George Santayana famously said that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The same is true for judicial overreach. Those judges who yield to the temptation to counter policies that are not to their liking are likely to repeat such excesses of power. That is why the recent decision of U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston is so concerning. While there are good-faith reasons why some have objected to the removal of slavery and climate change exhibits from national parks and monuments, this is not about the merits but the authority to make such changes. Kelley’s recent injunction smacks of judicial excess rather than measured review.
Judge Kelley, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction at the behest of groups representing park conservationists, historians and scientists, who argued that the U.S. Department of the Interior has been engaged in a “sustained campaign to erase history and undermine science.”
The complaint is heavily laden with subjective views of historical relevance that are obviously not shared by the Administration. These interpretations were installed under the discretion of the Biden Administration. They were removed under the same inherent discretion of the Trump Administration.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing his predecessor on what he viewed as a “revisionist movement” that portrayed the U.S. as “inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”
He ordered the Interior Department to make changes to parks, monuments and memorials to address any “false revision of history” that the White House said had occurred in recent years.
Some of the displays discuss the abuses of indigenous populations or the enslavement of persons at these sites. I happen to agree with the Court that such context is important for citizens to fully appreciate our history. The issue, however, is who legally decides on such interpretive displays.
For example, I strongly disagreed with the African American Museum in the exclusion of Justice Clarence Thomas from displays of great African Americans. While I supported those in Congress seeking answers from the Smithsonian, I never viewed the material as a violation of federal law or worthy of judicial intervention. Notably, these historical groups and experts did not file actions in federal court to force his inclusion.
That was, of course, the individual decision of one museum. However, the question is why the Administration can make such individual decisions rather than department-wide or branch-wide decisions. Likewise, it is difficult to see the limiting principle here. If President Trump said that he wanted to emphasize certain elements like patriotism and these displays were substituted, would that also be a violation of federal law?
The challengers invoked federal law to argue that the Trump Administration was wrong and that the action was therefore arbitrary and capricious. The action is based on loose interpretations of the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Park Service Centennial Act, and the National Parks Omnibus Management Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
Judge Kelley chastises the Administration for removing displays that “do not align with its preferred narrative.” However, the original displays were themselves a preferred narrative by the prior Administration.
Judge Kelley invokes generally worded federal laws to require the Administration to seek out and heed the wisdom of historical experts on such questions, despite the views of other experts who agree with the action.
She declared that the removal of the displays not only undermines “the integrity of the National Parks; it sets a dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization.”
The court notes that “the Secretary’s Order fails to provide any reasoned justification for its directive to review and remove interpretive material.” Yet, that would seem abundantly obvious from the cited Executive Order and the purpose of the change. The real question is whether this type of action requires more than the exercise of discretion. Agencies and offices routinely make such decisions on displays. The only difference is a branch-wide order.
The court’s cited authority is itself vague and undefined. For example, Judge Kelley holds that “The Order mentions the Organic Act and the FLPMA as ‘Authority’ but does not explain its relationship to those statutes, such as how the removal of interpretive materials comports with the Organic Act’s mandate to ‘conserve’ and to ‘provide for the enjoyment’ of park resources. 54 U.S.C. § 100101(a).”
The Administration is citing the sweeping discretion afforded under federal law. However, the Court suggests it can micromanage the branch in making decisions about interpretative displays under this language.
Once again, I may agree with these historians on some of this material but it is immaterial — as immaterial as Judge Kelley’s qualms. In my view, the court’s analysis is deeply flawed and should be reversed.
Here is the decision: National Park Conservation Association v. Department of the Interior
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
The executive Power is to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress, not to drive the nation off a cliff.
That should like a political disagreement, not a legal point to me.
What is executive power? The executive power is the power of the executive branch. No legislation that usurps and exercises executive power is constitutional. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) nullifies Article 2 of the Constitution usurps and exercises the executive power of the executive branch. The APA is egregiously unconstitutional.
Then Trump can order the slaughter of any number of people and be above review, if that is the unlimited power afforded as part of the executive power.
Now you know why the American Founders—who established a nation, its laws, and its population—denied Judge Kelley’s ancestors et al. admission to become citizens in the final Naturalization Act of 1802. They are direct and mortal enemies intent on conquest with no intent or ability to assimilate. And you are fool enough to accommodate them and their goal to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” out of existence.
