These so-called Catholic judges don’t seem to have been paying attention to Jesus’s teachings when it comes to how we treat the poor.
24
Republicans are betting that 'dreamers' would tend to vote democratic if eventually granted citizenship. It's that simple, really.
11
"Hard cases make for bad law", as the saying goes. I understand that you don't like the result, and I don't either, but what is the alternative? Do anti-abortion zealots get to claim sincere religious conviction absolves them when they shoot a doctor? Is that okay? Should we allow female genital mutilation of girls because their parents adhere to fundamentalist Islam? Should we allow sex discrimination by certain employers because of religion? What laws should we allow people to violate because they believe in a sky fairy? I say no to all of the above. We cannot allow anyone to break the law because of what they religiously believe. No one. End of story. I agree that the policy is cruel and inhumane, but allowing someone to break the law and then claim they were justified because of their religious beliefs is lawlessness. The answer is to change the law or policy at issue, not to allow people to violate it at will because of professed religious beliefs.
8
The only hope this nation has for a sane border and immigration policy is something that has become almost impossible, compromise between Democrats and Republicans. Yet the author brings up trigger issues like birth control and gun rights in an article that has nothing to do with either.
Does the author have enough self awareness to look in the mirror and see that she's part of the problem?
4
This means to me that the next president should immediately set term limits for Supreme Court Justices. When the highest level of our court proves to be political it's time for them to be rotated out after 2 4 year terms. Period. Right wing anyone is trash plain and simple.
10
This is LONNNNNGGGG overdue. The abuse of public aid by illlegal migrants is pervasive, costly, and an abuse of our attempts to help poor USA citizens. How are the programs abused? Many illegals get aid for their children who are (by the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendmen) USA citizens. Many are on food stamps. And many get tax breaks as visa workers.
It's time to throw the deadbeats out. OUT of the USA, that is.
8
The GOP us the dark underbelly of the American psyche. All they do is spread hate and fear.
9
17 US Supreme judges and rotate them. No more lifetime appointments. The country changes to meet the current world we live in, old men seldom do.
Ditto to the Senate.
Make it mandatory to vote, make it easier to vote.
This is an abomination.
6
"trump derangement syndrome" = rational thought.
4
the usa was a mean country a long time before trump.
he's only refined it.
3
Hate and fear.
or
Peace and love.
Our choice.
The discussion period of whether or not Trump is fit to be the President of the Unites States of America is over for anyone who despises the man, who is appalled at his ignorance, who understands that the slash and burn mentality he unleashes everyday is poison, literally and figuratively.
Red woman and man need to understand that we aren't taking their guns. But with time, we might get the chance to buy some back, and keep people who are mentally ill from buying them.
Red man and woman need to understand that we love our families too, that our children are sweet, that our support for gays, transgendered, lesbians, and bisexuals isn't a threat to theirs.
I can't begin to imagine how Red woman and man shout out support for Trump at his rallies, intent on demonizing nearly everything decent upon the planet. I don't know how Red man and woman leave church on Sunday, happy that Trump is our President.
I do know, from my upbringing, and the values given to me by my family and our church, that Trump isn't deserving of a second chance.
Trump is a bully, and a tax cheat. He surrounds himself with venal, petty people. He is narcissistic. He has cheated on his wives, and speaks violently about women to this day. He is a racist. Democracy is an evil to him, a person who has favorite dictators.
This country is said to be an idea, based on the dream of liberty and freedom for every person.
Trump destroys that idea.
11
First of all they are migrants until they cross the border illegally. Then they are illegal aliens - criminals. There is nothing mean about rounding up criminals and prosecuting them within the current laws. The people crossing the border illegally know they are wrong and yet they ignore our laws. Why should any US citizen give them a pass?
7
The US has become beyond a hateful country. Why would anyone want to come here. I, personally, would like to leave. It is not pleasant living among such hateful people.
12
As JK Rowling fans all know, if you do not say the name of Meanness-That-Must-Not-Be-Named*, it does not appear and can be largely ignored (as it works behind the scenes). That is why MTMNBN* people say things like 'Now, I'm not a racist, but ...', and why so many people resent Political Correctness making them hide their meanness. If polite society does not allow free use of the N-word and other MTMNBN, then mean people hide their language in code phrases and genteel superficial etiquette.
But then someone comes along who embodies MTMNBN. Since the '70's they have been mostly confined to mean channels. Then came Trump. Now MTMNBN more or less equates to He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, but Trump's name is everywhere. From CNN to comedians to NPR/PBS to newspapers to the WWW, it is everywhere, as is his meanness.
Rowling never fully described her alt-world at a time when Lord Voldemort is fully and openly in control for years. But we can be sure that would be a mean, vicious time.
3
After reading most comments here and in the NYT, I wonder how the Liberal Left Democrat sleeps at night? They are all in "the sky is falling" mode! They are in EXAGGERATION mode! They are in "white" self-hatred mode! Worst of all they are in "blame someone else" mode!
5
Just a thought for writers and editors, to pejoratively use the term "........... derangement syndrome", is pretty despicable gaslighting to put it mildly.
When your hair is on fire and you are acting like your HAIR IS ON FIRE AND IT NOW HAS IGNITED YOUR DEMOCRACY AND IS BURNING IT TO THE GROUND, you should be acting like your hair is on fire and your socio-political culture is burning to the ground from the flames you didn't put out.
Mean, how quaint.
1
Our Constitutional republic is in danger! Vote every single Trumpublican out!
8
"Who do these five justices see when they look in their mental mirrors?"
They see a leftist group attempting to subvert our immigration laws and themselves as the only lawful means to stop it. DACA was created without legal justification by Obama. Time for it to die.
