Skip to main content

ActivityPub - Link to source

I want to be fair and consider opinions that sound outlandish. After all, I might be wrong! But I just read this and I agree with everyone dunking: It's bad and dumb. Let's dig in.

Trump Is Testing Our Constitut...


Trump Is Testing Our Constitutional System. It’s Working Fine.

The president’s flurry of illegal actions have been stopped by the courts. That’s how it is supposed to work.
Noah Feldman (Bloomberg)
in reply to Evan Urquhart

Evan Urquhart
ActivityPub - Link to source
Evan Urquhart
• •
According to Feldman, we have nothing to worry about on the birthright citizenship front, because he assumes he knows what's too far for this SCOTUS to enact. Wha??? In order to pass a test you have to pass it. You can't confidently predict you will and call it passed.
Consider what's happened so far. The president can't change the Constitution, so Trump's executive order claiming to roll back birthright citizenship is beyond his power. A court has already said so, blocking the order from going into effect. Trump could appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, but it's not going to make any difference. The high court is not going to announce a brand-new, made-up interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
in reply to Evan Urquhart

Evan Urquhart
ActivityPub - Link to source
Evan Urquhart
• •

This ignores the fact that due process has been removed from ICE detainees. If you can't prove you've been in the country for more than two years, you can be deported without a day in court. Experts agree, this means citizens can and will be deported "by mistake."

No court, no hearing: Trump re...


No court, no hearing: Trump revives fast-track deportations, expands reach nationwide

The Trump administration has revived a border security policy that legal experts say paves the way for mass deportations β€” without even a court hearing β€” and threatens to put Latino Arizonans, regardless of their citizenship status, at risk of racial…
Gloria Rebecca Gomez (Arizona Mirror)
in reply to Evan Urquhart

Evan Urquhart
ActivityPub - Link to source
Evan Urquhart
• •
The next para is even worse. Feldman says that Trump broke the law in firing the inspectors general without notice, says they could sue but probably won't and will just be removed either way. So, to recap, there will be no consequence for Trump breaking US law... and that's fine because Β―\_(ツ)_/Β―
Should the fired inspectors general choose to sue for their jobs back, they would likely win on the grounds that the law requires the president to inform Congress before taking such action. That would be nice for the rule of law. But they might choose not to sue since all Trump would have to do is fire them again, this time giving Congress proper notice.
in reply to Evan Urquhart

Evan Urquhart
ActivityPub - Link to source
Evan Urquhart
• •
Is this a liberal Harvard lawyer who believes in the rule of law? Remind me because I cannot tell by reading the words on the page.
in reply to Evan Urquhart

Evan Urquhart
ActivityPub - Link to source
Evan Urquhart
• •
We're back to predicting that Trump will lose in court some day, even though today he is very definitely doing or has already done an illegal thing. There is, again, not even the hint of a suggestion that he will face any consequences for breaking the law, except by being stopped.
That brings us to USAID, a federal agency responsible for delivering humanitarian aid around the world. Trump can't unilaterally shut down a federal agency created by Congress, as former senior White House lawyer Tess Bridgeman has pointed out. Money appropriated by Congress for specific purposes must be spent for those purposes under the Impoundment Act. Civil service employees can sometimes be let go from their jobs when there is a reorganization leading to a reduction in force; but that's not what's happened here - at least so far. If Trump doesn't follow the law regarding USAID, there will be more lawsuits, which he will lose.
in reply to Evan Urquhart

Evan Urquhart
ActivityPub - Link to source
Evan Urquhart
• •
Feldman predicts that Trump won't ignore court orders bc SCOTUS won't stand for it. Again, we're being told not to worry because of something Feldman believes will happen. The possibility that Trump might have no further need for SCOTUS by the time these issues got to them? Not even considered.
Yet Trump, who did not ignore court orders in his first term, si unlikely to defy a judicial decision. The Supreme Court has six conservatives, three of them Trump appointees. The single worst thing he could do to alienate the justices would be to ignore a court order. No matter how conservative the justices might be, their primary identity comes from their role as interpreters of the Constitution and the laws. They might tolerate a lot from Trump, but they won't tolerate direct defiance of the authority of the judiciary.
⇧