Express and sincere apologies for the length of this.
Commenter Olly posted an excellent comment this morning @ 8:24, in which he said, “Leaving out our efforts to fix what we broke is just as dishonest as pretending the damage never happened in the first place.” This should be the in the bible for truly comprehensive and meaningful understanding of history.
Then commenter Sam added, @ 9:21, “the Left is propagandizing national monuments and museums.” Also true.
So I only wish to flesh out and inter-relate these two comments as follows:
In the middle of its term (2023) the Biden/Harris administration, in an effort to enhance big-tent hold on American policies and politics, underwent amendments and directives pursuant to National Park Service programs (when you pull up various materials you will see “Amended 2023” at the end of them).
Of significance here is Judge Kelley’s cited Memorandum and Order, of specific, starting with the bottom of p.9 into p.10, referencing “NPS Directives System, Nat’l Park Serv. (Aug. 29, 2023).” Under this, as noted by Judge Kelley, “The highest level is the NPS’ Management Policies. Under Management Policies § 7.1 and § 7.2 is discussed the “general management plan” (“GMP”) and “comprehensive interpretive plans” (“CIPs”) to “serve as the backbone of interpretive and educational program planning and direction [for the visiting public].”
The Chief Historian of the National Park Service plays a major role in developing the material used in CIPs as well as training staff on their interpretations and presentations of factual history to the visiting public.
Just days before Trump first took office on January 20, 2017, -to wit, “effective January 8, 2017,” the Obama administration announced Dr. Tukiya L. Lowe as the first African-American to assume the role of Chief Historian. Lowe’s entire c.v. and academic/employment history –and “interpretive” changes she has made in her role as Chief Historian, –relate to Black (and a little of indigenous Indian) America.
.”… like many American institutions, the parks system exists only because of the violent genocide of Indigenous peoples and their dispossession from their homelands. And for a long time, the stories told at these parks have glossed over these histories and perspectives on the founding of America.”
“From 1931 until 2017, the job of chief historian of the NPS, the person responsible for overseeing the history taught at parks, has been filled by White men.”
“Over the last few years that narrative has started to change. And the stories of not only Indigenous people, but also of African Americans, women and others with marginalized identities are being incorporated into how the park service tells American history.”
https://www.hcn.org/articles/national-park-service-q-a-parks-service-chief-historian-on-creating-inclusion-in-the-nations-story
———————————
This helps explain why the Trump Administration might have expressed a stated intent to maintain a more Balanced perspective about the nation’s OVERALL history and development. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/
I express NO OPINION on the merits of either side.
Is that a comment or a manifesto, John Say Juniorette?
Incidentally, you do know that the American fertility rate, at 1.6, is in a “death spiral,” which means America itself is in a “death spiral,” right?
Who is most critically failing what was once the United States of America but is now MexAfrAsiArbia?
She took some time, kudos.
Thank you lin, excellent comment. Beyond the legal question, I’d side with the history formation that builds citizens’ capacity for self-government. That means truth over comfort, critical thinking over scriptwriting, and civic agency over partisan selection. Whether from the left or right, history shaped to serve a political agenda that is not about forming citizens for self-government undermines the citizen’s ability to judge independently.
Self-government is to make laws that only the person should obey and ignore all other laws.
The sovereign citizen movement is based on self-government.
President Trump’s March 2025 Executive Order was not simply trying to restore a “Balanced perspective”
The Executive Order explicitly directs the Secretary of the Interior to remove descriptions that “disparage Americans past or living” and focus exclusively on “greatness.” That’s not ‘balance.’
A presidential mandate to purge verified historical data (such as the realities of enslavement at specific historic sites) in favor of forced patriotism does not constitute “balance.” It constitutes censorship.
Good work. Yes, the monuments dept needs reconstruction just as the Washington monument , reflecting pool was cleaned and repaired.
The effort at the reflecting pool was to clean it of algae. The algae is back. The effort failed.
I agree with the sentiments of Prof. Turley. It is not for the judges to promote competent and good administrative policies (administration should be free to implement good and poor decisions if legal) but rather for the judges to determine if the administration has the authority to take its actions. Shouldn’t there be a Federal judgeship 101 course on the role of the courts?
