Althouse: "Thirty-one percent (31%) say the Supreme Court does not put enough limitations on what the government can do."

February 26, 2015

"Thirty-one percent (31%) say the Supreme Court does not put enough limitations on what the government can do."

"This finding is down five points from last June but is still higher than the 27% who felt this way in September 2013. Just 14% say it puts too many limitations on government instead. Thirty-eight percent (38%) says the balance is about right. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure."

73 comments:

Krumhorn said...: I've always believed that the Supreme Court has been far too deferential to the federal lawmakers when analyzing commerce clause issues. Every big government intrusion into our lives starts there.

At this stage, there is little else over which local government has complete dominion except for alternate side street parking when the brush truck comes through.

- Krumhorn; 2/26/15, 1:20 PM
damikesc said...: I want them to start killing laws for being too vague. We don't elect bureaucrats and since we abandoned the spoils system, these little Napoleons are unanswerable to anybody.; 2/26/15, 1:23 PM
bleh said...: What does the man on the street think about quantum physics?; 2/26/15, 1:26 PM
Nonapod said...: I'm guessing at least 70% of the respondents actually have very little to no knowledge of what the Supreme Court does anyways.; 2/26/15, 1:28 PM
Revenant said...: Thirty-one percent (31%) say the Supreme Court does not put enough limitations on what the government can do.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) are ignorant assholes.; 2/26/15, 1:28 PM
American Liberal Elite said...: Just calling balls and strikes.; 2/26/15, 1:30 PM
Simon said...: What's really frightening in those poll numbers is that one in four Democrats now think that Mr. Roberts may make his decision and let him enforce it.

One in four Democrats now think that the court could decide Brown v. Board but lacked power to insist on that decision.

One in four Democrats now think that the court could decide the steel seizure case, but the President should have been able to ignore them and seize the mills anyway.

Think about that.; 2/26/15, 1:30 PM
traditionalguy said...: The poll is about stopping Government which is assumed to be the pre-obama one that had checks and balances built in.

Those days are gone with the wind. Executive Rule by a President without the House of Representatives vote is a return to the Middle Ages with Kings and Popes having the real power.; 2/26/15, 1:36 PM
Todd said...: Most people only care about this sort of thing when their ox is getting gored. Some of us care about it much more.

I would prefer if the two elected branches of government were more afraid of the supremes and I wish the supremes would slap them down more.

I know you get the government you deserve but individually, we can only do so much!; 2/26/15, 1:49 PM
damikesc said...: Hmm, Obama is trying to ban bullets by executive action.

Time to see if anybody is going to fight for checks and balances or if our idiot king can do whatever he wants.; 2/26/15, 1:49 PM
damikesc said...: I would prefer if the two elected branches of government were more afraid of the supremes and I wish the supremes would slap them down more.

At this point, burn the whole thing down and rebuild.

The Supremes will do whatever Congress wants. Congress doesn't give a shit what the voters want.

Just quit. Fuck everything.; 2/26/15, 1:50 PM
MeatPopscicle1234 said...: They're going to keep squeezing the vice bit by bit, and either people do nothing, so they win, or people get pissed-off enough to take up arms, in which case they roll out the full-on martial law they've been preparing for, and they still win. In either case, we are well and proper fucked.; 2/26/15, 2:01 PM
Delayna said...: Maybe, Joshua, maybe. I wish they would all--simultaneously--wake up in a cold sweat, after having a revelation that the same Constitution they have been tearing down (that thing that is supposed to protect OUR rights) is the only thing that was protecting THEM from US.

It would not only be a wonderful thing if they started putting the Republic back together, it would be hilarious to watch.; 2/26/15, 2:20 PM
Carl said...: In closely related news, 35% of those surveyed say the sun doesn't shine enough, 29% say it shines too much, and 35% say it's about right. (Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.); 2/26/15, 2:42 PM
Simon said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/26/15, 2:45 PM
Simon said...: damikesc said...
"Hmm, Obama is trying to ban bullets by executive action."

