately, they will preside over a civil war. But that is simply getting to one of their goals of depopulation. VP Harris mentioned this in her diatribe word salad recently about electric vehicles and global warming.
Should Professor Tushnet be disbarred from whatever state and federal courts to which he’s been admitted? The letter he wrote asking President Biden to disobey the Supreme Court violates the oath Professor Tushnet took to support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States.
When someone says “you can trust me. Believe me”, reach for your wallet. When someone says “I am a defender of democracy”, open a FISA warrant.
Anyone serious about these problems that places country above party, would have to acknowledge that the 21st Century has been the century of “unconstitutional authoritarianism” – so far a century of “constitutional authoritarianism” (or constitutional lawlessness)! It’s been the Wild West for more than 20 years! The U.S. Constitution has deemed worthless.
This century, we overturned more than 200 years of our American history, essentially amending the U.S. Constitution but skipping the legally required “constitutional amendment process”.
America betrayed itself by adopting centuries old torture techniques in violation of Ronald Reagan’s Treaty. We destroyed the “Nuremberg Defense Precedent” used to punish Nazi war criminals after WW Two (just following orders does not justify war crimes) precedent invented by America itself to protect U.S. troops in future conflicts.
America now does “warrantless domestic spying” without a 4th Amendment search warrant and without a constitutional amendment. America even now does “online keyword searches” without a judicial warrant.
In “Carpenter v. US” and “US v. Jones”, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “surveillance itself” is in violation of the 4th Amendment if it lasts more than 2 weeks.
3, 16, 98, 140+
Can anyone figure out the next numbers in the sequence?
https://justthenews.com/government/security/biden-has-border-terrorism-problem-encounters-flagged-aliens-explode-nine-fold?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
“Dissatisfied with the ‘not guilty’ verdicts rendered by the Supreme Court (Reichsgericht) in the Reichstag Fire Trial, Hitler ordered the creation of the People’s Court (Volksgerichtshof) in Berlin in 1934 to try treason and other important “political cases.” Under Roland Freisler, the People’s Court became part of the Nazi system of terror, condemning tens of thousands of people as “Volk Vermin” and thousands more to death for “Volk Treason.””
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/law-and-justice-in-the-third-reich
In the words of the great Piemontese Holocaust survivor, chemist, author, etc.:
“It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
—Primo Levi
The ‘whataboutism’ coming from our leftist friends seems extraordinarily ‘whatabout.’
The good professor must be on target.
The arrogance of these professors is extraordinary. As is their lack of perspective. Brown v Board, Roe v Wade and countless other controversial decisions could have been disregarded under their “theory.”
States did in fact have a history of resisting Brown.
The whole busing controversy was over a remedy to this resistance.
What exactly do a-holes like Tushnet and Belkin think to gain by this?
Nomination of themselves to the Court, perhaps? Other than that, just fawning media coverage and nothing more.
John Stuart Mill would describe “popular constitutionalism” as a feeble and failed attempt to disguise what is tyranny of the majority or, as in this case, the loudest and most vocal minority. In his essay “On Liberty”, Mill noted there will always be those “usurping few” who will, because of their activism and despite their lesser numbers, strive to “succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority.” They are in essence no different than an actual majority that “practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression.”
Jonathan: From the first day of law school it is drilled into every student the importance of the rule of law and respect for court decisions. You don’t get very far when you go into court for the first time by disobeying a court decision or order. That said the problem is that over many years the SC has moved to the extreme right–thanks to court packing by DJT and the Federalist Society–taking away rights that the public accepted, like a woman’s reproductive rights, voting rights, and giving a religious minority the right to openly discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community. Polls show the American people have lost faith in the 6-3 conservative majority on the Court to be fair and impartial. In addition, the Court’s reputation has been severely damaged by recent ethics scandals that the Court is unable or unwilling to address.