Arnold is right that judges need a Judicial 101 on the proper role of courts, but the real issue is Congress. We should have a Legislative 101 on statute writing. If Congress wants judges to stay in their lane and not make policy, it should write clear statutes that leave less room for interpretation instead of leaving gaps that courts must fill.
Better laws would also rein in the power of the administrative state to set arbitrary and capricious policies in the first place. If Congress writes tighter statutes, agencies would have less room to claim broad discretion and courts would have less reason to engage in deep policy review. The real problem is not just judicial overreach. It is also Congress delegating too much discretion through broad language, which forces courts to decide what the law means. If Congress wants less judicial activism and less agency overreach, it should close those statutory gaps rather than leaving courts and agencies to fill them in.
Trump could take a frozen pizza and require the label instructions to include removing the plastic before putting it into the oven.
Let’s see Congress write a law concerning the passivation of stainless steel for use in aircraft rather than leaving that to the FAA. That’s the stupidity Olly is asking for.
Should law be malleable enough to include evermore malleable opinions ?
There are two issues here, one discussed by Prof Turley and one not discussed. They are related. Who decides “the truth” as presented by the federal agencies and the professions. Should Catholic scholars decide on the interaction of church and state? Or should the duly elected POTUS? And if there is conflict, what is the span of authority of one federal district judge over national actions? There are hundreds of judges and their rules can never be unanimous. Must every sign at Fort Sumner on climate change be edited by the SCOTUS?
IMHO, Judge Kelley is out of her lane; no one authorized her to define “the truth”.
She wasn’t defining the ‘truth’ she was reviewing the legality of Trump removing the placards based on what the plaintiffs were claiming. She was absolutely in her lane, because she was doing exactly what her job requires. To determine if Trump violated the law based on the plaintiffs claims.
Turley almost immediately told his readers “this is not about the merits” when it absolutely was. He pivoted to criticizing the judge and democrats implying she was being ‘activist’ because she was ruling on the actions of the administration’s ’prerogative’ to decide what goes on those park displays. That’s not what this is about. Olly made a great point that this is about the law and how it applies to any administration, not just Trumps. Professor Turley did not explicitly say the judge was incorrect or wrong. Especially when he never dived into what the judge used, the APA.
What law governs a climate change placard on dry land and who is the legal defining authority? Would another Boston judge rule differently on public land in South Carolina? Would another Park System boss have drafted a variation and what authority governs that decision? Does that boss report to our POTUS when he is executing the law? I agree, in part, with Professor Turley. Our Judicial branch, as organized, is dysfunctional.
My apologies to all for mistyping Sumter.
George/X: Your sentence, “She wasn’t defining the ‘truth’ she was reviewing the legality of Trump removing the placards based on what the plaintiffs were claiming,” fails to manifest in her IV Conclusion to her Memorandum and Order.
Perhaps you should review that.
Lin,
The “Conclusion” (Section IV) of a Memorandum and Order is strictly where a judge delivers the formal, binding legal mandate—such as granting or denying an injunction. It is not the section where a judge repeats the entire substantive legal framework or definitions discussed in the preceding pages.
I’m sure you knew that. Right?
I’m sure you knew that. Right?
How a person as dense as you, who completely misuses AI and lacks the foundational reading comprehension to understand what you copy-paste onto this blog, has the nerve to condescend to an appellate lawyer like Lin is laughable.
We see it every single time: you inject your own erroneous premises into a chatbot, blindly print the results, and don’t even realize when the AI’s output actually disputes your argument or validates the very person you are fighting. You run away the moment your automated script blows up in your face. You are spectacularly oblivious to the tools you claim to master.
S. Meyer, you’re hilarious nothing in your screed pointed out that it was wrong. You just got upset that you couldn’t refute it.
FYI, I don’t “run away” I do have other things to do besides spend all day on this blog. The majority of your “arguments” are just nonsensical attempts to look like you know what you’re talking about. What is even more hilarious is we know you demonstrated a poor ability to understand complex issues and nuances. When you run into that wall the only thing you have available to you is hurling insults. It’s pretty sad.
” you’re hilarious nothing in your screed pointed out that it was wrong. You just got upset that you couldn’t refute it.”
It is not ‘getting upset’ to show you that your own chatbot proved you wrong. It is called accuracy. You call my response a ‘screed’, because, as usual, you backed yourself into a corner. You have no rebuttal to the fact that 77 million barrels fit within 79 million barrels of capacity, with room to spare.