4
The mean-spiritedness is indeed breath-taking. It is tempting to get cynical. For example, how about a rule establishing that any COE or oligarch "likely at any time to break the rules in order to further enrich himself" be deported. It is also way to easy to get sucking into meeting meanness with meanness. Tracking rates of guns deaths in the Second Amendment sanctuaries, for example. Unfortunately, these are easy. What is hard to to meet meanness with love. Of course, this is easier said than done... How about this: First, don't let the meanness get you down. Second, don't be mean yourself. Last, think very carefully about what it is to be mean.
MEAN isn't quite the word. How about a few other words: cruel, spiteful, hateful, malevolent, malicious, malign, malignant, nasty, spiteful, vicious, virulent. vile, despicable, disgusting, horrid
7
Funny how noone on the Times staff though the US was "mean" when we went from bombing four Muslim-majority countries under W to seven under Obama.
4
Let's be honest here, Trump probably is the modern face of the American founders, the people who kept fellow humans in chains and beat them if they tried to run away. Washington and his wife, Jefferson and his delight at keeping children as slaves because they would make other slaves, Madison...
We were founded as a bloody bunch of settlers cheerily about murdering all who were different and stealing their land. Our revolutionary war was probably mostly about preserving slavery for Washington and the other Southerners whose ability to chain slaves was threatened by the British. We fought a terrible civil war over the South's embrace of the devil's invention of slavery.
So sure, mean is what established us, and it keeps us going, and if the far right gets to name one more Justice, the word won't be mean, it will be Nazi.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
5
People I know , incredibly , believe all this cruelty , viciousness and depravity is patriotic . Some even try to put a spiritual tinge to the insanity . There is a serious sickness here worse than coronavirus .
8
Are we allowed to apply this same standard to the anti-abortion movement?
"In their appeal before a federal district judge, Rosemary Márquez, the four invoked the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that their actions were driven by their faith and their belief in the “sanctity of human life.” The government responded that the four had simply “recited” religious beliefs “for the purpose of draping religious garb over their political activity.”"
3
"Mean" should mean something different from "not living by LInda Greenhouse's values."
It is clear that she is advocating open borders and regarding people as mean if they do not endorse open borders. But there ARE two sides to the question and I am not sure she has chosen the right side.
5
She absolutely is not advocating for open borders! This is not a zero sum situation. The US has always before been able to show compassion for immigrants and asylum seekers without opening our borders wide.
14
"Mean" is all about social dominance. Nothing says power over others like the power to inflict pain on them.
The cruelty is the point.
13
Why are they mean?
John Dean, legal counsel in Pres. Nixon's White House, asked the same question in the 1990s. He found the answer and explained it in his 2006 book, "Conservatives Without Conscience."
To make the explanatory material available more easily, Prof. Altemeyer organized it into an easy-to-read, on-line book, "The Authoritarians."
It's ugly, but not new.
5
I don't think anyone is being "played" Ms. Greenhouse, I think the Justices are in on the game. The 5 conservatives are NOT independent free thinking jurists but operatives of the Republican Party. On the liberal side, Justices Breyer and Kagan are particularly fluid in their thinking, while Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg are as likely to vote liberal as the conservatives are the other. We've seen the shift coming for at least 2 decades now, starting with Justices Blackmun and Souter becoming liberal stalwarts, and Justice O'Connor moving to the center, later joined by Justice Kennedy. With the liberals, I believe they make solid arguments to support their decisions by and large whereas with the conservatives they contort this way and that to reach the decision they WANT to make. Scalia was the master at this. In any event, it is what it is and only by winning control of the Senate and taking the presidency can we hope to shift the balance on the court from it's current rigid decision-making to one where actual legal jurisprudence is used to make a decision that most if not all Americans can hope to live with. Right now, it's all just politics and that's why the very legitimacy of the court is being challenged more and more with each bad decision they make.
7
The separation of powers envisioned by the Founding Fathers has become politicized by this administration like never before. The checks and balances that deter ultimate power is being watered down. It's anyone's guess how this will end, but it won't end well.
6
@Valerie Wells
Agreed. These are, indeed, dark days for the republic and I am very afraid.
6
The meanness you see is not new. In the past we dished it out on other people like the Vietnamese and the Iraqis. We watched as Agent Orange was dropped on civilians, as roadside bombs devastated cities. Now we're tired of fighting foreign wars but that meanness still has to be expressed. So we've turned it on ourselves.
1
Want compassion find a church or ngo. Compassion leads directly to unequal treatment under the law.
3
About two decades ago, I became worried about unfettered illegal immigration in the U.S. That unease intensified during the European migration crisis of 2015. My worry was two-pronged: first, that it was truly changing my familiar culture, and second that it would usher in an uncontrollable backlash. Ironically, they both became true. Two sides of the same coin. It seems justified to blame the various powers that inhibited dealing with the obvious crisis before it crushed our country. Those powers come from both the left and the right. The right loves the cheap immigrant labor force composed of people who will not exert labor rights. The left shut down any reasonable discussion with charges of racism, and condescendingly treated the new arrivals as a pet project. And here we are. Plenty of blame to go around. Due to the longevity of judicial appointments, I don’t expect any return to normalcy in this country during my lifetime, at my current age of 67.
7
The Supreme Court did not, as this article claims, simply let the DAPA injunction stand. Indeed, the Obama administration appealed the preliminary injunction to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the stay request. Later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and consider whether DAPA violated the Take Care Clause. In other words, the Court agreed to consider the merits of the case. The Court, however, ultimately affirmed by an equally divided court (because of Justice Scalia’s death there were only 8 justices at the time). Here, the Court did not opine on the merits and instead left the pre-injunction status quo in place by issuing a stay. Moreover, the Court has expressed, on several occasions, its general distaste for nationwide injunctions, primarily, because they impede the development of the common law. The point being, the Court is not playing favorites.
