#Robert Kagan

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Zack Beauchamp at Vox:

I met Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), Donald Trump’s new choice for vice president, in the summer of 2022. I was covering a conservative conference in Israel, and Vance was the surprise VIP attraction. We chatted for a bit about the connections between right-wing movements across the world, and what American conservatives could learn from foreign peers. He was friendly, thoughtful, and smart — much smarter than the average politician I’ve interviewed. Yet his worldview is fundamentally incompatible with the basic principles of American democracy.

Vance has said that, had he been vice president in 2020, he would have carried out Trump’s scheme for the vice president to overturn the election results. He has fundraised for January 6 rioters. He once called on the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into a Washington Post columnist who penned a critical piece about Trump. After last week’s assassination attempt on Trump, he attempted to whitewash his radicalism by blaming the shooting on Democrats’ rhetoric about democracy without an iota of evidence. This worldview translates into a very aggressive agenda for a second Trump presidency. In a podcast interview, Vance said that Trump should “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat” in the US government and “replace them with our people.” If the courts attempt to stop this, Vance says, Trump should simply ignore the law. “You stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it,” he declares.

The President Jackson quote is likely apocryphal, but the history is real. Vance is referring to an 1832 case, Worcester v. Georgia, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the US government needed to respect Native legal rights to land ownership. Jackson ignored the ruling, and continued a policy of allowing whites to take what belonged to Natives. The end result was the ethnic cleansing of about 60,000 Natives — an event we now call the Trail of Tears. For most Americans, this history is a deep source of shame: an authoritarian president trampling on the rule of law to commit atrocities. For Vance, it is a well of inspiration. J.D. Vance is a man who believes that the current government is so corrupt that radical, even authoritarian steps, are justified in response. He sees himself as the avatar of America’s virtuous people, whose political enemies are interlopers scarcely worthy of respect. He is a man of the law who believes the president is above it.

[...] The Vance of Hillbilly Elegy was very different politically. Back then, he took a conventional conservative line on poverty, describing the working class as beset by a cultural pathology encouraged by federal handouts and the welfare state. 2016 Vance was also an ardent Trump foe. He wrote a New York Times op-ed titled “Mr. Trump Is Unfit For Our Nation’s Highest Office,” and wrote a text to his law school roommate warning that Trump might be “America’s Hitler.” Eight years later, Vance has metamorphosed into something else entirely. Today, he pitches himself as an economic populist and cosponsors legislation with Sen. Elizabeth Warren curtailing pay for failed bankers. In an even more extreme shift, he has morphed into one of Trump’s leading champions in the Senate — backing the former president to the hilt and even, at times, outpacing him in anti-democratic fervor.

[...] And it is clear that Vance is deeply ensconced in the GOP’s growing “national conservative” faction, which pairs an inconsistent economic populism with an authoritarian commitment to crushing liberals in the culture war. Vance has cited Curtis Yarvin, a Silicon Valley monarchist blogger, as the source of his ideas about firing bureaucrats and defying the Supreme Court. His Senate campaign was funded by Vance’s former employer, Peter Thiel, a billionaire who once wrote that “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” He’s a big fan of Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame professor who recently wrote a book calling for “regime change” in America. Vance spoke at an event for Deneen’s book in Washington, describing himself as a member of the “postliberal right” who sees his job in Congress as taking an “explicitly anti-regime” stance.

Vance is also an open admirer of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a right-wing politician who has systematically torn his country’s democracy apart. Vance praised Orbán’s approach to higher education in particular, saying he “made some smart decisions there that we could learn from in the United States.” The policies in question involve using national dollars to impose state controls over universities, turning them into vehicles for disseminating the government line.

Donald Trump's pick of J.D. Vance to be his ticketmate is about doubling down on MAGA authoritarianism and the "postliberal" worldview.

See Also:

The Dean's Report: JD Vance is worse and more dangerous than you know

The Guardian: JD Vance once worried Trump was ‘America’s Hitler’. Now his own authoritarian leanings come into view

[tomorrowusa]

Joy Reid, a liberal constitutionalist, finds agreement with Robert Kagan, a conservative constitutionalist, on the danger of another Trump term.

Casting an idiotic "protest vote" for an impotent third party could put the country in the hands of Mein Trumpf.