After you so confidently declared that filling the reserve was ‘mathematically impossible,’ we proved you have 2 million barrels of extra capacity. That makes you look like a fool and a mathematical illiterate, regardless of how much AI you rely on to do your thinking. You are clearly out of your league. Perhaps you should join a primary school math class to brush up on the basics.
Run away, fool; it is the only thing you do well. Once again, your ignorance has been exposed.
That is right X! You tell him! You are the smartest person you know! You do not need AI for anything! You are too smart for that! And you are too important and have many more important things to do then spend all day here! (pssst! X, I know you comment as anonymous some times to confuse those others! Your secret is safe with me!)
I see your point but the sooner blacks leave slavery in the rear view mirror the sooner they can normalize. Pining about the slavery of ancestors has become a different ball and chain, but is still keeping them slaves.
The race card has become the ace up a sleeve.
Read the book The Bell Curve, a statistical breakdown of IQ by race. Of course the liberals will disregard it as racism because they don’t like the results. Turn on the news and watch and you will understand why they can never assimilate to a higher level.
Read the letters from the Confederate states justifying slavery.
Similar garbage level.
Hopefully, some day a person will become President who decides that since the Constitution created 3 “co-equal” branches and that since The
Federalist Papers explained the highly circumscribed abilities of the courts, the President will hold that all such court decisions remain merely advisory including those of the Supreme Court—and thereby follow President Andrew Jackson when he famously said Chief Justice Marshall has made his decision, now him try to enforce it. A President might with a measure of discretion give special deference to the Supreme Court but for sure ignore the “lesser” courts.
The President might ignore absurd decisions but he has not.
Instead he appeals and is harvesting precedents that begin to rein in the excesses of the lower courts.
It is a patient and sometimes frustrating approach but it is solidly within the law and is likely to be more lasting.
Agree. Trump needs to disregard the supreme court decisions if he disagrees with them.
He can’t do that, unless the court was blatantly ultra vires. If he disobeys a valid court order the court can send the US Marshals to arrest him, and hire a lawyer to prosecute him.
1. The constitution vests the judicial power — which is the power to say what the law is — with the federal courts only. The other branches have no power to say what the law is. See City of Boerne.
2. Jackson never said that. It may be famous, but it’s not true. You can’t base practical advice on what someone should do, on a stupid myth.
3. If a president defies a lawful court order the court can hold him in contempt and bring criminal charges against him, and/or against those executive officers who obey him and defy the court order. The court can order the US Marshals to enforce its orders. And if the US Attorney refuses to prosecute someone for contempt of court, the court can hire a lawyer to prosecute.
3a. So if the president wishes to defy a court order he must pick one that’s obviously and uncontroversially invalid on its face. I would think the one we’re discussing now is just such an order. It’s clearly ultra vires, so Trump should make a test case of it.
In our attempts to provide “equality”, we’ve bent over backward and installed people as lawyers, judges, teachers, administrators, doctors, etc., who would not have been qualified in more rigorous times. It has come back to haunt us. My wife, in the medical profession (and a liberal, at that), was aghast that a Latina nurse they’d hired (for ‘diversity’s’ sake) had been responsible for the deaths of two patients. The judge who made this decision probably would not have even had a law-degree except for standards being lowered. No good deed goes unpunished.
As opposed to Trump hiring family member to positions they had no experience for?
I rather doubt your assertion, even for the Latina nurse. Unless she stabbed them to death, it sounds like a hospital supervisory and systems problem.
Obviously, slavery was part of our history and can’t be ignored. Does anyone know what degree of change Trump wanted that led to a lawsuit? Did Trump want no mention of slavery or did he want it merely de-emphasized?
Removing the placards in their entirety and omitting the “ugly” views of slavery they stated pretty much makes it a big change.
There’s really no difference. Trump wants to portray the U.S. as a “hot” country. Showing how badly we treated slaves and the truth behind it makes it seem like we are not as “hot” as we are supposed to be.
Jazmine, the judge is wasting time and money. Malfeasance
Come On Man! Judge Angel be representin’ her Hood and her People! The white devil needs to be called out at every opportunity in AMERICA because this country was built by her peeps and if reparations are not paid in Moolah then they should be paid by public billboards of humiliation and condescension! Viva People of Color Baby!!
