---------------
Dr. Reich is troubled by the supposed lawlessness of President Trump. However, he had no concern about Obama declining to enforce DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Obama famously threatened he would flout congress with a pen and a phone. In addition, "...Obama... has harmed the separation of powers that the Founders so carefully delineated — bydelaying implementation of the Affordable Care Act; refusing to enforce federal drug laws under the guise of prosecutorial discretion; and effectively amending our immigration laws by not only delaying deportations but also granting status and benefits to people who have immigrated to the U.S. illegally. In doing so, he has positioned himself as a super-legislator with the power to override the law."
Dr. Reich is troubled by the supposed lawlessness of President Trump. However, he had no concern about Obama declining to enforce DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Obama famously threatened he would flout congress with a pen and a phone. In addition, "...Obama... has harmed the separation of powers that the Founders so carefully delineated — bydelaying implementation of the Affordable Care Act; refusing to enforce federal drug laws under the guise of prosecutorial discretion; and effectively amending our immigration laws by not only delaying deportations but also granting status and benefits to people who have immigrated to the U.S. illegally. In doing so, he has positioned himself as a super-legislator with the power to override the law."
Indeed, if the Rule of Law is so important, why did the Left tell us that there is no presumption of innocence with Judge Kavanaugh? If the Rule of Law is so important, why does the Left continually trumpet Clinton winning the popular vote in 2016, when the law is the Electoral College?
And why does the Left continually take settled law to the courts to be overturned? Why do they continually delay the vote count until more votes are found? Why do they have sanctuary cities, deliberately designed to negate federal law?
So Dr. Reich's sudden concern for the Rule of Law rings hollow.
The “rule of law” distinguishes democracies from dictatorships. It’s based on three fundamental principles. Trump is violating every one of them.
The first is that no person is above the law, not even a president. Which means a president cannot stop an investigation into his alleged illegal acts. (Which he has not done.)
Yet in recent weeks Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, (Sessions was a member of the executive branch, and Trump can fire his employees at will.)
who at least had possessed enough integrity to recuse himself from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s possible collusion with Russia in the 2016 election. (Waaait. If Sessions had recused himself, what possible threat to the investigation does his firing represent?)
Trump replaced Sessions with an inexperienced loyalist hack, Matthew G. Whitaker, whose only distinction to date has been loud and public condemnation of that investigation. As a conservative legal commentator on CNN, Whitaker even suggested that a clever attorney general could secretly starve the investigation of funds. (No concern expressed for Obama hiring his own lackeys.)
There’s no question why Trump appointed Whitaker. When asked by the Daily Caller, Trump made it clear: “As far as I’m concerned this is an investigation that should have never been brought. It should have never been had…. It’s an illegal investigation.” (Trump has a right to his opinion, and a right to install whomever he chooses.)
The second principle of the rule of law is that a president cannot prosecute political opponents or critics. Decisions about whom to prosecute for alleged criminal wrongdoing must be made by prosecutors who are independent of politics. (Wow. Obama brought the IRS to bear on his political adversaries.)
Yet Trump has repeatedly pushed the Justice Department to bring charges against Hillary Clinton, his 2016 rival, for using a private email server when she was Secretary of State, in alleged violation of the Presidential Records Act. (And this is wrong in what way?)
During his campaign, Trump led crowds in chanting “lock her up,” called Clinton “crooked Hillary,” and threatened to prosecute her if he was elected president.
After taking office, according to the New York Times, Trump told White House counsel Donald McGahn he wanted the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton. McGahn responded that Trump didn’t have the authority to do so, and such action might even lead to impeachment.
Yet Trump has continued to press Justice Department officials – including Whitaker, when he served as Sessions’s chief of staff – about the status of Clinton-related investigations.
Never mind that Trump’s senior adviser and daughter, Ivanka Trump sent hundreds messages on her private email server to government employees and aides that detailed government business, policies, and proposals. Or that other Trump officials have used their private email to conduct official business as well. (What Ivanka did or didn't do is irrelevant to the Clinton illegality. And, do we need to point out that Clinton had classified info on her computer?)
Breaking the rule of law doesn’t require consistency. It requires only a thirst for power at whatever cost.
The third principle of the rule of law is that a president must be respectful of the independence of the judiciary.
Yet Trump has done the opposite, openly ridiculing judges who disagree with him in order to fuel public distrust of them – as he did when he called the judge who issued the first federal ruling against his travel ban a “so-called” judge. (Ridiculing judges is not the "opposite" of respecting the independence of the judiciary.)