6
US immigration policy should be a benefit to American citizens, not a liability.
8
Dear readers,
Ms. Greenhouse, as usual, manages to shine some light into the darkness that has fallen over one of our most vital and revered institutions.
The bad faith decision on the charge rule is an insult to the concept of fairness and equality among the governed. For if green card holders, who are legal residents and taxpayers, can be denied future citizenship for acceptance of a federal benefit due them, then why should I not be risking my own legal status when I claim a mortgage interest deduction on my federal income taxes this season. Or my neighbor when he claims his children as dependents and therefore pays less in tax than I do, or maybe you do; for fairness sake shouldn't we be talking about deporting my freeloading neighbor(or at least the freeloader children).
Of course not, that's crazy! We should all feel comfortable accepting the government benefits we're legally entitled to as citizens/green card holders/taxpayers/Americans, without fear of retribution from a vindictive ruling establishment. We would all be looking over our shoulders for the ice vans if accepting benefits or not was relevant to citizenship status.
The cruelty and aloofness of the current conservative majority, and the charge rule decision they've made are clearly by "intelligent" design; and are a direct reflection of the people, party, and politics that seated this court and demanded this decision. A decision that is racist, classist, cruel and fundamentally un-American.
IMHO
7
Let me draw back a little from the issue of "public charge" which touches me deeply because it affects lawful permanent residents who go through the same ups and downs that we citizens do. (I am not so sorry about the public charge requirement as it affects other persons seeking legal status in the USA. That is a gate-keeping issue.) But I'd like to think about nation-wide injunctions and whether they are anti-democratic in that one district court judge can issue an order that crosses all state lines, no matter the factual circumstances in any given state. My question is an abstract one, not tied to this case. I am wondering what others think.
2
Do those people likey to become a public charge include mom and dad who signed over the family home to the kids so that if they have to go into a nursing home in a few years they can qualify for Medicaid?
2
This question of law, or national injunctions, finds a weak seam in our system. It invites forum shopping by both sides, and then rewards the worst abuses of the diversity of our localized court system. We do not have one national court system, and never did. It was always varied, and meant to be varied, pulled into one on limited questions by the Supreme Court ruling on questions in which the circuits differ.
We can't have nationwide rules imposed by calculated forum shopping to selected judges. It would work the other way too, by the other side. It isn't just the good guys who can and would do this.
Yet these government policies are awful, and the Congress is unwilling or unable to play its proper role to check the Executive. Only the courts can do it.
Nationwide injunctions are a real problem. Yet they are being used to address other real problems. A weak seam.
What the Supreme Court needs to address is this seam, and fixing it before it runs wild. Yet I suspect the Court will avoid that real issue.
3
While those five Justices are mean spirited, they are not stupid. They are not being played by Trump. They are simply playing the same game he is. They are far from the neutral umpire that Chief Justice Roberts claims to be. Instead, they are major players in a concerted effort to reshape this country so that it more completely serves the interests of the rich and powerful to the detriment of the rest of us.
216
Quoting from this article,
"The Freudian concept of psychological projection refers to the behavior of people who, unable to acknowledge their own weaknesses, ascribe those same failings to others."
Yes, Trump is terrible. But what if both sides have engaged in such projection?
In 1960, the first birth control pill emerged. Predictably people argued that it could be used to fight what some thought was a Malthusian scourge.
In 1798, when Malthus wrote his famous essay, world population was less than a billion. By 1960 it has risen to 3 billion. By 1968, when Paul Ehrlich's "the Population Bomb" appeared the population stood at 3.5 billion. Now the population is 7.8 billion.
I read this book and realized that the argument was primarily mathematical, hence quite robust. It didn't matter that the "Green Revolution" achieved higher levels of food productivity, delaying starvation, because any number of limits to growth could come into play.
It was not surprising that it was the environment that started pushing back with a vengeance, in the form of global warming.
We had early warnings. Some activists pushed for lower immigration levels, joining groups like FAIR and Numbers USA. The founder of these groups was John Tanton, now characterized as a "white supremacist" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
That's right. It appears that overzealous liberals have denied you the gentle reader with information that might have helped save planet earth.
4
excellent article by my favorite NYT writer Linda Greenhouse, now can we have someone write as eloquently about the animals whose destruction, no, even extinction, is promoted by Trump policies, and supported by the GOP..We can't do without bees, guys..You can give Monsanto as much money as you want, but when the bees are gone, it's game over for our current economic model..
6
Agree, the SC has cruel men hiding behind the black robes. Could never stand Scalia and his citing of St. Augustine.
Disagree that the SC has been played. They know exactly what they are doing and are as corrupt as the rest of this administration.
Check the story on retired Justice Keneddy and his son.
4
So a person with a green card cannot lose a job or develop any kind of ongoing medical condition for which s/he might use Medicaid. If green card holder Liam O'Casey, for example, loses his job here in the US, he'd better get a new one, pronto, because if he develops cancer, he'll be deported if he can't afford to get it treated privately and has to turn to Medicaid.
3
The day Gordon Gekko first uttered the words "Greed is Good!" on the big screen is the day the GOP attack on America got wings.
3
The democrats could fix this any time they want to. The reason the democrats have not, it because for the Last 16 years they have been using these issues as a political lever. They have done this racist stuff for decades--stretching all the way back to Wilson, Roosevelt, and LBJ.
The democrats have consistently held up immigration reform, just like they did with civil rights to 67 years.
Shame on Trump? No. Shame on the democrats.
5
Looks like Greenhouse thinks that judges should do what she thinks is just rather than what the law specifies.