Right-On, Dude (or Dudette)! Power to the Pipples!
Obum set the course with a fundamental change and without conscience. Germany and Japan are building armies. Imo
Pages 20 and 21 of the decision mention an Order denying of Defendants’ Motion to dismiss for lack of Article lll standing. Those are the documents I would want to see. What blood is there on Plaintiffs’ noses that qualifies as the particularized injury, distinguishable from citizens a whole, necessary to support cases arising jurisdiction in this court?
Professor Turley says, “ Judge Kelley chastises the Administration for removing displays that “do not align with its preferred narrative.” However, the original displays were themselves a preferred narrative by the prior Administration.”
That’s a gross mischaracterization. The Biden administration did not impose its “preferred narrative” it chose to display basic historical truths. It’s a huge distinction between what the Biden administration did and what Trump wanted to do. One was simple basic historical truths even Professor Turley agrees should be displayed. The other is an attempt to erase or remove something that makes the U.S. look bad.
“ They were removed under the same inherent discretion of the Trump Administration.”
No. This is is where professor Turley starts to veer into disingenuous narration. Turley left out a big reason why judge Kelly’s ruling is valid. Not merely because she was being arbitrary or ‘vague’. Turley left out the fact that the Trump administration broke the law when it removed the displays. Specifically the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of the APA (The administrative procedure act).
When an agency shifts away from long-standing practices—especially those rooted in scientific or historical expertise—it must provide a “reasoned justification” for the change. The Trump administration could not provide one. Simply citing a new executive preference was not enough to satisfy federal law if the action appears to ignore the agency’s statutory mandate.
For example, the Organic Act requires the National Park Service to “conserve” and “provide for the enjoyment” of park resources. Removing historically accurate context without a clear, evidence-based explanation undermines the “integrity” of those resources, which exceeds what is “lawful discretion.”
Judge Kelly was indeed following the actual law. She was not ‘micromanaging’ the administration based on her own views.
The Trump administration has been on a tear about ‘sanitizing’ our history to make it less uncomfortable or ignore the ugly truths of our past because it’s not…patriotic or casts guilt on “white Americans.”
X: Honest question: Did Trump want to re-write history (minimize effects of slavery) or did he
want to get rid of DEI influences (distortions) on history? If the latter, then I would be in agreement with Trump.
Tryingtoclarify,
Everything regarding race or the views on slavery is deemed DEI to the Trump administration. It seems there is a fear or implied accusation that white people should be accused or treated with contempt for past atrocities regarding slavery.
The question should be, what was distorted? Is it not true slaves were horrendously treated during that time? Is it not true white slave owners were cruel? Of course. Does that merit making these real historical truths “softer” for the public because it’s ugly or paints a certain demographic as evil?
It may be ugly, uncomfortable, or just the simple truth. That should not be avoided or “sanitized” because the administration declared it a form of DEI.
X: I agree that history must be told no matter how ugly. Your explanation about Trump’s motivation, however, seems circular. You start and finish by saying everything about slavery in Trump’s view is DEI. I don’t accept that premise. One can believe the notion that slavery was an evil part of our history without implying that it somehow means white supremacy and white privilege are a fact of present day life. I think that toxic ideology is want Trump want to address no matter how inartfully his attempt.
“One can believe” is not what Trump believes. More important it’s not the goal of the Heritage Foundation that is working on a racial purity effort for government.
It really doesn’t matter to me whether Trump was trying to scrub “DEI spin” or Biden was trying to lean into “negative” history. Presidents will always have their own story they want told.
The question that actually matters is whether what they did stayed inside the legal limits Congress put on the Park Service.
If we like the outcome but it breaks the law, we’ve just told ourselves politics matters more than the rules we claim to defend. What should stand the test of time isn’t anyone’s politics, it’s whether we followed the law.
Olly, I agree with your view that this is more about the law than the intent or attempt to remove certain ugly parts of our history.
Turley did “neglect” to focus on the law and instead chose to focus on the judge who did exactly what she was supposed to do. The question obviously should be why did Turley not focus on the law instead of the ‘Democrats are disingenuous’ narrative? Clearly this judge was correctly using the law, specifically the APA.
Turley’s framing of Democrats is on solid ground, but his stronger move would have been to focus on the statutory authority. He has criticized Democrats for inconsistency on executive power and investigations in the past, including criticizing Bush executives while accepting similar actions under Obama and questioning Democratic positions on various probes.