No. The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, bans the "manufacture or import [of] armor piercing ammunition." 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(7). In turn, the Act excludes from its definition of armor-piercing ammunition those "projectile[s] which the Attorney General finds [are] primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes...." 18 U.S.C. § (a)(17)(C). You could scarcely have picked a worse position to defend than the absurd notion that it is executive overreach for the Attorney General to exercise an authority that Congress has explicitly vested in him.; 2/26/15, 2:46 PM
Matt said...: So people want a government branch that has members with no term limits and can't be affected by voters to control government? In short, people want a monarchy telling us how the government should be run. What was this country founded upon again? I forget. Long live the Kings and Queens....; 2/26/15, 2:48 PM
Larry J said...: Matt said...
So people want a government branch that has members with no term limits and can't be affected by voters to control government? In short, people want a monarchy telling us how the government should be run. What was this country founded upon again? I forget. Long live the Kings and Queens....

Actually, I'd just like for the Supreme Court to actually read the Constitution and strike down laws that plainly violate it. Take, for example, the civil forfeiture laws that allow police agencies to seize property from citizens without any legal process. People then have to go through long and expensive proceedings to try and get their property back. The Constitution plainly states that people "can not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The words aren't vague and are easily understood. Declaring the civil forfeiture laws unconstitutional should be a slam dunk, and yet, those laws still exist. Why is that?; 2/26/15, 3:11 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Simon,

But the AG hasn't specified why the change in posture wrt the ammunition in question. Have criminals taken up this ammunition? Are police being killed by it? There doesn't seem to be much, if anything, in the way of actual, y'know, evidence here.; 2/26/15, 3:19 PM
Hagar said...: There actually are a few handguns that fires .223 ammunition, but none that cost less than $1000, and no cops have been shot at with one of these yet.

The "armor piercing" bit for handguns is bogus anyway; any actual armor piercing ammunition is going to be way too hot for a handgun.
This has its roots in some advertising for "armor piercing ammo" some decades ago, which the media of course got in fell for and made an uproar about, but there really ain't no such thing.; 2/26/15, 3:33 PM
damikesc said...: No. The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, bans the "manufacture or import [of] armor piercing ammunition." 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(7). In turn, the Act excludes from its definition of armor-piercing ammunition those "projectile[s] which the Attorney General finds [are] primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes...." 18 U.S.C. § (a)(17)(C). You could scarcely have picked a worse position to defend than the absurd notion that it is executive overreach for the Attorney General to exercise an authority that Congress has explicitly vested in him.

...except the rounds are never fired from guns capable of actually piercing armor and are, instead, fired from one of the most popular rifles sold in the USA for several years.

Literally no evidence was provided (or exists) to justify the change. Millions of rounds of it fired and nobody can point to ONE fired at a law enforcement person.

The guns that would cause police problems cost quite a bit of money.

They are not fired by criminals but by target shooters.

Try and do better.; 2/26/15, 3:33 PM
tim maguire said...: How did the number drop 5%? What's the court done in the last year to renew people's faith?

As Revnant said, there is no justification for the level of deference the court shows the government.; 2/26/15, 3:36 PM
Bob Ellison said...: I fired a few rounds from a .223 rifle. Man, that thing was loud. Tiny bore with a giant sound.

Most people, including me, have very little knowledge of guns. They mostly don't know a shotgun from a rifle or a .44 from a .38.; 2/26/15, 3:41 PM
damikesc said...: As Revnant said, there is no justification for the level of deference the court shows the government.

There's also no justification for the deference the government pays the court.

Why the fuck would a Congressperson or a President pass a bill that they BELIEVE is unconstitutional because the courts will overturn it.

It's when Bush lost me. He signed McCain/Feingold because he felt the courts would overturn the "bad" parts.; 2/26/15, 3:41 PM
Hagar said...: And there is no .223 ammunition that carries even as much energy as a 30-30; considered the minimum recommended for deer hunting.; 2/26/15, 3:42 PM
Simon said...: Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
"But the AG hasn't specified why the change in posture wrt the ammunition in question."

Sure, but that isn't isn't a question executive overreach in the sense he's talking about, it's a claim of arbitrary and capricious agency action under the APA. One could also argue that there's a non-delegation problem too (a tough claim to press, methinks, but not inconceivable), but that, too, isn't a question of executive overreach overreach. I'm not necessarily defending the change, I'm just saying it's a pretty odd citation for that point.; 2/26/15, 3:42 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Most people also have no idea of the distinction between semi-automatic (e.g. almost every gun on the planet) and fully automatic (mostly illegal in the USA since 1934).