There's a probably apocryphal story about some Supreme Court justice, Frankfurter perhaps. He was walking to the SC building when an acquaintance saw him and shouted "Do justice today, Felix!" Frankfurter paused and then replied "We don't do justice here. We do law."
The answer to these problems, if it can be done, is for Congress to pass laws for the executive branch to enforce. In the presence of a spineless (or gridlocked) Congress we will continue to have people hoping that the courts will accomplish for them what the legislatures have failed to accomplish. This is a perversion of the system.
63
@Steve M this is exactly right. The answer is greatly expanding legal immigration to the (currently very large) extent the country can gainfully employ immigrants while strengthening the law (e.g. significant legal penalty to employers of illegal immigrants) and strictly enforcing it.
But political parties benefit from the current broken system and attendant strife, so it will not happen.
16
Completely incorrect. Greenhouse takes exception to the Supreme Court voiding an injunction while the case proceeds. Why not let existing law stand until the case is decided? Why should millions have their lives upended for a year or two by an administrative action ultimately held to be Illegal?
The system you wish for is the one we have, as you well know: congress passes laws that the executive enforces. The problem is that this executive regularly acts with outright disdain for the law, from the first two travel bans to the withheld Ukrainian military aid.
51
@Steve M
If u read the article correctly, neither judge was changing a law. They were preventing laws to be changed.
1 allowed a very frequently invoked law under religious freedom to be exercised. Except in that case the law wasn’t being invoked to exclude or shove religious believes into others. It was being used because like most religions, their beliefs require them to help save a fellow mans’s life.
The other case was to change the rules in a pretty sneaky way to be able to deport people who came here legally and required assistance. Lucky for Wall Street we didn’t evict them for sucking trillions off the government teat. The Justice department also failed to provide any explanation as to why the change was necessary.
So if justice includes not being able to change established law to bend toward what the President didn’t get legislatively and Religious freedom is applied to saving a human, I guess in these cases the law and justice overlapped.
17
"Do the justices realize how they are being played?"
They are not being played. They are among the most egregious players.
172
The Trump 5 justices are emphatically NOT "being played." This is their moment in the sun, their opportunity to demonstrate that they are team players. They worked their whole careers to get to this moment. The Court is dead. Long live the Court. Ditto our Republic. RIP 1789-2016.
199
@Eero A good case in point was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court pretending to preside over a trial with no witnesses or documents for all the World to watch.
24
@Eero The pendulum swings both ways.
My wife came here legally in 2014. When we first contacted an immigration lawyer about her path to being a permanent resident and eventually a citizen, they told us, do not accept or apply for any government assistance, as you may become ineligible for citizenship or permanent residency. This was 2 years before Trump, so its not something he thought of just to make things harder for immigrants.
3
In the 90s I observed GOPers like old Newt and Hastert and Helms and wondered "Why are they so mean?"
That seems like a very long time ago. I've stopped wondering and now just accept it as a fact.
Two days ago I saw an elderly man on his knees on the sidewalk, crying. It turns out that Seattle DOT had just confiscated his clothes. I tried to talk to the authoritarian-in-charge about what had happened. He hid behind "the rules": the homeless guy did not EXACTLY obey orders so he loses his stuff. End of "discussion". I started to ask why this SDOT employee was choosing to be mean, then realized "just following orders" would be the official answer. Truthfully I wanted to smash his face. But instead I walked away.
103
@MB Blackberry "Just following orders" was used by the defendants at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Without success. I suppose that one can say that "don't get poor, old or sick, and all is well". However, empathy is important also.
27
@MB Blackberry "I am just following orders from a legally instituted Authority." Sound familiar? Remind you of something, like the Nueremberg trials, maybe? Honest to God, we're heading there full speed under the so-called 'conservatives.'
32
@MB blackberry,
You should have gotten his name and called the Mayors office, and kept calling until you got that jackasses bosses boss on the phone. One thing I’ve learned about the City of Seattle, is they don’t like bad press, because bad press is what keeps Seattle officials in trouble, hold them accountable. For many people like the SDot employee, it’s about power over others, and make no mistake in Seattle there are those who work for the City, County, and State that are rabid Trump supporters that see homelessness and those people as lazy, drug addicts. Yet, that’s not what’s driving the homelessness issues in all major cities, and it seems politicians continually over look the prime cause, inequality.
Amazon until recently paid $12.00 an hour to work in their warehouses like a slave for 8 hours a day, and make no mistake they make sure you don’t just walk off to the bathroom, they employ an app that invites employees to tattle on each other, which only foments animosity because it creates cliques, you’re either in or out of. As a hiring manager with 20 years experience in shipping receiving managing delivery drivers, $12.00 an hours isn’t a livable wage, $15.00 an hour isn’t livable, but it’s a start. Many amazon employees were getting some form of welfare, food stamps etc. If they qualify for welfare, how are they going to pay exorbitant rent, rent for a two bedroom apt starts at $2,500 a month. Throwing tax dollars at it isn’t going to fix it. Livable wages will
33
Ms. Greenhouse is correct in every sense but one. She asks if the conservative Supreme Court Justices are aware they are being played? Her question shows that although her heart is in the right place, and despite her ability to display moral outrage on behalf of the poor and downtrodden, she must have been asleep for the past 25 years if she believes that Republicans in any branch of the Federal government want to be more generous to low income Americans. The conservative justices were doing the job they were appointed to do by the Republican Presidents who who nominated them.
2
Let's face it. The Koch infiltration of the Republican party has beaten Integrity among putative conservatives into the ground.
Every single action taken by Republicans in power is now aimed at increasing the power of the financial elite. These immigration policies are simply red meat for the base. The policies don't help workers or the economy in the US. But they do serve as the fake boogieman the financial elite can point to as the reason US citizens aren't doing so well.