That history does not answer the legal question. The real issue is whether the Interior Department had statutory authority and a reasoned explanation under the APA, not whether Democrats are consistent politicians. I want Trump to win every legal battle, but I cannot argue deference-first. I would be abandoning the same statutory-compliance argument I made against Biden’s immigration and other executive actions. If Congress wants less judicial activism, it should close the statutory gaps that invite it rather than leaving courts to fill them in.
But was it judicial activism with regard to this judge Turley is criticizing? Because it is obvious she’s ruling on exactly the very same reason you’re pointing out.
She’s not wrong, but Turley is disingenuously characterizing her actions as if they were “activist” because she’s a Biden appointee, a point Turley made sure to emphasize as he always does with these decisions. He’s not saying she’s wrong or her ruling incorrect. He’s looking for an excuse to focus on her instead of the merits of the case which ARE important.
You seem to agree with her ruling because you did your due diligence and looked for any ways the Trump administration could justify this legally and you couldn’t find any. In a way it’s your way of saying Trump was wrong to remove those placards because it violated the law.
I do think Turley is not wrong to call out judicial activism by a Biden-appointed judge in light of precedent. I believe he just left two things off the table: what the law actually requires here, and the vagueness in the statute that invites activism in the first place.
You’re not saying THIS judge is wrong nor is Turley.
This judge did use the law and pointed out exactly what your’e saying. This wasn’t about activism. Turley was being vague in order to heap criticism on the judge. He ignored the fact the judge was using the correct process and the law to show why the Trump administration’s actions were in violation of the law.
This judge literally ruled on the merits of the case using the same logical and legal conclusion you put out. She pointed out the same thing you did, that the Trump administration could not show justification for removing these placards under the APA’s standards. Even Turley agrees the contents of the placards shouldn’t be removed. But he had to work hard to still lay on criticism because it’s a Biden appointee. Can’t say Trump was wrong to remove them. Because legally he couldn’t. Not the way he chose to do it.
Apparently the laws were changed.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is a hiring practice to discourage throwing applications into the garbage due to bigotry. It’s not to establish quotas or hire incompetent people based on race or physical disability.
Apparently a large number of people think that considering hires on merit and ignoring skin color or other non-job related characteristic disadvantages the truly incompetent who would be hired because they share a love for the same sports team as their prospective boss.
X is full of shite. Complete delusional fabrication. George you lie. No. BTW George, its an opinion piece. You dumb f.
> it chose to display basic historical truths
Are they, though? Or is this “history truths” on the level of the 1619 project? The ones that “serious academics” support, but anyone looking into them will discover is full of absolute nonsense, like declaring that the US was built on slavery and that the vast majority of the US economy was based on slavery. This is, of course, utter nonsense. The South was a retrograde backwater which was why the industrialized North defeated the dirty slavers. The only reason they were able to make a fight of it at all is that they attacked first before the North was prepared. Once the North was on war footing, the result was inevitable.
The American civil war was a triumph for capitalism and freedom of the last vestiges of vile barbarism. Or are you also one of those historical revisionists that thinks slavery is part of capitalism?
The North depended on the South for a supply of raw cotton to feed the industrial looms to produce the cloth they would sell to Europe to become wealthy. Without the slaves in the South that economic chain would have been broken and the fortunes of America diminished.
“Without the slaves in the South . . .”
That is the standard Leftist lie that slavery is economically beneficial.
The historical fact is that the textile industry boomed *after* the Civil War, in the North and especially in the South — because slavery had been abolished.
Free men make better employees and industrialists.
We shall see.
Fascist judges think they can interfere with and block legitimate Executive authority, and there are no sanctions that punish them for their overreach. These Fascists in robes are, of course, no worse than Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who decides cases based on her “feelings” rather than following the Constitution or the law. Democrats love judges that rule first and ask questions later, as long as the rulings favor them. Imagine a Supreme Court packed with judicial extremists like these.
Surely bright folks in the admin can add signage that presents both sides of any story.
What other side is there to present? That it was ok to abuse slaves, that slavery had its benefits? Slave owners were nice people?
Comments like this are exactly why the “other side” of the story needs to be told. The “other side” is not that slavery or abuse were ever okay. It’s that this country fought a war, amended the Constitution, passed civil‑rights laws, and keeps grinding away at those wrongs. If none of that had happened, you’d still see those same evils fully legal today.
