Trump always forgets words matter to judges.
President Donald J. Trump is fuming at yet another federal judge. Earlier this week, San Francisco District Judge William H. Orrick temporarily enjoined the Trump administration’s simultaneously grandiose and ultimately toothless plan to strip federal funding from sanctuary cities. The president, as is his wont, apparently decided it’s pointless to threaten and undermine an individual jurist when he could go after an entire federal appellate court. So off he went on a boilerplate Twitter rant in which he wrongly blamed the 9thU.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for his loss at the trial court level; wrongly characterized that appellate court’s reversal record; and wrongly faulted a city and county in California for “judge shopping” (not an actual legal term) for opting to file in the jurisdiction in which they exist, as opposed to filing in, say, Texas or Georgia, where they do not exist. (Circuits are geographic, not ideological.) No matter what you do to the 9thCircuit, California will still be California. And Trump’s fury at the 9thCircuit ignores the fact that he has also been thwarted by federal judges on courts in various otherjurisdictions, including the 2ndand 4thCircuits, where thinking jurists also roam free.
Never one to let actual facts or geographic reality stand between himself and his grudges, Trump escalated his war on the federal judicial branch Wednesday with an interview with the Washington Examinerin which he pledged to revisit plans to break up the 9thCircuit, presumably because he thinks breaking up a federal circuit court will magically change his badly drafted executive orders into legally sound ones: “Everybody immediately runs to the 9thCircuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the 9thCircuit. Because they know that’s like, semi-automatic,” Trump said. I am frankly shivering in delicious anticipation of Trump’s forthcoming executive order breaking up the 9thCircuit.
AdvertisementThe president doesn’t seem to realize that his newest attack on the courts, by its own terms, simply strengthens Orrick’s case—that the order, read as Trump’s lawyers now suggest, reinforces the status quo, or, read as Trump characterizes it, is unconstitutional. Every time he talks, he makes things worse. Even his own administration formally stopped using the phrase Muslim banwhen it tried to salvage his first executive order, so Trump’s decision to call it a “ban” again in his Wednesday tweetstorm and interviews just doesn’t much help him. Consider also that Trump’s defense of his vague and sloppily drafted executive orders consists, at bottom, of celebrating the fact that they are vague and sloppy. As he told the Examiner of his travel ban: “The language could not be any clearer. I mean, the language on the ban, it reads so easy that a reasonably good student in the first grade will fully understand it. And they don’t even mention the words in their rejection on the ban.”
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementTime and again, the president fails to comprehend that the reason a reasonably smart first-grader can understand his executive orders is because they appear to have been written by a differentreasonably smart first-grader in orange crayon on the back side of a Red Lobster children’s menu. Time and again he asserts that there is some virtue in stripping away all nuance and legal meaning from his official acts as president. Time and again he complains bitterly when federal judges, searching for nuance and meaning, look to his words as a means of filling out the vague nonsense of his lawyers’ unerringly incoherent work product. First-grade homework may be clear to Trump, but that does not make it useful when it comes to practical application for governing our nation. As Garrett Epps notes, Trump’s sanctuary cities order fails even the most basic principles of interpretive clarity: “[I]t announces measures against ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ but provides no definition of that term.” The fact that Trump’s own lawyers defended the order in court by saying it was essentially meaningless posturing helps him not at all. If the total force of the order was to create a “bully pulpit” that will later allow the president to say things that alternately have legal force or do not, Orrick cannot have been mistaken in enjoining it. Like the travel ban before it, the thing was nothing more than a Snapchat order, an executive action that could fade into nothing—or could be surreptitiously screenshotted to be preserved as something, at the president’s whim and pleasure.
Advertisement AdvertisementTrump’s repeated—one might almost call them semiautomatic—presidential speech acts that contradict his formal orders as written cannot be excused as just further bloviating from an overtalkative and underinformed president. Both his travel ban and his sanctuary cities order have suffered in court because, in the absence of clarity and detail, federal judges may look to the president’s campaign promises, television appearances, and tweets to understand his intent in promulgating them. There is a robust and heated academic debate about whether judges should be in the business of probing what’s in the president’s heart of hearts, but wholly apart from that lies another problem: Do the president’s actual words matter at all? This isn’t about judicial efforts at mind-reading, a practice against which Justice David Souter famously warned about inMcCreary County v. ACLU: a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” What’s in the president’s heart of hearts is unknowable and not remotely interesting.
Advertisement AdvertisementBut what he actually says, when the words come out of his face? What he writes, be it in pen or Twitter? These are still presidential actions. The dangerous judicial psychologizing here would be for reviewing courts to attempt to differentiate between those instances when the president means what he says and when he’s just blathering recreationally. In Josh Blackman’s excellent meditation on this subject in Politico, he warns judges not to treat Trump differently than they would treat other presidents. I agree. And that means when Trump says thingsabout his policy goals, presumably to bolster or refine or undermine his sloppy legal orders, they have some legal force. The alternative is a jurisprudential Escher staircase of meaningless words on paper, in an unending shifting dialogue of meaningless presidential words that shift from bird to fish and back again. Trump has always spoken publicly as if his words have not only no meaning but also no lasting consequences—walking back his preposterous claims as soon as they become untenable. But as president of the United States, his words have both meaning and consequences, whether he wants them to or not. And as Orrick pointed out: “While the President is entitled to highlight his policy priorities, an Executive Order carries the force of law.”