5
Our Supreme Court judges refuse to see the danger in their continuous compliance with demands from the Administration. The rule of law is subverted by attacks on judges who follow carefully laws and procedures but also by judges who are either afraid to resist governmental pressure or who are forgetful of their responsibility to defend the essential democratic concept of justice. In failing to safeguard their independence, they become enablers of autocratic government and eventually its instruments.
5
We now have the most right-wing, activist Supreme Court in decades, thanks to the election of Donald Trump. The Court will remain in place for at least a generation. If Trump is reelected, it's going to be even worse unless the Senate is flipped. The new Justices, along with 190 lower federal judges, all hand-picked by the ultra-right-wing Federalist Society, have been appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Senate. We can expect decisions that favor right-wing causes for a long time as repayment to the Republicans who are responsible for their appointments.
Democrats and progressives must enthusiastically support the Democratic nominee for President and down-ballot Democrats in 2020, whoever they are. Our Democracy depends on it.
7
The cruelty is the point. I forget who first wrote that, but it’s clearly true. The first order of effect from these policies is suffering, and the second order is nobody cares if there is a second.
8
Judge Márquez has been added to my list of heroes--people doing the right thing in spite of the current prevailing stinking wind of this administration.
In terms of the Executive, the GOP Congress, and the Supreme Court conservative majority, "reasoned decision making" has left the room.
With declining, plundered. polluted resources, rising inequality, and increasing climate chaos, I wonder how far meanness will extend when our coastal citizens are seeking refuge?
Thank you always for your informative, well-thought columns. I consider them actual public service announcements.
5
Anti-immigrant pressures are nothing new to this country. The Know-Nothing party was active for a long time, beginning in the 1850s. Yet ultimately the anti-immigrant forces lost the battle.
The best evidence for that is the story of Irish immigrants. They were reviled for a long time as dirty Papists. "No Irish need apply" was common in help-wanted advertisements. Yet now the descendants of the early Irish immigrants are totally accepted as Americans; anti-Irish sentiments are virtually unheard-of. The Jews have almost completed the same transition; antisemitism still exists but is no longer respectable.
It will take time, but eventually the descendants of the current crop of immigrants and would-be immigrants will be treated as being as American as anyone else.
1
@Paul Abrahams,
The only people afraid of immigration are poor uneducated whites, and that’s because they view immigrants as a threat to their low wage job. For Republicans it’s always been about white supremacy, the feeling that whites were feeling somehow imbued with the idea that god gave them the right to conquer native peoples, the puritans called it, Manifest Destiny. But that was so whites could sleep at night wrapped in the comfort of knowing that god gave them the right to slaughter a whole people, to strip them of their land, their culture, and worst of all, their language. That is until WWI, when the US asked Cherokee Indians to speak their language that was being used as code. And Indians weren’t even considered citizens, they like Asians had to sue the federal government in court to get citizenship. Most people aren’t even aware of the Chinese Exclusion law written by democrats, in 1882. In that same year congress passed the Immigration act, that created guidelines of exclusion through the creation of a new category of “inadmissible aliens”. The National Origins Formula was abolishes in 1965, the Chinese exclusion act was repealed in1943,
Whites did the same thing to Mexican Americans, in the 1950s, in a small town, in Texas, the teachers of school for Mexican children, built a small casket, and put a Spanish/English dictionary in it, and made the Mexican kids bury it, telling them that they couldn’t speak Spanish to them their language was dead.
The Supreme Court has become just another institutional rubber stamp for Trump as he torches our democracy and the rule of law and turns our once democratic republic into a fascist oligarchy. In what essentially amounts to a soft coup, the Gang of Putin are getting what they've wanted all along; single party rule. Now that Trump has been thoroughly vindicated by his lick spittle lackeys in Congress, he will crush our democracy, doubtless with a predictable 5 to 4 SCOTUS split. Our once great Supreme Court has become just another tool in the hands of repressive dictator.
7
So now Mr. Trump has discovered he can use blackmail on a state leader whenever he pleases and his next target is the governor of New York. No New York citizen will get a Global Entry card until New York drops its lawsuit against Mr Trump for his tax returns.
And in the same tweet he says this is all about National Security, but really about "harassment."
Here's the tweet (I know you would not believe it unless you see it)
"I’m seeing Governor Cuomo today at The White House. He must understand that National Security far exceeds politics. New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment, start cleaning itself up, and lowering taxes. Build relationships, but don’t bring Fredo!"
6
In a word, yes.
These conservative judges were not and are not decent people at their cores. At some point in time at least by Regan and maybe before, conservatives became morally bankrupt. To continue to pretend otherwise - even at the Supreme Court - is folly.
8
Right now East Africa is enduring an horrific plague of locusts. Through some shift in ecology, ordinary desert grasshoppers turn pink and yellow and swarm, becoming a plague that destroys everything in its path.
If you haven't guessed, this seems like a metaphor for our current moment: the zeitgeist shifts, and fascism crawls out of the woodwork and destroys everything good and green in its path: the racism, misogyny, xenophobia, bullying, flouting of the rule of law, and illegal seizures of power are eating our society alive, through the courts, the Congress, the executive branch, and the hearts of the people. God help us.
7
Indeed there has been "meanness, and worse.." before. But we thought it was getting better. That we were evolving, moving forward toward a better place. We had no idea that 63 million voters would support hatred, racism, ignorance, misogyny, bullying, vulgarity, dishonesty. A massive minority of the population, in the 40% range is very comfortable with cruelty and meanness. Now we know who we really are as a country. It's an ugly reflection in the mirror. But tens of millions like what they see.
8
Excellent analysis.