You don’t. That’s not an accident, it’s part of the American story. Leaving out our efforts to fix what we broke is just as dishonest as pretending the damage never happened in the first place.
Well said.
The other side as you just presented it is the fairy tale version. What you leave out is that immediately after the war, slavery in all but name was replaced in slave states by the Black Codes which along with mass incarceration and the still standing exception in the 13th Amendment, allowed slavery to continue. Congress then reacted with the 14th and 15th Amendments but after the Compromise of 1877, Jim Crow came along and was ignored for 90 years in trade for a disputed Presidency. Every one of those civil rights acts has been dramatically gutted by the Supreme Court (except arguably the Fair Housing Act that had no teeth to begin with). And we are seeing those same evils fully legal today as Black Districts in Congress are being specifically targeted today, just as they were after Reconstruction. Congressional seats prior to the Voting Rights Acts were racially driven, for the protection/preservation of white people. I would point to the 6th District in South Carolina, a state that had no Black representatives for 95 years after Reconstruction despite being majority Black for over half of those years. That seat, currently held by Jim Clyburn, is being targeted because even one Black seat in South Carolina is apparently too much. Turley says this case “isn’t about the merits.” The Supreme Court ignores proof of racism but relies on provable intent. Perhaps the country isn’t. “inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.” But people that are are able to have their was as to what is and isn’t told in history books and in national parks and museums.
enigma, I get that you want the whole ugly record on the table. A lot of what you list is real and important. But a national park sign is not a 400‑page monograph or your blog. It’s a limited space meant to give visitors a clear snapshot of what happened on that ground and how it fits into the larger American story.
To me, that means two things: don’t hide the hard parts, and don’t pretend there’s been no pushback or progress either. You acknowledge war, amendments, civil‑rights acts, and backlash. Fine. Put that into an honest overview: what was done, how people fought it, what changed, and where the work has stalled or reversed. Then point folks to books, museums, or websites if they want the deep dive.
What I’m pushing against is turning every park plaque into a running chronicle of every subsequent injustice nationwide. That’s not realistic, and it’s not what most visitors are there for. The Park Service can give a fair, candid overview that says “here’s what happened here, here’s how the country has struggled with it since, and here’s where you can learn more.” That’s balance in the real‑world sense, not a fairy tale and not a 20‑foot wall of text.
I don’t suggest every park plaque be a book. Neither is it a place for one-sided government propaganda which is all we were being left with. Can you really point people to museums that have been stripped of material like the Smithsonian or the books remaining on the shelves after DeSantis and Trump have banned the ones they don’t like? There is a balance in the world that’s been removed which is all I’m saying. I meant to include this in my last post.
https://medium.com/the-polis/understanding-voting-rights-through-south-carolinas-6th-district-99adfb0c88db
Just vote Democrat. A white democrat is better than a black republican. Spanberger is a gem. So glad we have her. We can have our cake and eat it, too.
The sign about Emmett Till would be changed to “Learn to swim” so as to not offend that he was beaten to death and his killers were exonerated.
He did not say “why” he said “what”. A big difference. It’s already shown ‘what’ the other side’s views were and why why. In this case it was the Trump administration wanting to get rid of the uglier part of the ‘other side’ that they wanted to censor under the claim it was DEI.
The country resisted passing civil rights laws – people died to get them to pass.
It’s not a badge of honor to be drenched in blood before doing the right thing. “We” didn’t attempt to fix what was broken. A portion of the country was revulsed by it and a large portion didn’t want to see it. Trump wants to reset to before that time.
I don’t think the judge is out of line here. There’s actual law on the books that limits what any administration can do with these parks, and it doesn’t let them just yank signs because they make America look bad.
The answer isn’t to erase the ugly parts of our past, it’s to put them in context. Keep the hard truth about slavery, treatment of Native peoples, and the rest, then add the story of how we’ve tried to fix it through amendments, civil rights, and reform.
That kind of full picture is more faithful to the Constitution’s idea of forming a more perfect union than a scrubbed, feel‑good version that skips the hard stuff.
You conveniently ignore the fact that it was an administration that decided to put the items in and an administration that decided to take them out.
Just as when Biden gave Temporary Status to illegals it was fine but when Trump ended “Temporary” Status the courts enjoined him.