Last week Trump referred derisively to the judge who put a hold on Trump’s plan for refusing to consider asylum applications an “Obama judge,” and railed against the entire ninth circuit. "You go the 9th Circuit and it’s a disgrace,” he said. He also issued a subtle threat: “It’s not going to happen like this anymore.“ (The fact that the 9th Circuit is a disgrace is apparently irrelevant. It is one of the most overturned courts in the country.)
In an unprecedented public rebuke of a sitting president, John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, condemned Trump’s attack. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” (So Roberts has a different opinion. Big deal.
There’s no question why Trump appointed Whitaker. When asked by the Daily Caller, Trump made it clear: “As far as I’m concerned this is an investigation that should have never been brought. It should have never been had…. It’s an illegal investigation.” (Trump has a right to his opinion, and a right to install whomever he chooses.)
The second principle of the rule of law is that a president cannot prosecute political opponents or critics. Decisions about whom to prosecute for alleged criminal wrongdoing must be made by prosecutors who are independent of politics. (Wow. Obama brought the IRS to bear on his political adversaries.)
Yet Trump has repeatedly pushed the Justice Department to bring charges against Hillary Clinton, his 2016 rival, for using a private email server when she was Secretary of State, in alleged violation of the Presidential Records Act. (And this is wrong in what way?)
During his campaign, Trump led crowds in chanting “lock her up,” called Clinton “crooked Hillary,” and threatened to prosecute her if he was elected president.
After taking office, according to the New York Times, Trump told White House counsel Donald McGahn he wanted the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton. McGahn responded that Trump didn’t have the authority to do so, and such action might even lead to impeachment.
Yet Trump has continued to press Justice Department officials – including Whitaker, when he served as Sessions’s chief of staff – about the status of Clinton-related investigations.
Never mind that Trump’s senior adviser and daughter, Ivanka Trump sent hundreds messages on her private email server to government employees and aides that detailed government business, policies, and proposals. Or that other Trump officials have used their private email to conduct official business as well. (What Ivanka did or didn't do is irrelevant to the Clinton illegality. And, do we need to point out that Clinton had classified info on her computer?)
Breaking the rule of law doesn’t require consistency. It requires only a thirst for power at whatever cost.
The third principle of the rule of law is that a president must be respectful of the independence of the judiciary.
Yet Trump has done the opposite, openly ridiculing judges who disagree with him in order to fuel public distrust of them – as he did when he called the judge who issued the first federal ruling against his travel ban a “so-called” judge. (Ridiculing judges is not the "opposite" of respecting the independence of the judiciary.)
Last week Trump referred derisively to the judge who put a hold on Trump’s plan for refusing to consider asylum applications an “Obama judge,” and railed against the entire ninth circuit. "You go the 9th Circuit and it’s a disgrace,” he said. He also issued a subtle threat: “It’s not going to happen like this anymore.“ (The fact that the 9th Circuit is a disgrace is apparently irrelevant. It is one of the most overturned courts in the country.)
In an unprecedented public rebuke of a sitting president, John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, condemned Trump’s attack. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” (So Roberts has a different opinion. Big deal.
And, no word from Dr. Reich about Roberts breaking decorum and criticizing a sitting president.)
Trump immediately shot back: “Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.” This was followed by another Trump threat: “Much talk over dividing up the 9th Circuit into 2 or 3 Circuits. Too big!” (The fact that Trump is right seems also to be irrelevant.)
Almost a half-century ago, another president violated these three basic principles of the rule of law, although not as blatantly as Trump. Richard Nixon tried to obstruct the Watergate investigation, pushed the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies, and took on the judiciary. (And, more than 80 years ago, another president attempted to pack the court with sympathetic justices in order to get the New Deal passed.)
But America wouldn’t allow it. The nation rose up in outrage. Nixon resigned before Congress impeached him.
The question is whether this generation of Americans will have the strength and wisdom to do the same.
Trump immediately shot back: “Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.” This was followed by another Trump threat: “Much talk over dividing up the 9th Circuit into 2 or 3 Circuits. Too big!” (The fact that Trump is right seems also to be irrelevant.)
Almost a half-century ago, another president violated these three basic principles of the rule of law, although not as blatantly as Trump. Richard Nixon tried to obstruct the Watergate investigation, pushed the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies, and took on the judiciary. (And, more than 80 years ago, another president attempted to pack the court with sympathetic justices in order to get the New Deal passed.)
But America wouldn’t allow it. The nation rose up in outrage. Nixon resigned before Congress impeached him.
The question is whether this generation of Americans will have the strength and wisdom to do the same.
(Dr. Reich doesn't care about the rule of law. His concern is political power, and what can be used to overturn a duly elected president.)
No comments:
Post a Comment