2
Callous and Cruel are the handmaidens of Mean. The fear and intimidation indoctrination regiment of this regime is truly appalling and smacks of Joseph Shirer’s classic treatise on Germany between the wars.
It can’t happen here? Think again, it is!
5
This is another example of a column featuring the people who assist the Occupant with ideas brought to him by the cadre of White Nationalists and evangelicals in our govt. He is incapable of understanding what any of this means and does not want to be bothered while he thinks up is latest scheme to reward himself and his henchman with hefty amounts of money. He did not appear out of nowhere because for 40 years now the Republicans have been planning this complete takedown of the Justice Dept. or it could be longer than that. We must fight this with every legal avenue we can take and hope our great and good Americans wake up like the day after Pearl Harbor.
1
Not just mean. Cruel, too.
2
I lived in Edinburgh, Scotland, for a while. On returning home I smiled to a random stranger at the airport for reasons long forgotten. He mean-mugged me in return.
That moment, followed by dozens of others, led me to conclude that the United States is a far meaner place than Scotland at any rate. And it came about 15 years ago.
6
The pro-Trump majority at the supreme court was engineered by & for Trump. The question is : should we allow ourselves to be driven insane over it?
3
Could this decision include Melania Trump? She is a naturalized citizen, but the circumstances of her arrival in the US is somewhat murky. Is she vulnerable to deportation?
5
@Blueinred/mjm6064
Indeed, is she not on the dole now?
3
Perusing merely the uncontroversial episodes in our history books reveals that the United States has a long and exceptionally ignoble history of:
Genocide, unjust wars, torture, imperialism, war crimes, slavery, indentured servitude and other exploitation of workers, oppression of the poor, mass incarceration of innocents, inhumane experimentation, mass shootings, abuse of children, pervasive sexual violence, and other literal and spiritual crimes against humanity.
Americans simply are not good, just, or even decent people. It is not at all surprising that we oppress and torment refugees and other immigrants.
And, as we have so often done in the past, our police and military will escalate the violent suppression of political dissidents and other Americans inconvenient to our morally depraved Russian-Republican tyrants.
This expanding Russian-Republican dictatorship over the United States will deliver to Americans the miseries we deserve - with interest.
Too bad for us that there is natural justice.
3
Apparently the rule of law has become, like the free press, an enemy of the people.
5
I am tired of wringing my hands in desperate anguish over each new and repeated cruelty lavished by Trump and his administration on the powerless.
However, other than a coup, I don't know how to stop or prevent further such deliberate savage and brutish behavior, and fear what the next 10 months will bring in retribution and retaliation.
I would like to see an uprising by the Senate's Democratic minority and think there must be a buried rule allowing such a rebellion. And while the House does have a Democratic majority, I am sure that Speaker Pelosi would gladly use any means to thwart Trump.
We are usually a country of laws and the majority of us abide by those laws. Trump and Barr do not, and disregard legal ethics and morality. Include Congressional Republicans, certain Supremes, etc., in that count most of whom are towering cowards always having been hypocrites.
1
The article was on the breaking of political protocols in the service of political goals. And it was on cruelty. Though many comments herein are about the merits of immigration enforcement.
The government is not concerned with enforcement. Its goal is to support a political talking point policy in service of racism. Were it not, the gov't wouldtarget the majority of illegal immigration with the same methodsand target those who arrived in planes but overstay their visas. That would give us the spectacle of uniformed men pulling white babies from their European mothers. They are equally guilty, in fact less so, if they did not come seeking refugee status. But they are not guilty of being brown, so this administration would not support enhacing those white children's chances to die of thirst.
1
“At the same time more than a dozen counties in Tennessee have endorsed a growing “Second Amendment sanctuary” movement for gun rights.”
The whole “gun rights” issue needs clarification. I don’t follow it closely but I know the federal/state government is not going to come in and take ALL guns. Even the majority of liberals don’t advocate for that. Restriction jitters mainly involve assault rifles and high capacity magazines. If those all disappeared tomorrow, you could still go to Cabelas and buy hundreds of different firearms. If the Sanctuary advocates want NO restrictions on assault rifles and magazines, why stop there? How about we own M-60 machine guns, shoulder fired grenades, and mortars? Heck, why not have your own tank....never know when that rogue government is coming for you. The hard right yelling, “they want to take our guns away”, is too generalized and confusing. I’d love to watch a debate between the Giffords Law Center and the NRA, so I could get some specifics on the divide.
1
@Jim
The use of the word “gun control” is a misnomer. It’s really about background checks. We do background checks to get a job, in many states it’s harder to get a drivers license than a firearm. What’s really odd, is when an attempt was made on Reagan, the “Brady Bill” was passed. It banned certain firearms, limited magazine capacity, and ruled AR-15s as paramilitary weapons, it imposed a 5 day waiting period mandated background checks. The 10 year ban on assault rifles was passed in 1994 by vote of 52 48 (I’ll let you guess what party was the majority in the Senate) act was signed into law the same day in 1994, by Clinton. It prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of “semi automatic assault weapons”
There were several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, all were rejected by the courts.
It's clear from the four-page opinion cited that Judge Roberts yearns for the good old days when a couple of competing cases got fully litigated through layers of appeal in different districts and then came cleanly, all evidence determined and issues clear, to SCOTUS for final adjudication. Sounds so nice. It's quaint, like how the House is to pass a bill and then the Senate take it up...also not something that happens on a regular basis.
If the CJ wants to avoid "gamesmanship and chaos" he would do well to encourage nationwide injunctions when policy changes could cause immediate and irreparable harm to plaintiffs. Maintaining the status quo whilst a case is being entirely litigated--all the way through appeals--is the best way to avoid chaos in the lives of litigants.