With this backdrop the Dems and and some Court experts want to add 2-4 Justices to the Court to create more balance. Elie Mystal, who you have falsely accused of wanting to “trash” the Constitution, has a novel proposal. He wants to add 20 Justices to the Court! Sounds outrageous? Mystal explains that in 1869 Congress arbitrarily set the number of SC justices at nine. We have 13 Circuit Courts of Appeals. That means some justices have to oversee more than one Circuit.
So Mystal has his own “court packing” proposal. He wants to go beyond what the Dems want–to simply restore the balance to 13 justices. Mystal wants to add 20 justices for a total of 29 and he wants to create a panel system similar to the 3-judge Circuit Courts of Appeal panels selected randomly to hear appeals from the lower courts. Mystal reasons: “Think about how different it would be if our Supreme Court operated on a panel system. Instead of showing up to court knowing that six conservative justices were against you, or one or two conservative justices that you invited onto your yacht are guaranteed to hear your case. You literally wouldn’t know which justices get on your panel. Mystal says a panel system for the SC would create a greater “appearance of fairness”, especially at this moment when some justices are openly corrupt.
I take no position on Mystal’s proposal. Republicans and conservatives, like you, don’t want to expand the Court. They like the current 6-3 conservative majority just as it is. But unless we address the negative public view of the SC and its refusal to follow the ethics rule imposed on all other federal judges we will invite some to want to just ignore the decisions of the Court as “illegitimate”. That is not good for the rule of law.
Where were the mystal’s of the world after they passed Roe or TX housing or any other of the BS rulings?
Look Paragraph 1 is BS, the rest sinks deeply into that steaming pile.
Nice try, we get that you’re doing as you’re told. D+
“They like the current 6-3 conservative majority just as it is”
Gee, no Sh t, just like you liked it when it leaned left. Your such an idiot.
“like a woman’s reproductive rights, voting rights, and giving a religious minority the right to openly discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community.”
Women aren’t allowed to reproduce? They voted to protect the life of unborn women and me.
Who can’t vote?
The ability to discriminate is a basic right. Otherwise you are not a free man, you are a slave.
Dennis, two things ruin your “credibility” before you even get started. 1) How did DJT “pack the Court”? You mean keeping the same number of Justices with appointing and getting senatorial approval of these appointees? Ah, ok.
Second, you claim the Court has gone far right and when you delve into “Court Experts” you immediately cite Mystal, a radical, racist grifter.
If the Court is so “far right” then why do the majority of citizens support the AA case, the right to not be forced to create case and others? Also, the “right” of abortion wasn’t abrogated by the Court, it was given back to the states where it belongs.
You are a hack.
That “negative public view” spoken of from an uncited poll is not representative of a majority. Rather, it is the view of a loud and vocal minority who long for the Court to decide the rule of law wholly and only to that minority’s strict liking. The risk that comes with advocating for such a circumstance is in our being victimized by arbitrary and capricious dicta. For those who wish to alter, suspend or even terminate the Constitution do so in the manner the Constitution intends and not leave it to the Court itself to do so. Once started down that road brace yourselves for all manner of dogmatic rule to unfold and flourish.
Another point that ordinarily would not need to be mentioned but quite clearly now needs to be is that the Supreme Court is not “extreme right.” That false characterization has only one purpose, which is to wholly discredit anyone who regards themselves as a classical liberal worthy of the greatest respect.
Mystal wants to add 20 justices for a total of 29 and he wants to create a panel system similar to the 3-judge Circuit Courts of Appeal
Says a lot about Dennis that he chooses, from all that available thinkers, Mystal, as his go to “expert.
Let’s all be clear. Mystal is working hard to climb the ladder to get out of the bottom tier of race hustlers. Those con artists that make a very lucrative living, off the back of Black working class men and wom
The Idea to form this 3 judge panel to hear all these cases is stupidity on stilts. The problem is not how the cases are decided. It is way too many cases are decided by the Supreme Court.
Dobbs shines a bright light on the solution. Return to the States all things that are not enumerated power of the Federal Government. Lower federal courts should not be involved in lots of these conflicts.
Return the power to State legislators. Then bad laws can get overturned by the people at the ballot box….every two years.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) the concept of reproductive rights.