That's a problem.; 2/26/15, 3:44 PM
Simon said...: damikesc said...
"Literally no evidence was provided (or exists) to justify the change"

Which is irrelevant, because as I've just replied in a separate comment to Michelle, that's a claim of arbitrary and capricious agency action under the APA, not a claim of executive overreach in the sense that you mean.

(Of course, in a certain sense, any claim of arbitrary and capricious exercise of regulatory authority can be conceptualized as executive overreach, but that wasn't the sense of your comment.); 2/26/15, 3:47 PM
damikesc said...: Which is irrelevant, because as I've just replied in a separate comment to Michelle, that's a claim of arbitrary and capricious agency action under the APA, not a claim of executive overreach in the sense that you mean.

This isn't a rogue agency doing this.

Obama is behind this.

He couldn't get ANY gun control passed so he's taking backdoor ways to do what he wants.

Funny: People keep claiming that his opponents are paranoid yet their "paranoid" concerns always seem to be accurate.; 2/26/15, 4:01 PM
Revenant said...: Why the fuck would a Congressperson or a President pass a bill that they BELIEVE is unconstitutional because the courts will overturn it.

Politicians get elected by pandering to voters, not by obeying the law.; 2/26/15, 4:02 PM
Revenant said...: The law restricts handgun ammunition of certain compositions. The .223 ammunition in question is (a) rifle ammunition and (b) not of the required composition.

On point (a), the feds decided to pretend that since there exist certain exotic handguns that fire .223, it is handgun ammunition. On point (b) they are opting simply to ignore the law.

So yes, it is executive overreach, people's Orwellian language preferences notwithstanding.; 2/26/15, 4:09 PM
damikesc said...: Politicians get elected by pandering to voters, not by obeying the law.

In the case of McCain/Feingold, voters never cared about campaign finance. The only ones who cared were the media (who got a ton of power) and progressive groups who tended to be exempt from the regulations.; 2/26/15, 4:11 PM
Known Unknown said...: Cruel Net Neutrality is upon us.; 2/26/15, 4:13 PM
Jimmy said...: the legal system in this country is a whore for people with money, celebrity or political power.
It is certainly not about Justice or the constitution. It is about enabling elites to do what they want.
Lawyers and judges are wonderful at making it seem to be otherwise.
It is in reality political, capricious, and vindictive.
Since obama has become president, the courts, particularly the so called 'high' court, are all doing their best step and fetchit imitation.
Sad, pathetic, and hypocritical.
separation of powers my ass-; 2/26/15, 4:13 PM
David said...: damikesc said...
As Revnant said, there is no justification for the level of deference the court shows the government.

There's also no justification for the deference the government pays the court.

And precious little justification for acting as if the Court and the government are something separate. The Court is part of the government, and thus subject to the same type of foibles as any other government institution. Thus checks and balances.; 2/26/15, 4:14 PM
Simon said...: damikesc said...
"This isn't a rogue agency doing this. Obama is behind this."

Who said otherwise?

"He couldn't get ANY gun control passed so he's taking backdoor ways to do what he wants."

Who said otherwise?

Outrage blinds and deafens; you're not listening. You're trying to make an argument that Obama is engaging in an enormous act of executive overreach to "ban bullets" in the absence of legislation, to make ersatz legislation that bans these bullets. That's the gravamen of your comments, and the narrative is, at best, misleading, for reasons that I'm trying to explain to you. This is not the President legislating without legislation; the legislation exists. Congress has banned a certain category of ammunition, subject to exemptions at the discretion of the AG (who is the President's agent and is subject to Presidential control). The AG has customarily exercised his discretion to exempt a certain kind of bullet; now the AG is exercising his discretion to reclassify that bullet such that it is no longer exempted from the legislation. The claim that that's "executive overreach," that it's King Obama or legislation by the President, is utterly preposterous.