2
All these action reflect the concept of 'welfare chauvinism' - common also in Europe - where common benefits and services like child health care and public housing are denied to migrants, irrespective of their needs. It is indeed morally reprehensible.
2
Psychological Projection pretty much sums up the mindset for the wealthy, especially the financial backers of movement conservatism, and that, ironically, trickles down to their voting base, who project their moral failings on The Other.
3
The media is perpetually calling our attention to the plight of illegal immigrants and is ignoring the lot of citizens who have to compete with the illegal immigrants for jobs, affordable housing, medical services, education, and so on. Citizens who have few skills as well as those who are more skilled, but have lost their former middle class jobs to automation or off-shoring find themselves having to compete with illegal immigrants. There are not enough jobs for everyone so employers do not have to provide steady employment, raise wages, or improve working conditions.
Workers who are not making enough money feel stressed. Women do not marry the fathers of their children because the men cannot contribute enough money to the household. Their children are growing up in single parent homes, often in poverty or with no money to spare. Many families feel desperate, and do not have the time or energy to relax and get to know their neighbors. Their children are in classrooms overcrowded with illegal immigrants. They do not develop a sense of community, of belonging. And, many find it hard to learn in crowded classes.
The affluent do not want our country to be mean to illegal immigrants, but they do not seem to care at all about our own citizens who have to compete with illegal immigrants.
8
@ann This notion of "competing with illegal immigrants" is not founded on fact nor is it what this case is about. This case is about those immigrants who have used legal channels to immigrate and would now be deemed as inadmissible migrants based on a newly contrived definition.
Your ideas about the impact of immigrants on this country's economy are not based on the facts. Immigrants do take resources but they produce a net economic benefit for the country. This is not to say that in your experience or in your community some people have lost their jobs to immigrants, but if companies are hiring folks who are not legally authorized to work in this country then it's not an immigration problem it's an exploitation issue.
6
@Jason
This article is about both legal and illegal immigrants. Most of the latter are undereducated and low skilled. Instead of our directing our resources to illegal immigrants, we should be helping our own citizens get back on their feet.
Have you noticed that affluent communities in and around San Francisco are against the building of affordable housing units in their own neighborhoods. The same is true in Park Slope where residents attend meetings to protest New York City’s plan to remodel buildings in their neighborhood for the poor. Affluent families do not care if illegal immigrants overcrowd schools, parks, roads, or hospitals in poor or working class communities, but they do not want illegal immigrants to move into their own neighborhoods.
Rather than saddling poorer communities with illegal immigrants, we should be helping our poorer citizens to improve their lot in life.
4
@ann
Immigrants are preventing American families from relaxing and getting to know their neighbors? Those sound like some pretty weak willed American families if you ask me.
3
I came to the US from Australia 30 years ago believing I was coming to a generous people committed to equality for all. I was stunned to witness the deep veins of meanness that coursed through US society even then, & have been asking my American friends for decades: “Was it like this when you were kids?” Meanness has been a major quality of the US psyche for a long time in my experience. Trump didn’t invent it - he has just given it license to erupt.
7
In my course work on precedents, it was a well established principle that decisions issued by a District court were binding only in that District, until they were confirmed by the Supreme Court. In other Districts, they could be cited as advisory, but not binding.
I have never understood how a District Court can issue an injunction and call it binding nationwide unless it too is confirmed by the Supreme Court. It does not matter if it is a liberal or conservative ruling, it should, based on my understanding at least, be binding only in the home District and advisory at most in other ones.
8
"The Freudian concept of psychological projection refers to the behavior of people who, unable to acknowledge their own weaknesses, ascribe those same failings to others." I'd add one thing: it involves unconscious self-hatred. It happens when we find someone whose behavior makes us very angry for no apparent reason. We despise the other because we despise ourselves for the same things.
Trump's ad hominem attacks are very revealing. They point to a very insecure man.
2
Dear Ms. Greenhouse, thank you for this article on the meanness regarding immigrants and immigration "laws"' or, put it differently for the total travesty of Justice from this entire administration on this particular issue. Regarding the cruelty of this entire administration on actually almost all issues, I would like to ask you a non-rhetorical question: Can we, the citizens of this country, sue this entire administration for its bullying-mean behavior towards us? It's a serious question: I think we are millions by now that are suffering serious consequences from being bullied every single day by this entire administration. Ironically, there is a government website: stopbulling organization for protecting kids against being bullied and how schools have now bullying preventions, rules and policies to stop bullying. We, the adults of this country, do not have any protection whatsoever against bullies. Actually, at the dog park, a group of adults read the effects of bullying on kids on this governmental website and we discovered that we shared exactly the same effects described on kids such as impacts on our mental health, the feeling of sadness, loneliness, powerlessness and social impotence we are enduring from the Trump administration.
1
Perhaps the ultimate irony is Melania Trump’s halfhearted “Be Best” campaign. The name itself is off grammatically- shouldn’t it be “Be Better”? Perhaps that’s where she should’ve started, asking her bullying husband to at least try to be a little better. I find it incredibly telling that she decided that bullying would be her choice for the first lady’s cause celebre.
Linda reminds us, in her writing, that one can have a heart, be compassionate, and be a great intellect.
The best jurists are not mean. The best jurists display real empathy. They are not only "book smart."
History shows that the judiciary can be mean (e.g. Plessy; Koramatsu) but we would like to believe that the judiciary evolves to be better, e.g. the Warren Court.
The fear is that, just as the Executive and Legislative branches devolve toward meanness, the Judiciary will follow.
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL immigrants. They recognize that the US cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al., and that they and other US taxpayers cannot possibly support the 20 million illegal immigrants already in the US, much less the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, etc. Indeed, many believe bringing children on such perilous journeys constitutes child abuse.