DM:
I’ll rise to the troll bait on 2 of 3.
Deciding that the enumerated powers of the federal govt don’t include jurisdiction over abortion is not extremist. Deciding that abortion is murder would have been an extreme (though arguably correct) position. Instead the decision was taken out of the hands of the feds and left “to the States respectively, or to the people.” I’m fine with that.
On the LGBTQ discrimination issue I do somewhat disagree with the court’s approach. I look at it not as primarily a 1st Ammendment issue but rather as a 13th Ammendment issue. Public accomodation laws ought not to imply involuntary servitude. If someone wants to buy an off the shelf item in a shop, fine, but nobody has any right to compel a work for hire. I can refuse any contract to perform work for any person for any reason whether that work is “speech” or digging a ditch. When considering entering into a contract for my labor, I may discriminate in even the most egregious fashion, I am a free person. Feel free to disagree with my reasons but don’t dare tread on me.
By now we all know about fake news. These law professors are promoting fake law.
HOW TO BE A DEMOCRAT POLITICIAN IN 2023
Don’t like immigration laws? Defy them.
Don’t like the first amendment’s protection of the freedom speech and the freedom of religion? Defy it.
Don’t like the fourth amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure? Defy it.
Don’t like the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment? Defy it.
Don’t like college loan debts? Tell the debtors their loans will be repaid by Americans who didn’t go to college.
Tired of Supreme Court rulings not going your way? Pact the court with additional members who agree with you.
Tired of losing presidential elections? Get rid of the electoral college and add some new states that agree with you.
Worried about a certain political opponent beating you at the polls? Arrest him and his supporters.
Hasn’t history shown us that these people ultimately fall victim to their own syndrome?
I have heard but I don’t care to wait and see if it’s true, and it’s no glory and certainly not a trail to be blazed since everyone else gets destroyed along with them.
They need to fall victim to our syndrome and right now, not eventually, immediately.
Sometimes certain people in Alabama need to be slapped down more than once. Technically the legislature created a majority black district and one very close to majority black. The federal court did not require 2 majority black districts. This was all discussed in columns and previous notes today. I suspect they will get slapped by the federal court again and go through another round of legislating. This occurred on more than one occasion in the 1960’s and 1970’s both in the “North” and “South”. During the heyday of integration orders and busing. After all, it’s not like the federal courts have other business except for making decisions on law contracts, the Constitution and others. What Alabama did is no different than Biden trying a runaround about his tuition give-away. He may get slapped down again. He is trying the Obama style of democracy, the presidential decree. Not a good look for republicans or democrats.
What the Liberal lights might try to do is talk to their opposition and vice versa and maybe produce some legislation . You remember, the old fashion way of running a democracy. The extended hand with an offer still works but you have to extend the hand.
America will need to split up in the not-too-distant future. Compromise is impossible, and we see violence when one group does not get its way. Much can be said about the errors of the decisions made pre-Civil War. That war solved nothing; the Black race was set free of slavery, but the real issues between the North and South were never resolved. For instance, state rights and big government versus small government were significant issues between the two sides long before slavery.
I ain’t a North / South thing. In 2020, New York State had more Trump voters than every southern state except Texas and Florida.
If that happens can we include a giant ignore button ?
You know we’re going to need it.
The crybaby losers in their safe space states will be constantly whining and wanting to sue and blame their superiors in the free states and wailing and moaning they got screwed on the deal because XX toxic was corrupt – it will be an endless crybaby fest, they will demand financial assistance and everything else under the sun, like their laws applying in our states.
We’ll have to ban them forever, then they can go speak to the Killer Toxic Male Misogynist Racist Grand Knight Cycloptic Roundtable Embassy Master Class if they pay the fees up front to whine and be heard paying double when their stance is rejected, so 100% deposit always.