[contemplatingoutlander]

Trump’s anti-Ukraine view dates to the 1930s. America rejected it then. Will we now?

(Illustration: Brian Stauffer for The Washington Post)

This opinion column by Robert Kagan reminds us that history appears to be repeating itself. Trump's America First movement is an echo of the 1930s/1940s isolationist, neo-fascist America First movement that tried to keep the U.S. out of WWII. This is a gift🎁link, so you can read the entire article, even if you don't subscribe to The Washington Post. Below are some excerpts:

Many Americans seem shocked that Republicans would oppose helping Ukraine at this critical juncture in history....Clearly, people have not been taking Donald Trump’s resurrection of America First seriously. It’s time they did. The original America First Committee was founded in September 1940. Consider the global circumstances at the time. Two years earlier, Hitler had annexed Austria and invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia. One year earlier, he had invaded and conquered Poland. In the first months of 1940, he invaded and occupied Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. In early June 1940, British troops evacuated from Dunkirk, and France was overrun by the Nazi blitzkrieg. In September, the very month of the committee’s formation, German troops were in Paris and Edward R. Murrow was reporting from London under bombardment by the Luftwaffe. That was the moment the America First movement launched itself into the battle to block aid to Britain. [...] This “realism” meshed well with anti-interventionism. Americans had to respect “the right of an able and virile nation [i.e. Nazi Germany] to expand,” aviator Charles Lindbergh argued. [...] Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has called for the immediate reduction of U.S. force levels in Europe and the abrogation of America’s common-defense Article 5 commitments. He wants the United States to declare publicly that in the event of a “direct conflict” between Russia and a NATO ally, America will “withhold forces.” The Europeans need to know they can no longer “count on us like they used to.”  [...] Can Republicans really be returning to a 1930s worldview in our 21st-century world? The answer is yes. Trump’s Republican Party wants to take the United States back to the triad of interwar conservatism: high tariffs, anti-immigrant xenophobia, isolationism. According to Russ Vought, who is often touted as Trump’s likely chief of staff in a second term, it is precisely this “older definition of conservatism,” the conservatism of the interwar years, that they hope to impose on the nation when Trump regains power. [...] Like those of their 1930s forbears, today’s Republicans’ views of foreign policy are heavily shaped by what they consider the more important domestic battle against liberalism. Foreign policy issues are primarily weapons to be wielded against domestic enemies. [...] The GOP devotion to America First is merely the flip side of Trump’s “poison the blood” campaign. It is about the ascendancy of White Christian America and the various un-American ethnic and racial groups allegedly conspiring against it. [emphasis added]  

Use the gift link above to read the entire article. It is worth reading.

____________ Illustration: The above illustration by Brian Stauffer originally drew me to this article. It does a great job of succinctly illustrating the Trump GOP's rightward march towards isolationism (and Putin-style dictatorship). [edited]

[odinsblog]

The Supreme Court fundamentally altered the way that our federal government functions on Friday, transferring an almost unimaginable amount of power from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative supermajority overruled Chevron v. NRDC, wiping out four decades of precedent that required unelected judges to defer to the expert judgment of federal agencies. The ruling is extraordinary in every way—a massive aggrandizement of judicial power based solely on the majority’s own irritation with existing limits on its authority. After Friday, virtually every decision an agency makes will be subject to a free-floating veto by federal judges with zero expertise or accountability to the people. All at once, SCOTUS has undermined Congress’ ability to enact effective legislation capable of addressing evolving problems and sabotaged the executive branch’s ability to apply those laws to the facts on the ground. It is one of the most far-reaching and disruptive rulings in the history of the court.

In Chevron, the court unanimously announced an important principle of law that governed the nation until Friday: When a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of it. Why? Congress delegates countless important calls to agencies—directing the EPA, for instance, to limit harmful benzene emissions, rather than providing the precise formula to determine what level of benzene emissions is harmful to humans. Congress writes statutes broadly because it expects these agencies to respond to new facts and adjust their enforcement accordingly.

