The powers of the president will not be questioned
Aaron Blake at the Post on Stephen Miller’s attempt to bully us all into silence:
Senior White House policy adviser Stephen Miller made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows over the weekend, and his comments about voter fraud have earned him justifiably dim reviews. The Washington Post’s Philip Bump and Fact Checker Glenn Kessler dealt with those claims in depth.
But amid all the baseless and false statements about electoral integrity, Miller did something even more controversial: He expanded upon his boss’s views of whether judges are allowed to question President Trump’s authority. And at one point, Miller even said Trump’s national security decisions “will not be questioned.”
Blake provides the transcript:
Here’s the key exchange, with “Face the Nation’s” John Dickerson (emphasis added):
DICKERSON: When I talked to Republicans on the Hill, they wonder, what in the White House — what have you all learned from this experience with the executive order?
MILLER: Well, I think that it’s been an important reminder to all Americans that we have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become, in many cases, a supreme branch of government. One unelected judge in Seattle cannot remake laws for the entire country. I mean this is just crazy, John, the idea that you have a judge in Seattle say that a foreign national living in Libya has an effective right to enter the United States is — is — is beyond anything we’ve ever seen before.
The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.
Does nobody in Trump’s administration even know what the judiciary is?
“Will not be questioned.” That is an incredible claim to executive authority — and one we can expect to hear plenty more about. Trump has beaten around this bush plenty, yes. But Miller just came out and said it: that the White House doesn’t recognize judges’ authority to review things such as his travel ban.
Oh well I don’t think Trump was beating around any bushes; I think he came right out and said it too. “So-called judge” is pretty clear.
Miller clarified the threats somewhat though:
And on “Fox News Sunday”: “This is a judicial usurpation of the power. It is a violation of judges’ proper roles in litigating disputes. We will fight it. And we will make sure that we take action to keep from happening in the future what’s happened in the past.”
So…that will be a coup then? That’s what they’re telling us? On the Sunday talk shows?
Miller seemed to be serving notice Sunday that the administration thinks the courts should play no role in reviewing any of Trump’s decisions related to national security.
That makes even some Republicans uneasy.
“I mean, obviously, the president wants to keep the country safe. I recognize that. I think everybody does, and I applaud him for trying to do so,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said on “Face the Nation” after Miller’s appearance. “But, obviously, it needs to be constitutional, and it needs to be wise.”
Miller is basically arguing that it doesn’t need to be constitutional — or, more specifically, that anything Trump decides to do when it comes to national security is inherently constitutional, regardless of whether it targets a specific religion or anything else.
That is a massive claim to power. And it apparently won’t be the first time Trump’s White House attempts to claim it.
I think he meant it won’t be the last time – and it clearly won’t.
Do Trump supporters buy this? Do they really think that presidents, all presidents, should have unquestionable authority that is not subject to judicial review?
Would they have been OK with Obama having unquestionable authority that was not subject to judicial review? Are they OK with whoever comes after Trump[0] – Republican or Democrat – having unquestionable authority that will not be subject to judicial review?
OK, I get that Trump supporters are angry, are disillusioned by “politics as usual”, and want to risk the devil they don’t know over the ones they know have fucked them over all too well for however many decades it is now, but I can’t believe they’re all this fucking stupid or short-sighted, are they?
And yes, Obama supporters were probably disappointed with a number of court rulings over the course of his administration, and in some cases thought that the courts had ruled incorrectly, but, as far as I’m aware, no high-profile Obama supporters claimed that the courts didn’t have the authority to rule at all.
[0] Assuming that the US government still exists in a recognisable form in the future – which is starting to look less and less certain. OK, I’m still giving it odds of 99%, rather than 99.9%, but that 0.9% is a big deal.
This is a misstatement of what the judges actually did say, though. What they are actually saying is that Trump simply can’t just write an order banning people from certain countries. That isn’t the same as saying that anyone has a right to enter this country.
This is the talking points of all the pundits, but I have seen little evidence that these people have been “fucked over” any more than the Hillary voters (or even as much), that they have all that much to complain about, or that their anger is justified. They are angry because some people they don’t like, who don’t look like them, are being given opportunities they don’t think they should have. They are being stoked in this by a news media (Fox news in particular) that manages to present that image, while dismissing all “angry” women or “angry” people of color by just calling them “angry” and saying that isn’t the way to win votes.
Many Trump voters have been the opposite of fucked over by the government. The farmers in my area have managed to control powerful committees for many years, and as a result, it becomes very difficult to make reforms in farm subsidies or in grazing fees. A number of them have gotten rich by grazing animals on government land at very low cost, and in many cases, renting those permits to other individuals for a much larger fee, turning the permit holders into millionaires at the expense of taxpayers. These people have a louder voice in Congress, because they have a disproportionately large representation compared to their population. And every commentator out there seems to say that’s a good thing. Why, if you did away with the electoral college, the folks in California, New York, and Texas would control a lot more oft the politics – some of them come right out and admit that they don’t want the majority controlling the country, because the majority are in cities, and not the noble, wholesome, honorable, family-values oriented Midwest farmers and ranchers. And if you think that description really fits flyover country? You have probably never done much but fly over or fly through. There is as much nastiness, corruption, venality, hatred, and so forth, here in these small Midwestern cities as you will find anywhere else – overlain with a shitload of bigotry and intolerance, and covered with a polite smile and a tip of the hat when a “lady” passes by.
“But, obviously, it needs to be constitutional, and it needs to be wise.”
I’m sorry, were you talking about THIS administration?
HAHAHAHAHA!
It’s a cliche that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but now it is precisely the point. Those Trump supporters who really have no idea how their federal government actually works (and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that it’s probably most of them, otherwise he couldn’t have won the nomination or the presidency) are going to believe Trump and his mouthpieces about what is and is not legal, and what is or is not possible. Trump alone is powerless, but he has the support of lots of people who would let him get away with whatever he wants to do, because he’s claiming to do it for “the (white) people.” The future of your country and (to a much greater extent than it should be) the world depends on the coming struggle between those who would bypass the Constitution and those who would defend it.
This is the United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment:
“I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
I am hoping more and more that the members of the US military have a clear understanding of their pledge to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies and that the President whose orders they are sworn to follow should perhaps now be considered a domestic enemy. Do military personnel receive civics courses as part of their indoctrination? Are they instructed on how to determine what would constitute an illegal order?
I sure hope this horrible, ignorant windbag gets sent packing sooner rather than later and that Americans take their country back from him. This is frightening shit.
@iknklast: OK, do you think it might be fair to say that a lot of Trump voters feel like they’ve been fucked over by both sides of the aisle for a long time now, no matter if that feeling is justified or not, irrespective of how their actual economic status may have changed during that time, and without conceding that the positions of those two sides are in any way “the same”?
yes, I agree that they feel like they’ve been fucked over. That’s one reason why we need to keep repeating that they have not. It won’t get through to them, but it might help with all those lefties who feel sorry for them, because they are willing to believe that these poor white males who control the money and the property have been harmed by all these strong arm women and people of color who have forcefully ripped something out of their arms – point out that they are still carrying what they claim has been stolen.