Yeah, an administration put the signs in and an administration tried to take them out. But both moves still have to stay inside the law. The parks aren’t the president’s bulletin board; they’ve got a legal duty to tell people what actually happened there, not just what flatters whoever’s in office.
If Trump didn’t like how Biden’s team framed the story, the honest fix wasn’t to erase slavery, Native history, or climate facts. It was to keep the hard truth and then add the rest of the story about amendments, civil‑rights gains, and how we’ve moved closer to a “more perfect union.”
PS: I went looking for a legal way for Trump to dump the “negative” signs and lean into the positive story. What I found instead were the very limits that made what he actually did unlawful. If that bugs us, the answer isn’t to pretend those limits aren’t there, it’s to change the law.
Olly, so the judge did rule based on the law, not what Turley implies as a “vague” reason.
You contradict yourself. If “The parks aren’t the president’s bulletin board” then Biden had no right to put the signs in, and therefore Trump had every right to yank them out. Biden turned the parks into radical leftist propaganda units, like something right out of the communist Howard Zinn’s treasonous fantasies. Trump was right to undo all that, and this judge is ultra vires. Trump should ignore her purported order, and dare her to take action against him.
You conveniently ignore the fact…
Nope. Instead of reflexively defending out of emotions, I chose to do what citizens should be able to do…look for the limiting factor of the law. You might prove my understanding as wrong, but that’s what you should have done in the first place.
Olly, I agree. Well put.
“I don’t think the judge is out of line here.”
You are seriously misguided.
Have you even seen any of the grotesquely inappropriate exhibits installed by Leftist propagandists? Here’s some of the text from just one, installed at Fort Sumter — a national monument commemorating the *Civil War*:
“As the earth’s climate changes, rising seas could inundate most of the fort’s walls and flood the historic parade ground.”
The issue here is not whether one agrees or disagrees with “climate change,” or whether one is a fan of fossil fuels. A pro-fossil fuel exhibit at Fort Sumter would be just as inappropriate.
The issue is that as with the rest of the culture — the media, education, movies, ads, ad nauseam — the Left is propagandizing national monuments and museums.
Sam, you say I’m “seriously misguided,” but all you’ve done is tell me what offends you, not what the law requires. You and I line up the same way on 99 percent of the political stuff here, and I’d probably agree with you that some of these exhibits are slanted. But that’s not the question in front of the court. The question is what Congress told the Park Service to do and whether any president, Republican or Democrat, gets to ignore that because he doesn’t like the tone of a sign.
If we’re going to call ourselves conservatives, we don’t get to throw the statute and the APA out the window when they’re inconvenient and then scream “propaganda” when the other side does it. Either the rule of law matters or it doesn’t.
I went looking for a legal way Trump could wipe the “negative” signs and lean into the positive story. What I found instead were real limits on what he did. I don’t have to like that, but I do have to be honest about it if I want my arguments against the Left to have any credibility at all.
You keep ignoring the fact that Biden had no more authority to put those signs up than Trump did to take them down. It can’t be that anything one president erects must remain forever. Biden didn’t follow the APA to put them up. Trump needn’t follow it to take them down.
Joe Biden…. it’s like a 4 year long nightmare that’s impossible to wake up from.
There are more DEI bombs such as this “judge” that will continue to explode like hidden ordinances from a war that ended years ago.
It seems that congress needs to do its work and corral the district courts and start limiting their jurisdiction as the constitution allows. Maybe it would be appropriate for Congress to limit signage at National Parks as determined by the National Park Service and the Administration which is in office. A lot to hope for.
I guess it never occurred to this judge that this was a simple reversal of a previous arbitrary decision and maybe this should be left to the people and their representatives which they elected.
Mr Obama said elections have consequences but it would appear only his election had real consequences and anything he wrote or ordered is in gold and immutable.
Term Limits for Judges. From SCOTUS all the way down to district courts. As well as Senators and Representatives.
What is amazing is that this era of Judicial Kingship isn’t even protested by the “No Kings” groupies that seem to endorse King like action from these Judicial Tyrants.
Only because the Judges are as far left as the “No Kings” groupies. If the Judges were conservative Judges who followed the Constitution, then the protests would fill the streets.
We must all worship and the Idol of climate and past slavery forever. Wacko judge.