Crucially, these agencies are staffed with experts who have deep knowledge and experience in the area where Congress seeks to regulate. Such experts can understand and execute regulations more proficiently than federal judges, who are, at best, dilettantes in most fields of regulation. For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule. Moreover, most agencies are staffed with political appointees whom the president can appoint and remove at will. That makes them far more accountable to the citizenry than federal judges, who are guaranteed life tenure no matter how badly they butcher the law.

Since 1984, federal courts have applied Chevron in about 18,000 decisions in every conceivable area of the law: energy policy, education, food and drug safety, labor, the environment, consumer protection, finance, health care, housing, law enforcement—the list is pretty much endless. It has become the background principle against which Congress enacts all legislation.

That all ends now.

(continue reading)

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A small group of New Jersey herring fishermen landed a huge catch at the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday, writing for a 6-3 majority, significantly reeled in the power of federal regulators, tossing out a 40-year precedent on agency authority and a Commerce Department rule that the fishermen said could drive them out of business.

The opinion -- officially overturning a 1984 decision known as "Chevron" -- creates a big splash, making it much easier for businesses and other interests to challenge rules touching every aspect of American life from food inspections, workplace safety, tax collection, environmental regulation and more.

The case involved a regulation by the National Marine Fisheries Service ordering some commercial herring fishermen to pay the salaries of government observers federal law requires they carry aboard their vessels.

The law -- the Magnuson-Stevens Act -- does not spell out how the observers, who collect scientific data on the nation's fisheries, should be funded. The agency had argued the law's ambiguity supported its interpretation that the boat operators must pay in some instances.

Lower courts upheld the regulation citing the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, which held, in part, that courts should defer to the scientific and health experts at agencies when a law isn't clear, so long as their regulations are reasonable.

Roberts said that holding was an error and that judges, not bureaucrats, should interpret what an ambiguous law does or does not allow.

"Chevron is overruled," he wrote. "Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedures Act] requires."

"Careful attention to the judgement of the Executive Branch [agency] may inform that inquiring. And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it," Roberts continued. "But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous."

The ruling deals the biggest blow to the administrative state in a generation and hands a long-sought victory to conservative legal groups and business lobbyists who have spent years pushing for the court to strike down what is known as "Chevron deference" and rein in agency power.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision would cause a "massive shock to the legal system," since more than 17,000 disputes over federal regulations over the past 40 years have relied on the Chevron doctrine -- most decided in the government's favor.

The discarding of precedent, Kagan wrote, would supplant the expertise of subject-matter specialists at all levels of government.

"It gives courts the power to make all manner of scientific and technical judgments. It gives courts the power to make all manner of policy calls, including about how to weigh competing goods and values. It puts courts at the apex of the administrative process as to every conceivable subject," she wrote.

Public interest groups said tens of thousands of government rules could be called into question, touching everything from the environment to workplace safety to technology and health care.

"How far-reaching the decision is remains to be seen," said Gordon Todd, a Supreme Court litigator with Sidley and federal regulatory law expert. "The Court sought to minimize the retroactive impact of its decision by noting that prior decisions that relied on Chevron deference are themselves entitled to 'statutory stare decisis,' but it remains to be seen the extent to which such decisions remain valid."

"In the short-run we expect a significant increase in regulatory litigation, including challenges to existing regulations, ongoing rulemakings, and existing precedents," Todd said.

Jerry Masoudi, former chief counsel of the Food and Drug Administration, said the ruling was a dramatic shift in the balance of power between agencies and courts.

"These decisions will not affect FDA's case-by-case decisions on scientific issues, like product approvals," Masoudi said in a statement, "but rules underlying these processes may be open to broader challenge."

Environmental groups were particularly alarmed by the Supreme Court's decision, warning that scientific experts could now be overridden by judges with little familiarity with the subjects they are addressing.

"The American people really rely on our public institutions to put protections in place for clean air and water, for, our health and our children's health, for safe and secure homes and businesses. And what this really means is that our ability to rely on expertise and science to make those decisions and put those protections in place is really in jeopardy now," said Meredith Moore, the director of the Fish Conservation Program at the Ocean Conservancy, in an interview with ABC News.

"What we're going to see is lots and lots of lawsuits, taking on everything that the government does from health and safety to the environment to tech issues like AI and our cybersecurity," Moore added.

