Facilitate and effectuate.

From the Supreme Court's statement in Noem v. Abrego Garcia:

On Friday, April 4, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Government to "facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7." ... 

The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs....

That's what you call "minimalism." 

"The leaders of the world have failed. They have failed to master the overriding concepts, the fundamentals and the day-to-day tactics."

"Societies have to find a way to solve their problems without continuously having a series of conflicts. That is the challenge. We have been facing a period of constant conflict resulting in a major wars destroying much of the civilization that has been built."

Said Henry Kissinger, on October 18, 2023, quoted in "Henry Kissinger’s (Maybe) Last Interview: Drop the Two-State Solution/In one of the final interviews before he died, the famous statesman said the two-state solution was no longer viable and that the U.S. must reconcile with China" (Politico).

"Is the United States Creating a ‘Legion of Doom’?/The emerging China-Russia-Iran axis may force the United States to choose between some unappealing options."

 Asks Daniel Drezner (at Politico).

"Tapper didn’t immediately stop Bolton, who worked in the last four Republican administrations, when he admitted orchestrating coups abroad."

"Eventually, though, the CNN host asked his guest to elaborate, and Bolton pointed to the attempted effort in 2019 by Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido to overthrow the government of President Nicolás Maduro. (At the time, Bolton publicly said the plot, which the Trump administration supported, was 'not a coup.') When Tapper asked him if 'there’s other stuff you’re not telling me,' Bolton played coy: 'I think I’m sure there is.'"

From "John Bolton Admitted on National TV That He Helped Plan Coups" (NY Magazine).

Tapper: I don’t know if I agree with you with all due respect. One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup
Bolton: I disagree with that as somebody who has helped plan coups, not here but other places… pic.twitter.com/jK61a0e3lV

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 12, 2022

"In 2007, I watched a string of vehicles pass from Iran into northern Iraq... the choice was particularly tricky: whether or not to attack a convoy that included Qassem Suleimani...."

"There was good reason to eliminate Suleimani..... But to avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow, I decided that we should monitor the caravan, not strike immediately.... Suleimani has grown from a military commander into a ghostly puppet master. His brilliance, effectiveness, and commitment to his country have been revered by his allies and denounced by his critics in equal measure. What all seem to agree on, however, is that the humble leader’s steady hand has helped guide Iranian foreign policy for decades—and there is no denying his successes on the battlefield. Suleimani is arguably the most powerful and unconstrained actor in the Middle East today. U.S. defense officials have reported that Suleimani is running the Syrian civil war (via Iran’s local proxies) all on his own.... His staunch defense of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has effectively halted any progress by the Islamic State and other rebel groups, all but ensuring that Assad remains in power and stays solidly allied to Iran.....  Suleimani is singularly dangerous. He is also singularly positioned to shape the future of the Middle East."

From "Iran’s Deadly Puppet Master/Gen. Stanley McChrystal explains exactly why Qassem Suleimani is so dangerous" in the Winter 2019 issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

"Please be sure that you are treated fairly."

Starting Monday, our great Farmers can begin doing business again with Mexico and Canada. They have both taken the tariff penalties off of your great agricultural product. Please be sure that you are treated fairly. Any complaints should immediately go to @SecretarySonny Perdue!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 20, 2019

Can that be in the running for a list of Trump's famous quote? Please be sure that you are treated fairly.

I like that he (seems to) see that as his role, making sure that you, America, are treated fairly.

And I can't help seeing a subtext of his thinking that he himself is not treated fairly. If he said that out loud, I believe his next words would be "but that's okay...."

Snippet from the new CNN poll showing who's better — Clinton or Trump? — on the economy, terrorism, immigration, and foreign policy.

Much more at the PDF.

Note that Clinton lost ground on all of these important matters, and she's below Trump on what may be the 2 most important things — the economy and terrorism. Trump picked up 3 points on terrorism while Clinton lost 5 in this survey that was taken after the Orlando massacre.