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementHere is one thing I can say for certain about judges: In addition to having a generalized and free-floating anxiety about public attacks on their legitimacy and authority, they resent deeply any efforts to say that words—the sole implement of their craft—have no meaning or that those meanings are inchoate and shifting and may expand or contract with the president’s hastily tweeted words or fleeting feelings. So when President Trump and his administration attack the judicial branch with authoritarian threats to break up the federal appeals court that has nothingto do with the ruling he disputes or insults individual “unelected” federal judges based on race or geographic region, sane judges, regardless of their personal politics, will recoil. They will feel, as Neil Gorsuch once put it, demoralized and disheartened by the president’s contempt. And when Trump insists on taking legal positions that suggest his executive orders are inherently lawful merely because he is the president or because their written-by-a-7-year-old clarity makes them obvious, that is an insult to the judicial project, a threat to both separation of powers and judicial intelligence.
Advertisement AdvertisementBut when the president takes the posture, time and again, that his words and orders have meanings that are fluid and mutable and known only to himself, it is a surefire way for him to continue to lose in court. Trump and his advisers have long smugly intoned that the media, the public, and Congress must learn to take his words “seriously but not literally.” Sadly for him, the courts have no choice but take his words literally. There is, literally,no other option.
The executive branch is more than a gauzy dream sequence of a four-year “bully pulpit.” The check on lawless, shifting bullying has always been and will continue to be the judicial branch. But when the history books try to explain why the courts mattered most in the Trump era, I hope they note this as well: The judicial branch served as great check not only on Trumpism but for our sanity, each time a judge affirmed that, God be thanked, words and language still do have meaning and consequences.
Tweet Share Share Comment-
Microwave technique recovers 87% of batteries' lithium in 15 minutesOpenAI announces ChatGPT bug bounty program with up to $20,000 in rewardsEveryone's sharing this video of a man saving a rabbit from the California wildfires国庆出行 危险路段“一网打尽”10 Places to Get to Know Paul BunyanApple might announce new MacBooks at WWDCDefense chief says NK munitions factories operating at full capacity to supply Russia灾后雅安人力资源市场全新开张“笋货”上市采购旺!清远西牛麻竹笋迎秋季尝鲜热Hybrid solid
- ·Webb scientists haven't found a rocky world with air. But now they have a plan.
- ·Everyone's sharing this video of a man saving a rabbit from the California wildfires
- ·OpenAI announces ChatGPT bug bounty program with up to $20,000 in rewards
- ·23 unrealistic stocking stuffer gifts just for millennials
- ·Newborns hit new low, but births to those unmarried reach record high: data
- ·Snapchat's AI chatbot is rolling out to all users globally
- ·YouTube doubles down on original series, creator outreach
- ·'Game of Thrones' Season 8 will premiere in 2019, says Sophie Turner
- ·“大体老师”的故事:以生命点亮生命
- ·Why Spotify is killing Wordle
- ·Apple is now shipping iPhone X orders in two to four business days
- ·雅乐高速16日零时起开始收费
- ·US Open 2024 livestream: How to watch US Open tennis for free
- ·The congressman leading the House sit
- ·国庆出行 危险路段“一网打尽”
- ·6 ways safety could have been improved in that epic 'Game of Thrones' battle
- ·Ruling bloc seeks tougher sentences for deepfake sex crimes
- ·雅电集团喜获全国“安康杯”竞赛优胜单位称号
- ·研优品、促发展,广东省园林花卉种质创新综合利用重点实验室举办学术委员会会议暨2023年度学术年会
- ·搭建交流平台 促进两市经济发展
- ·Klarna CEO reveals plan to reduce workforce by 50% and replace it with AI
- ·NK leader guides military drills of paratroopers, calls for war preparations
- ·N. Korean leader congratulates Putin on reelection
- ·Defense chief says NK munitions factories operating at full capacity to supply Russia
- ·How much will PCB's Champions Cup mentors be paid?
- ·'Game of Thrones' Season 8 will premiere in 2019, says Sophie Turner
- ·Listeners encouraged to go wild with Le Sserafim's 4th EP
- ·雅电集团喜获全国“安康杯”竞赛优胜单位称号
- ·17 pop culture moments that were just too much in 2017
- ·飞仙关上的“守卡人”
- ·U.S. Senators call on FTC to investigate the security of drivers' data
- ·Murdering its mascot, and other ways Brazil is already ruining the Olympics
- ·全面开展“压事故、保平安百日攻坚”行动
- ·Bitcoin price surges to almost $17,000 as trading begins on ‘futures’ exchange
- ·Students get free entry at second Rawalpindi Test but what’s the catch?
- ·全面开展“压事故、保平安百日攻坚”行动