Now, perhaps that reclassification is problematic for some other reason, as Michelle pointed out. You may well have a very good APA claim against the AG. And yes, as I've said, in a certain sense one might classify any § 706 claim as being one of government overreach. But that's just not the sense in which your comments have used the term.; 2/26/15, 4:27 PM
tim maguire said...: The complaint about deference goes to "checks and balances"--the court is limiting it's role as a check without any constitutional direction to do so.; 2/26/15, 4:28 PM
James Pawlak said...: I will"believe" in SCOTUS when: It fully enforces the "shall not be infringed" clause of the Second Amendment; Returns to the intent of the Founders as to the "free exercise of religion" clause of the First Amendment; Declares that the intent and purpose of the 14th Amendment was ONLY to provide the then recently freed slaves with a minimum of political rights and NOT to allow judges to mutilate and amend the Constitution without going through its internal provisions for change AND, therefore, enforce the Tenth Amdendment.; 2/26/15, 4:29 PM
mccullough said...: It's amusing to watch Obama in action these days.

He's an ideologue and has always been one. His pragmatism has been to pretend otherwise.

Time for the Court to stick it to him.; 2/26/15, 4:29 PM
Revenant said...: Thus checks and balances.

There are very few checks left on the legislative branch and effectively none on the executive branch. We can thank judicial deference for much of that.; 2/26/15, 4:29 PM
traditionalguy said...: Obama does everything now to destroy as much of the American way of life possible over his last 20 months.

Obama is angry. He will do nothing good for us and everything as bad as he can. What will we do. Refuse to elect Mrs Bill Clinton?

obama sees this as Gotterdamerung for the evil Jew Loving World hegemony that dared to took down sacred Communism and send out Christian missionaries.; 2/26/15, 4:30 PM
mccullough said...: James,

Careful what you wish for. If the 14th Amendment is as limited as you believe, any state can outlaw religion or prohibit the free exercise of it. The Bill of Rights has only applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.; 2/26/15, 4:32 PM
Hagar said...: That is actually what the 1st Amendment says in plain English: Congress shall not ...."

And since the Executive is to execute the laws as passed by Congress and no others, that is what it says.
Justice Black set the amendment on its head, when he insisted it authorised the Federal Gov't to mess with local religious practices all over the country.; 2/26/15, 4:38 PM
Simon said...: Or as Justice Jackson put it in the steel seizure case, to which I alluded earlier: "When the President [or his agent] acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate." This is not the President legislating without legislation; the legislation exists. It has been held in abeyance from a certain subset of bullets by the discretion of the AG (discretion conferred by the Act itself), who is now exercising his discretion to expose that subset of bullets to the strictures of the Act. If you want to tilt at that windmill, be my guest.; 2/26/15, 4:38 PM
Big Mike said...: All I know is that I'd feel a lot better about the current composition of the Supreme Court if Elena Kagan hadn't referenced "One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish" in her recent opinion. I'm sure she thought she was being humorous, but I wonder whether she's taking her job as justice very seriously.; 2/26/15, 4:42 PM
Revenant said...: It fully enforces the "shall not be infringed" clause of the Second Amendment; Returns to the intent of the Founders as to the "free exercise of religion" clause of the First Amendment; Declares that the intent and purpose of the 14th Amendment was ONLY to provide the then recently freed slaves with a minimum of political rights and NOT to allow judges to mutilate and amend the Constitution without going through its internal provisions for change

I have to ask: you do realize that following through on the third request would mean that the first request wouldn't apply to state-level gun restrictions, right?; 2/26/15, 4:46 PM
Revenant said...: And since the Executive is to execute the laws as passed by Congress and no others, that is what it says. Justice Black set the amendment on its head, when he insisted it authorised the Federal Gov't to mess with local religious practices all over the country.

Be that as it may, I suspect that most conservatives don't realize that (for example) it would be entirely legal for Oregon to force Christians to perform gay marriage ceremonies under an originalist interpretation of the first amendment.; 2/26/15, 4:55 PM
damikesc said...: discretion of the AG (who is the President's agent and is subject to Presidential control).

The AG is not the President's attorney. They do not work for the President.; 2/26/15, 4:59 PM
Hagar said...: Quite so. Then shoulder your rifle and move on to a state whose laws suit you better.; 2/26/15, 5:00 PM
Hagar said...: Or, if you insist that incorporation means that the States are subject to the same limitations as the Federal Gov't, Oregon could not pass any such legislation as you propose, either.; 2/26/15, 5:06 PM
Simon said...: Hagar said...
"And since the Executive is to execute the laws as passed by Congress and no others, that is what it says."