As for the herring fishermen, one practical impact of the ruling means they will be spared a potential fee of up to $700 a day.

"Today's restoration of the separation of powers is a victory for small, family-run businesses like ours, whether they're involved in fishing, farming, or retail," said Bill Bright, a third generation herring fisherman in Cape May, New Jersey, and plaintiff in the case.

"Congress never authorized industry-funded monitoring in the herring fishery. And agency efforts to impose such funding hurts our ability to make an honest living. Nothing is more important than protecting the livelihoods of our families and crews."

[lefthandedbastard]

all of these are true of me! check the tags for the us supreme court justices if you dont want to look them up

[gwydionmisha]

Justice Kagan calls for a way to enforce Supreme Court ethics code

[michaelcoffeysthoughts]

Columbo: Season 2 (1972-73)

This is a very good season that keeps up the quality from its predecessor. The stories are consistently engaging and allow for some new perspectives on the Columbo character. After establishing the formula in season 1, this season gets to experiment with the stories and settings in ways that keep things exciting while retaining the series' core elements. The guest cast remains excellent, with a nice mix of classic Hollywood veterans and rising talent, while Falk's easy charisma is always a treat. The visuals keep the style of the first season and allows the murder plots and the humor to be more distinct from other mystery shows. This is a great season that works as a nice expansion of the series so far.

Episodes Ranked:

8.The Greenhouse Jungle

7.Dagger of the Mind

6.The Most Crucial Game

5.The Most Dangerous Match

4.Requiem for a Fallen Star

3.Double Shock

2.A Stitch in Crime

1.Étude in Black

[tomorrowusa]

If you hear Republicans claiming that Trump was just joking about being a dictator, ask them this:

What would be your reaction if Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Gavin Newsom started talking about being dictators?

Trump's lickspittles continue to make excuses for his proposed totalitarianism and even push the envelope further.

MAGA Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio is asking the Department of Justice to investigate Robert Kagan of the Washington Post because Kagan wrote that Democratic office holders should wage legal resistance against Trump if the latter returns to power. The irony is that Kagan is a G.H.W. Bush style conservative who served in the Reagan-era State Department. Vance is helping to prove that worry about a Trump dictatorship is well placed.

Trump's dictator babblings could backfire on him in the upcoming DC prosecution where he's being charged with attempting to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Prosecutors could point to his dictator comments as an indication that he's still trying to overturn the rule of law.

[contemplatingoutlander]

Jamelle Bouie does a good job of underscoring just how fed up Justice Elena Kagan is with the decisions coming from the right-wing justices on the court, and why she questions the constitutionality of Roberts' majority opinion in Biden v. Nebraska (the student loan forgiveness case). Here are some excerpts from Bouie's NY Times newsletter:

But I don’t want to discuss Roberts’s majority opinion [in Biden v. Nebraska] as much as I do Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent. Kagan wrote something unusual. She didn’t just challenge the chief justice’s reasoning, she questioned whether the court’s decision was even constitutional. “From the first page to the last, today’s opinion departs from the demands of judicial restraint,” Kagan wrote. “At the behest of a party that has suffered no injury, the majority decides a contested public policy issue properly belonging to the politically accountable branches and the people they represent.” She continued: “That is a major problem not just for governance, but for democracy too. Congress is of course a democratic institution; it responds, even if imperfectly, to the preferences of American voters. And agency officials, though not themselves elected, serve a President with the broadest of all political constituencies. But this Court? It is, by design, as detached as possible from the body politic. That is why the Court is supposed to stick to its business — to decide only cases and controversies, and to stay away from making this Nation’s policy about subjects like student-loan relief.” The court, Kagan concluded, “exercises authority it does not have. It violates the Constitution.” [...] Kagan’s dissent, in other words, is a call for accountability. For Congress, especially, to exercise its authority to discipline the court when it oversteps its bounds. Democrats may or may not get this particular message. But John Roberts heard it loud and clear. “It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,” he wrote in his opinion. “It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.” For Roberts, the problem isn’t that the Supreme Court is overstepping its bounds, it’s that one of its justices has decided that she’s had enough. [emphasis added]

[thescreamingwall]

Decent haul of books from Canty’s this weekend

[mrdirtybear]

‘Man in a Bowler Hat (Portrait of Yakov Kagan-Shabshai)’ as painted by Russian painter Robert  Rafaelovich Falk (1886-1958). Please left click here for more information about this artist and this picture. I think that the floor is brilliant in this painting...