I wonder what, specifically, people think about when they hear "foreign policy." That's the one place where she's dominating, perhaps because of her experience as Secretary of State. People can picture her doing foreign policy. Trump not so much.

There are a few other issues in this section of the poll: women's equality (69/26), women's rights (70/23), nominating Supreme Court justices (53/39), trade with other countries (50/45), gun policy 43/50, gay rights (62/27).

IN THE COMMENTS: eric said:

Btw, sticking with my theory that each poll needs to be compared against itself, the last CNN poll had Clinton at +13. This current one has her at +5. What's happened that has caused her to lose 8 points?

I just got email from something called the "Conservative Campaign" saying: "A series of new polls show Hillary Clinton with a growing lead, including a new Monmouth poll out today showing her up by 8%." But the previous Monmouth poll had her up by 10.

"After what she said about me today in her phony speech – that was a phony speech, that was a Donald Trump hit job – I will say this: Hillary Clinton has to go to jail, okay?"

Said Donald Trump.

Hillary's "phony speech" was a criticism of Trump's speech (in something of the style of a Trump speech): "Donald Trump's ideas are not just different, they are dangerously incoherent...They're not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies."

That speech of hers was supposed to be a major foreign policy speech, but — as Hillary-friendly sites have noted — it was short on foreign policy. Here's the NYT:

But although her campaign had described the speech as a major foreign policy address, Mrs. Clinton spent more time ridiculing and dismantling Mr. Trump’s statements than she did elucidating her positions. Here are a few key issues she did not discuss....

Ironically, the main argument against Trump has been that he's ridiculing and attacking other people and not providing any policy specifics.

I don't think it works to attack Trump by talking like Trump. For one thing, you're not Trump. How can you suddenly adopt his style? His style emanates from him and is the culmination of a long life of practicing talking like that. Second, if you talk like him, you're a hypocrite if you criticize him for talking like that.

Of course, you can say that other ways to attack him don't work either. That's called checkmate.

AND: Now, a word from Rick Perry: "Donald Trump will peel her skin off in a debate setting...."

PLUS: Trump's San Jose speech, in full:

Here's the video of Trump's foreign policy speech, the one that Cruz stepped on with his Fiorina's-my-VP announcement.

Classes just ended for the semester, and it's raining here in Wisconsin, where I'm nursing a bruised (broken?) rib after my feel-the-berm experience last Sunday, so I'm just going to settle in and watch Trump read the teleprompter. I watched a few minutes of it live. Got distracted by the hand gestures. It was like he was signing "L" and "O" repeatedly — LOL.

Here's the full transcript of the speech.

"We're going to be working very closely with our friends in the Muslim world, which are all at risk for violent attacks.... This has to be a two-way street. They must also be good to us. It's no longer one way, it's two way."

Said Donald Trump in his big, scripted foreign-policy speech just now.

Hillary said she's "receiving messages" from foreign leaders asking "if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump."

Do Americans want the foreign-endorsed candidate? We're seeing Trump tarred as xenophobic, and meanwhile Hillary touts herself as the choice of foreign leaders. This deserves a closer look, and I expect some lampooning from Trump.

At last night's CNN town hall in Columbus, Ohio, Hillary Clinton got a question from Amit Majmudar, a radiologist and — Jake Tapper called this "trivia" — the poet laureate of Ohio. (Majmudar referred to the minority status of his religion, but didn't say what religion it was. The answer is Hindu. He's got a book of poems called "Dothead." That has a poem that refers to "my dark unshaven brothers / whose names overlap with the crazies and God fiends.")

Majmudar had already asked Bernie Sanders a question. He'd said Donald Trump had started to make him and his family "a little uncomfortable here, and frankly, a little bit scared." His question, to both candidates was: Which one of you has a better chance to defeat Trump? Sanders said that the polls show him beating Trump by a wider margin than Hillary and that Democrats win when turnout is high and he's the one who's exciting and energizing the crowds. Presenting himself as the one who'd be good at exposing Trump, Sanders misspoke ludicrously:

This is a guy who goes on Republican T.V. debate and says wages in America are too low. Tell that to the people in Ohio that wages are too low. 