No, the "executive power" of the United States is vested in the President. "[T]his does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power." Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 705 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). It does not mean simply the power to carry into execution the laws that Congress passes, but rather all that "the executive power" was understood to comprise in 1787. Thus, as Professor Calabresi, FedSoc's godfather, wrote some two decades ago: "The Vesting Clause of Article III is widely conceded to be a general grant of power to the federal judiciary; indeed, it is conceded to be the only textual constitutional source of the federal judiciary's authority to act ... Accordingly, it makes sense to read the analogously worded Vesting Clause of Article II to be a general grant of power given that its Article III counterpart must be so read." The President's Power To Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L.J. 541, 571 (1994).

The important question is whether the Framers would have understood the phrase 'the executive power,' the Commander-in-Chief Clause, as continuing in the president powers that had traditionally belonged to British and colonial executives," John Yoo, Unitary, Executive, or Both, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1935, 1977 (2009), and for decades, the conservative legal movement has been in the business of explaining that the answer is yes. Thus, for example, "when the Framers ratified the Constitution, they would have understood that Article II, § 1 continued the Anglo-American constitutional tradition of locating the foreign affairs power generally in the executive branch," id., at 1984, save as confined and sapped by other priovisions in the Constitution. "Under the English system, ... the Crown’s powers over foreign affairs arose from its executive power. This was also the terminology of American writers and political leaders immediately before, during, and after the Constitution’s ratification. Hence, in 1787, when the Constitution provided that the President would have 'the executive Power,' that would have been understood to mean not only that the President would have the power to execute the laws (the primary and essential meaning of 'executive power'), but also that the President would have foreign affairs powers," albeit "residual [in character], encompassing only those executive foreign affairs powers not allocated elsewhere by the Constitution’s text." Prakash & Ramsey, Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, 111 Yale L.J. 231, 253 (2001) (footnote omitted); see Calabresi, The Vesting Clauses as Power Grants, 88 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 377 (1992).

That is why, for example, it was necessary for the Fifth Amendment to limit the executive's use of the power of eminent domain: That power is nowhere granted explicitly by the Constitution. He has it because it is an incident of the executive power, traditionally-understood.

What is dizzying about this debate is that I had exactly these same arguments a decade ago, only then it was Democrats who were on the other side of it, and Republicans were all too happy to side with the Federalist Society's conservative constitutionalism. How times have changed!; 2/26/15, 5:25 PM
Simon said...: damikesc said...
"The AG is not the President's attorney. They do not work for the President."

The AG is an officer of the United States. Like all executive officers, he is the agent of the President, for whom he works and by whom he is controlled and may be fired. This is unitary executive 101. It's almost surreal to be having this conversation again, only last time it was Democrats who insisted that no, no, the AG is independent of the President.; 2/26/15, 5:27 PM
Hagar said...: No. I don't think so. What we were talking about here takes legislation, one way or another, and laws ought to be enacted by legislatures, not the executive, nor the courts.; 2/26/15, 6:27 PM
Simon said...: Hagar, since you're not listening—there is "legislation, … enacted by legislatures, not the executive, nor the courts"—let's try it this way: What exactly, precisely, is it that "we were talking about here [that] takes legislation"?; 2/26/15, 6:38 PM
Hagar said...: To make "a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ...."; 2/26/15, 6:59 PM
Simon said...: Oh, my apologies. Sorry, we're in different conversations; I assumed,incorrectly, that your comment above was a reply to me. :); 2/26/15, 7:07 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Back in the early days of progressivism, the progressives used to seriously debate (among themselves) exactly where their authority to reorder society came from, since there were no absolute truths to guide them and they were repulsed at the idea of the common man ruling himself (and them) by democratic means.
Then they got Marx's dialectic explanation of history and they ran with it. They were the 'vanguard', leading the rest humanity into the glorious, radiant future (as Trotsky memorably put it).
Orwell understood that undemocratic progressivism was a fraud. In the end, the power to reshape the world was all that mattered to them. The shape of the future was arbitrary, only their will to create it mattered.; 2/26/15, 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: What percent thinks the Supreme Court and other judges make up laws that were never intended to exist?; 2/26/15, 7:42 PM
Beldar said...: I can write a poll that will produce dramatically different results.