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed likely to uphold a federal law that bans gun possession for anyone subject to a domestic violence court order. If so, the decision would be a small retreat from the court's sweeping decision on gun rights last year.

From the outset Tuesday, the Justices wrestled with the consequences of their far-reaching 2022 decision, declaring that in order for a gun law to be constitutional, it has to be analogous to a law that existed at the nation's founding in the late 1700s. The question Tuesday was how precise that analog has to be.

DANGEROUS VS. RESPONSIBLE

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, told the Justices that under the court's most recent decisions, including last year's, Congress may disarm those who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens.

"There is no historical evidence" that the Second Amendment "was originally understood to prevent legislatures from disarming dangerous individuals," she said.

But, as several Justices noted, people do all kinds of irresponsible things — driving over the speed limit, putting the trash out on the wrong day — but nobody would suggest they lose their constitutional rights for that. Pressed by Chief Justice John Roberts, Prelogar agreed that the word responsible is "something of a placeholder for dangerousness."

"There's no daylight at all then between not responsible and dangerous?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked. No daylight, Prelogar agreed, adding that "our understanding of what history and tradition reflect ... is those whose possession of firearms presents an unusual danger beyond the ordinary citizen."

"Why did you use the term 'responsible' if what you meant was dangerous?" Roberts asked.

"Well, we relied on the same phrasing the Court itself used when it first articulated" the right to bear arms principle in 2008, she replied.

Most of the Court's conservatives seemed to accept that proposition, with only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas remaining skeptical. Thomas was the author of last year's broad decision — a decision so expansive and unspecific that the lower courts have interpreted it in dramatically different ways. As Justice Elena Kagan observed, "There seems to be a fair bit of division, and a fair bit of confusion about what Bruen [last year's case] means and what Bruen requires of the lower courts."

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

Challenging the federal law in Tuesday's case was Zackey Rahimi. A Texas judge stripped him of his license to have guns when it granted a domestic violence court order after Rahimi allegedly assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot, and then fired a gun at a bystander who saw the assault. After he continued firing guns in public, even after the court order, police searched his residence and found guns, magazines and ammunition. He was sentenced to six years in prison for violating the federal law that bans domestic abusers under court order from possessing guns.

Rahimi, however, continued to press his challenge to the federal law, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, declared the law unconstitutional.

Rahimi's lawyer, federal public defender Matthew Wright, struggled to defend that decision Tuesday, telling the Justices there is no law from the founding era that is analogous to this one.

"There's no history of [gun] bans. They don't exist," Wright told the court.

Justice Kagan asked if the presence of a similar ban at the time of the founding is essential after the court's decision last year in the Bruen case. If there isn't a similar ban from the founding era, "we say that the government has no right to do anything?" she asked incredulously.

"That's largely what Bruen says," Wright replied.

Wright also maintained that those accused of domestic violence have few protections in court prior to being slapped with a ban on guns.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wasn't buying that, noting that Rahimi's ex-girlfriend "did submit a sworn affidavit giving quite a lot of detail about the various threats. It's not like he just showed up and the judge said 'credible finding of violence.'"

Roberts was even more direct, asking, "You don't have any doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?"

Wright replied, "I would want to know what dangerous person means."

"Someone who is shooting at people," Roberts shot back.

"That's fair," a sheepish Wright conceded.

Kagan followed up: "Do you think the Congress could disarm people who are mentally ill, who've been committed to mental institutions?"

"I think maybe," Wright answered, prompting this from Kagan: "I will tell you the honest truth, Mr. Wright. I feel like you are running away from your argument because the implications of your argument are just so untenable that you have to say 'no, that is not really my argument.'"

Indeed, the Court's decision in the Rahimi case will have ripple effects. It may make lower courts more hesitant to strike down laws aimed at preventing dangerous people from having guns.

But as several Justices said Tuesday, this is the easy case. The harder ones lie ahead, among them: federal and state laws that bar convicted felons — even those convicted of non-violent crimes — from having guns.