Oh, Bernie.

When Majmudar posed the same question to Hillary, she referred to all the votes she's gotten so far in the primary (more than anyone else), the "broad-based, inclusive" nature of her campaign, and how tough and ready she is to fight. She says she's got "a lot of arguments" she's going to be able to make against Trump but she's "not going to spill the beans right now" about what they are. Then she says:

But, one argument that I am uniquely qualified to bring, because of my service as Secretary of State is what his presidency would mean to our country and our standing in the world. I am already receiving messages from leaders — I'm having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump. I mean, this is up to Americans, thank you very much, but I get what you're saying.

So... it's "up to Americans," but Americans might prefer her because foreign leaders say they prefer her? Why do foreign leaders prefer her and not Bernie? I get that they are opposed to Donald Trump (and suspect Donald Trump counts that in his favor). But the question is why Hillary over Bernie? It seems that she's just enthused about this support from foreign leaders and wanted to clue us in about it. But why? Why does she think we'd be impressed and why are they supporting her? Who is supporting her?

Jake Tapper asks: "And can you tell to tell us who?"

She doesn't reveal who's been speaking to her behind the scenes, offering support. She just says: "Well, some have done it publicly, actually. The Italian Prime Minister, for example."

Tapper aptly pushes: "How about the ones that have done it privately?"

She says "No, Jake," and the audience laughs. She adds: "We're holding that in reserve too."

How can you refer to it and then hold it in reserve? Who are these people? Why are they supporting her?

She keeps talking, changing the subject — "But, I - you know, lots of times foreign policy doesn't play as big a role as I think it should, you know? The wonderful question that the woman asked me before...." — and blabbering up to the commercial break.

IN THE COMMENTS: Balfegor said:

Well, there's a not insubstantial segment of the American public today who believe that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" requires that we follow their opinions, rather than that we merely explain why we're conspicuously not doing so, like in 1776.

The President, not the Congress, gets to decide whether a person born in Jerusalem can have his place of birth listed on his passport as Israel.

Here's the PDF of Zivotofsky v. Kerry, which just came out. There's a majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, with 5 votes. The Chief Justice writes a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Alito. Justice Scalia has a dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief and Justice Alito. And Justice Thomas concurs in part and dissents in part.

Justice Kennedy uses the 3 categories from Justice Jackson's opinion in Youngstown. This is a category 3 case, where the President and Congress are in disagreement, but the President's position prevails when the court finds the President's power "exclusive" and "conclusive." That was the case here, Kennedy writes, where the issue is the formal recognition of a foreign sovereign, and Congress was trying to require the President to "issue a formal statement that contradicts the earlier recognition."

"As a constitutional law professor myself, I'd like to say that being a constitutional law professor is likely to lead you to disrespect the layperson's belief that there are any significant constitutional limits on presidential power."

"At least being a governor, a person learns respect for the role of state government and one gets executive experience. A conlawprof doesn't have to run anything of any significance. It's a one-person show and it's mostly based on observing how other people have manipulated language over the years. I think that's a dangerous background!"

A comment I left in a Facebook thread based on that WaPo titled "Scott Walker gets a crash course in foreign policy," which displays in Facebook with the decidedly different title "The making of Scott Walker, statesman." Upthread, there was discussion of Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and a suggestion that being a conlawprof might have counted for something.

"There are very few cases I can ever think of where the Court has said the President can act contrary to a statute."

Said Justice Breyer, 3 years ago, in the oral argument of a case that has returned to the Supreme Court for oral argument today.

Ever since the founding of Israel in 1948, the U.S. has taken the position that no country has sovereignty over Jerusalem until its status is negotiated in a Middle East peace deal. Israel's supporters in Congress, however, have tried to force a different policy, passing legislation that would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and require the State Department to allow U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their place of birth on their passports.

The Bush administration and the Obama administration both refused to do so, contending that the passport mandate unconstitutionally infringes on the president's foreign policy powers.