Democracy has been backsliding globally. Countries in Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, and Latin America have tilted towards authoritarianism. Russia and China have strengthened their authoritarianism. The much lauded Arab Spring as a hopeful sign of democracy never materialized. America had a coup in 2016 funded by Hillary Clinton and colleagues/komrades, and the 2020 elections were rigged. America is sliding towards authoritarianism. Been there, seen it, fled it, it was not supposed to happen in the USA yet here we are. Leftists giving Bribin Biden absolute rule, delegitimizing SCOTUS, and appealing to populism for dictating policies are not the way to run a country. Ask a Cuban refugee.
¡No bueno!
How to lose a constitutional democracy
-Aziz Huq & Tom Ginzburg, Professors, U of Chicago Law School
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/21/14664568/lose-constitutional-democracy-autocracy-trump-authoritarian
Autocrats often target the three pillars of democratic society using tools permissible under law. To understand democratic backsliding, it’s important to understand the essential components of a democracy. First, there must be elections, which must be both free and fair. …Second, democracy needs liberal rights of speech and association so those with alternative views can challenge government on its policies, hold it accountable, and propose alternatives. Finally, democracy can’t work if the ruling party has the courts and bureaucracy firmly in its pocket. The rule of law — not just the rule of the powerful and influential — is essential….Hence, we often see would-be autocrats trying to pack the courts or intimidate judges into getting with the program.
Caveat emptor.
Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.
Without having any chief, officer, or ruler,
she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest.
How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep?
A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest,
and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.
Book of Proverbs 6:6-11
Estovir, entropy rules. The people must provide energy in the right direction to prevent the natural evolution into chaos.
Bribin Biden? Is he any relation to Joe Stealin?
Someone should make a list of Biden’s scandals beginning in 1970….53 years ago in politics.
Wiki reports Biden received Vietnam War deferments x 5!!! Dan Rather must have missed them.
It is beyond the pale that Joseph Biden remains the Chief Executive. No impeachments of him, any of his Cabinet members, no one, as I predicted. Republicans are worthless. Not new information
In 1970, Biden ran for the 4th district seat on the New Castle County Council on a liberal platform that included support for public housing in the suburbs.[34][35] …..While studying at the University of Delaware and Syracuse University, Biden obtained five student draft deferments, at a time when most draftees were sent to the war.
Wiki
Estovir,
At this point, I would not be surprised if Trump were to win in 2024, the Biden admin with an assist from the FBI, DOJ, CIA etc. would make up some BS about national security and call the election null and void.
” Stolen elections, banned speech social media 3 letter democrat complex, 2 tier lawfare kangaroo charges . ”
Well, the demoncrats are batting 1000 on destroying the republic as you pointed out.
If the prog/left got so bent-over enraged about Jan 6, why are they not more outraged over a stated directive to the Executive branch to subvert the constitution? Where are the LEO’s out to imprison these professors for sedition? I’m not seeing the reason why any one of those employed purveyors of misinformation should not be locked up until a trial for their advocacy to subvert our constitution?
Professor Turley,
Both sides of the aisle espouse authoritarian measures when in power. This article fails to provide adequate context.
For example, in 2018, Trump declared he could end birthright citizenship via executive order.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html
Or Trump’s denial of DACA applicants despite SCOTUS order:
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/15/891563635/trump-administration-rejects-1st-time-daca-applications-violates-scotus-order
CNN? NPR?
🤣
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia…
The article was NOT about Trump. It’s about Biden. And Lord knows the NPR is the bastion of fair and balanced context.
CNN? NPR?
Really?
Blaming both sides of the Isle is what the far leftists love to tout to make their side look as if they are not the only bad ones.
In this case, Trump’s saying something is treated as if he actually did it. Biden, like Obama admits that he cannot legally do things, but he actually does them anyway.
In the case of DACA, the Supreme Court ruled that those enrolled in DACA could stay, but they did not address new applicants.
As usual, the far lefties cry foul when there is no foul there.
It seems that both the executive and the legislative branches fail to uphold their oaths to the constitution. I am just glad that we finally have a SCOTUS that does do that and it is making the other 2 branches frightfully unhinged. Let us see what the public does now that they have at least one branch of government on the side of “We The People”.