Tell me what results you want and I'll get them for you.

Polls are garbage. Why do you post about them, Prof. Althouse?; 2/26/15, 8:00 PM
30yearProf said...: The Conservatives on the Supreme Court seem to be a bunch of "police groupies" willing to believe every lie from the Thugs in Blue (we are too stupid to know the law, officer "safety" trumps even the Constitution, we must be immune and secret for officer "safety", etc) and willing to ignore the fact the Constitutional Rights of the VAST MAJORITY OF GOOD CITIZENS can only be protected in cases involving guilty defendants. The principle is more important than the Defendant or the police. But the Court sees only imaginary perfect protectors in a long Blue line ... .; 2/26/15, 8:44 PM
JackWayne said...: Simon, getting in the right frame of mind for your shackles?

It amazes me how many people posting here think we started out with a limited government. The founding fathers were Aristocrats! You got exactly the government that Aristocrats would approve.; 2/26/15, 9:29 PM
Simon said...: What amazes me, Jack, is how quickly people abandon the principles for which the conservative legal movement has fought for decades over one bad President. William Rehquist would be stunned by what 30yearProf just wrote.; 2/26/15, 9:39 PM
chillblaine said...: "Twenty-eight percent (28%) of voters choose the Supreme Court as the branch of government they trust most."

I would reject the premise of the question. Trust is subordinate to the capacity to keep each branch of government in check.; 2/26/15, 10:50 PM
cubanbob said...: Simon judging from what you wrote in several comments would you be OK with President Walker upon taking the oath of office issue the following two presidential orders: the first issuing a presidential order prohibiting all federal departments and agencies from issuing any any regulations for the term of his Administration and secondly issuing a presidential order revoking every presidential order and executive regulation issued by the Obama Administration?; 2/27/15, 3:30 AM
damikesc said...: What amazes me, Jack, is how quickly people abandon the principles for which the conservative legal movement has fought for decades over one bad President

Opinions cannot change based on circumstances?

We've seen the police act quite badly. Even if the police didn't act inappropriately in Ferguson, it doesn't mean they haven't had massive problems for years and that too many cops feel they are invulnerable to the public.

At one point, I doubt most conservatives would've approved putting cameras on police officers. Now, I suspect many if not most would support it because of what police have done with their insane no-knock raids on wrong addresses with no compensation for their victim.

Any set of principles that cannot recognize if their premise is mistaken is useless.

Simon judging from what you wrote in several comments would you be OK with President Walker upon taking the oath of office issue the following two presidential orders: the first issuing a presidential order prohibiting all federal departments and agencies from issuing any any regulations for the term of his Administration and secondly issuing a presidential order revoking every presidential order and executive regulation issued by the Obama Administration?

I would have no problem with a President Walker saying that the law, as written, is too vague and gives far too much power to bureaucrat and opting to not enforce it at all until Congress provides a law that offers little wiggle room for regulators.; 2/27/15, 8:56 AM
Simon said...: Cubanbob, yes and no; I insist that the Constitution certainly gives him the authority to do that. As a conservative, I have doubts about the wisdom of such an abstract, blunt act, but I would certainly defend his authority to do so.; 2/27/15, 9:08 AM
Simon said...: damikesc said...
"Opinions cannot change based on circumstances?"

If one changes one's understanding of constitutional principles based on who's in power, one does not have principles. It becomes sheer opportunism dressed in a paper-thin garb of pious pseudo-constitutionalism. The Constitution means what it means and should be interpreted how it should be interpreted regardless of who is in power, which is why a principled man like Justice Scalia did not do a 180 on what he said in Morrison just because Edmondson happened to arise while Clinton was in office, and why principled men like Steve Calabresi, Sai Prakash, Michael Ramsey, and John Yoo have continued to defend robust presidential authority regardless of who is in power.

"At one point, I doubt most conservatives would've approved putting cameras on police officers. Now, I suspect many if not most would support it because of what police have done with their insane no-knock raids on wrong addresses with no compensation for their victim."