There are very few cases where the President can act in opposition to a statute, but — as I suspect the Court will have to say — this is one of them.

Why the U.S. opposes Scottish independence (though we can't say much about it).

CNN's Kevin Liptak explains.

All of Britain's nuclear weapons -- its only contribution to a Western nuclear deterrent -- are housed at the Royal Navy's base on Scotland's West Coast. A "yes" vote would throw into question the future of the Trident nuclear program, which consists of four Vanguard-class submarines armed with ballistic missiles on lease from the United States....

Also in dispute: an independent Scotland's ability -- and willingness -- to contribute to Western military coalitions, which have become ever-more visible as the U.S. rallies support behind its efforts against Russia and ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria....

In rejoining [NATO] Scotland would need to commit to spending 2% of its gross domestic product on defense spending, which given the uncertain economic outcome of an independence vote appears unachievable....

Perhaps the greatest fear for the United States is that a successful independence movement in Scotland could spark further movements in the rest of Europe. Potential breakaway regions in Spain and Belgium are already eyeing the Scottish vote carefully.

ADDED: "Is it really imaginable today that if part of the United States genuinely wanted to secede, it would be stopped with the kind of violence we saw in the American Civil War?"

"I wish I could tell you global brotherhood is best served through greater and greater amounts of money... but I can’t tell you that because it’s not true."

"A free society does make people phenomenally wealthy—and this is a wonderful, beautiful blessing—but not enough to give people a satisfying life."

From "D.C.’s Conservative Guru Finds His Inner Hippie/Arthur Brooks' pursuit of the formula for happiness has some unlikely speakers talking to the American Enterprise Institute. Is the 1 percent really listening to his spiritual gurus?" by Eleanor Clift at The Daily Beast.

"It’s better not to argue with women. But Ms Clinton has never been too graceful in her statements."

Said Vladimir Putin (asked about her comparing him to Hitler):

Still, we always met afterwards and had cordial conversations at various international events. I think even in this case we could reach an agreement. When people push boundaries too far, it’s not because they are strong but because they are weak. But maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman.

Was he angry? Did he want "to get back at her or laugh"?, the interviewer asked, adding "We have never seen you laugh." He said:

Someday I will indulge myself and we will laugh together at some good joke. But when I hear such extreme statements, to me it only means that they don’t have any valid arguments. Speaking of US policy, it’s clear that the United States is pursuing the most aggressive and toughest policy to defend their own interests – at least, this is how the American leaders see it – and they do it persistently. There are basically no Russian troops abroad while US troops are everywhere. There are US military bases everywhere around the world and they are always involved in the fates of other countries even though they are thousands of kilometres away from US borders. So it is ironic that our US partners accuse us of breaching some of these rules.

IN THE COMMENTS: Barry Dauphin said:

Vlad mocking Hillary is good politically for Hillary. She should send him flowers or a shirt.

"Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals..."

"... and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and..."

... it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations.... the President of the United States is... inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.

Today is Veterans Day, the original observance — based on the text — demonstrating friendly relations with all other peoples.

What would be an appropriate ceremony of friendly relations with all other peoples?

"Let’s begin with a working (and provable) premise: Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet."

WaPo's Kathleen Parker says, arguing that the Hillary for President message should be: "She can save the world."

Even assuming women's equality is the key to world peace, what's the big connection between a female U.S. President and the condition of women around the world? Parker notices that gap in her argument:

What does this have to do with Hillary? Quite a bit.

Rewinding the tape to 1995 at the U.N.’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, then-first lady Hillary Clinton empowered women as never before with just a few words: “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”...

At the time, it was a revolutionary statement and helps explain why Hillary is one of the most recognized and revered individuals in the world.

So she read a line in a speech that was an utterly standard proposition of feminism, and she did that because she was the wife of a political leader, and... voila!... recognized and revered... therefore... ????

"The anti-Americanism of Jackie Chan."

"He is passionately political, a staunch defender of the Chinese Communist Party and harsh critic of anyone he sees as opposing Beijing. Today, that includes the United States."