I support it because it will swiftly destroy the "police behaving badly" myth. Imagine how preposterous the left's attempt to spin Ferguson would have seemed had Officer Wilson been wearing a camera!; 2/27/15, 9:14 AM
cubanbob said...: damikesc I would have no problem with a President Walker saying that the law, as written, is too vague and gives far too much power to bureaucrat and opting to not enforce it at all until Congress provides a law that offers little wiggle room for regulators.

2/27/15, 8:56 AM
Simon said...
Cubanbob, yes and no; I insist that the Constitution certainly gives him the authority to do that. As a conservative, I have doubts about the wisdom of such an abstract, blunt act, but I would certainly defend his authority to do so.

2/27/15, 9:08 AM

Simon Damikesc anticipated my reply. While certainly blunt indeed such an act would be salutary. The follow up for President Walker would be to simply continue with Obama's principle of broad selective non-enforcement of statutes he didn't agree with. Such a blunt full-on act would force Congress to react to assert itself and the President could then force Congress to write clear and unambiguous legislation with a statement of purpose and limiting principle. That in turn would curb the court's enthusiasm for finding things that aren't expressly written. Then there is the entertainment value of watching the Democrats become strict constitutionalists and anti-imperial presidency types.; 2/27/15, 9:38 AM
Simon said...: cubanbob said...
"While certainly blunt indeed such an act would be salutary."

President Obama has issued 203 executive orders, and the number of regulations is enormous—Heritage counted 2,185 in 2013 alone, so let's assume 2013 to be typical and say that the number's a little north of 17,000. Do you know what each of them say? I don't. And if we don't know what's in those regulations, we have no basis for a cost-benefit assessment. Such an act would be dangerous and of a revolutionary character, based on precisely the kind of abstract "wisdom" of which conservatism has been rightly skeptical since Burke himself.

"The follow up for President Walker would be to simply continue with Obama's principle of broad selective non-enforcement of statutes he didn't agree with."

I tend to think that President Obama has, at absolute best, pushed prosecutorial discretion to its outer boundaries, and perhaps even too far. I would not encourage a President Walker to follow him lest the distortion become permanent. Here's the thing: It sucks that the Democrats get to cheat, and there's a huge temptation to say "well, if they're going to cheat, we're going to cheat." But what the part of this family that isn't libertarian but is leaning that way because they hate this President has to realize is that over the long haul, if cheating becomes pervasive, if neither side has clean hands, the rules fall into desuitude and the game collapses. And that serves the progressive agenda! The Democrats are out to destroy the game; we're the ones trying to preserve as much as possible for as long as possible! Adopting their tactics might win us some tactical successes, but in the long run, it serves their agenda. Not ours.; 2/27/15, 9:56 AM
damikesc said...: Simon, by circumstances making changes, let's say something is tried that we thought it'd work but it fails. You would hope that you'd change.

Did lowering regulations on banks cause unforeseen problems? Yeah. So it might be wise to reinstate some. And I used to see the logic in not making officials personally liable for actions taken in office but I now see that leads to abuse.; 2/27/15, 1:47 PM
cubanbob said...: damikesc said...
Simon, by circumstances making changes, let's say something is tried that we thought it'd work but it fails. You would hope that you'd change.

Did lowering regulations on banks cause unforeseen problems? Yeah. So it might be wise to reinstate some. And I used to see the logic in not making officials personally liable for actions taken in office but I now see that leads to abuse.
2/27/15, 1:47 PM

The banks crises were not a result of too little regulation but rather of politically skewed regulation and politically skewed misallocation of capital.; 2/27/15, 5:47 PM
cubanbob said...: Simon sometimes to get the mule's attention you have to really whack him hard on the head with a two by four. Such a radical move would certainly chasten the progressives and frankly why accept what they have gained over the last century is their but ours is negotiable?; 2/27/15, 5:50 PM
Simon said...: Bob, when have you ever seen a progressive chastened by or about anything--ever? They don't get chastened, they just roll their eyes that we have delayed the inevitable, a scabrous act as callous as it is futile. They won't be chastened, they will simply interpret it as us conceding the new baseline from which they'll happily start next time.; 2/27/15, 6:41 PM