No other nation has open borders, nor should the US.
51
@Mon Ray
In order to be a citizen in many European Countries (Like France and Denmark) you need to have at least one parent that is a native born citizen.
How do I know this? My Grandfather was native born in Denmark. I am NOT eligible for Danish citizenship. Has to be first generation.
My son was born in France. Likewise he is NOT eligible for French citizenship. Neither of his parents were born in France.
Not the case in the United States. Walk across the border, have a baby and it is a citizen.
Rules were not always so in France.
37
@Mon Ray
More to the point, the court’s summary action, without full appellate review, changes the lives of untold numbers of people for the worse, people who immigrated LEGALLY to the United States and who have followed every rule.
295
@KAN You are right to point out that Mon Ray missed the point of the article that it affected the half a million people or so here legally who are seeking permanent residency. Of course you missed the point that one of those "every rules" is that you cannot appear to be likely to become a public charge.
Previous administrations since 1999 have purposely left it up to individual judges to define what that means. Now it is spelled out.
18
A sure as raging fires and massive floods follow climate warming: "I was very wrong about that." A future entry in a future book by at least one of these horrible supine court [in]justices. There will be so many things to choose from.
1
Perhaps the psychological projection issue can explain why Trump continues to have support. None of this would be happening were Americans in agreement on what is good and right and just. We are not, and his supporters project onto Trump those things they are not. They see him as a leader, as someone willing to stand up to those he does not agree with, and as someone is successful.
What I am learning from Trump and the republicans who have managed to corrupt the SC is that everything we learned in kindergarten, in our churches, in our good books and from those martyrs who told truth, is that it was all a lie. Character, honesty, wisdom and knowledge, they are not assets, they are weaknesses. We were all lied to as we were convinced that good people are, well good. They are not good, they are inconvenient and they are suckers. I keep asking, if Trump is "making America great again", when was it great before so that we know that we are back to greatness?
It will take years to fix all of this, and I feel bad for my kids and their kids having to try to fight for what is right.
5
Nothing has made me believe in evil more than than what it happening in our government.
5
The immigration issue is terribly distressing. Donald Trump has no idea (and I imagine he could care less if he did know) how much depression and mental illness he has spawned by separating family members and kicking hard working immigrants out of the country. Interesting that the highest amount of immigrants coming into the United States now appears to be Ukrainians. Yes, this country is "meaner" these days. Washington has always been a mean place filled with people who think they are more important than anyone else in the world. I lived there for 16 years. I saw it and experienced the meanness. But Donald Trump has set the climate in this country with his mean personality and has brought out the ugly side of far too many Americans. The things he says about others is disgraceful and his racist and bigoted base of supporters is the real reason these days that "love thy neighbor as thyself" seems to have gone by the wayside.
3
When the history of this age is written, with all the damage it is doing to the rule of law, it will be white, male, Catholic lawyers housed in the Federalist Society that will be principally responsible for it. They will be remembered the way the German legal establishment at Nuremberg is remembered.
As a white, Catholic male lawyer I am ashamed. St. Thomas More, pray for your sons.
5
Gorsuch, who as a judge declared that a truck driver had an obligation to remain with his broken down, unheated truck on an icy night and freeze to death rather than go seek help, would have been right at home with the Border Patrol agents who kick over jugs of life-saving water. His mother, Ann Gorsuch, was mean. Neil is pathological.
8
An historical note: In the late 1930s, the "LPC" (“likely to become a public charge") rule was used to deny entry to German Jews wishing to emigrate to the U.S. to escape Nazi rule. At that time the German mark was not convertible into other currencies, so Jews could not convert their savings into dollars; on arrival they would have been penniless. Their only hope was to have a friend or relative in the U.S. who would execute an affidavit of support.
3
Linda Greenhouse deserves praise for bringing attention to the deaths of immigrants as a result of border patrol and government obstacles. Such immigrant deaths usually receive short shrift wherever in the world they occur.
Along the southern border, such deaths have been going on for decades. I wrote a couple of articles for the college newspaper in the last century about them.
It's bi-partisan. Getting rid of Trump or Republicans won't end the problem.
The Founding Fathers' delusion of establishing justice has obviously failed. I dislike discouraging others from pursing their goals. But I must tell those who would overthrow and replace the American government with a benevolent one incapable of harming people -- the idea of a benevolent government is a deadly delusion. Many immigrants are paying with their lives and children's lives now for the Founders' delusion.
4
I think the goal here is very clear - trump will not stop until he guarantees a future for the United States in. which all citizens are white, ignorant and old.
2
Trump gets millions of dollars from the country ( for example, for his phony "border wall" project) so he should be regarded as a public charge. Therefore, he should be denied residency in the White House.
Of course, this is a ridiculous argument, but no more ridiculous than the junk Trump's "Justice Department" comes up with to justify his whims.
2
Dear Author - your are so wrong on immigration and most Americans, including Dems, would agree (you are).
7
For Chief Justice “balls and strikes” Roberts there is a different strike zone for litigants who pursue a recidivist right wing agenda for interpreting liberty interests under federal statutes and the Constitution as compared to those who want to maintain or expand them.
He and his fellow right wing mandarins squeeze the strike zone when the pitchers are the latter.
1
The several ignorant and illogical comments expressing anti-immigrant sentiments remind one of the popular name of the anti-immigrant party of the 1850's, an ancestor of today's GOP: it was universally known as the Know-Nothing Party.
3
A serious attempt to expel the dreamers or any large part of the 11 million undocumented residents today will be about as popular in California as the Fugitive Slave Law was in 1854 Wisconsin. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Glover or Andrew Delbanco's "The War before the War".
3
The Jesuit High Schools where Gorsuch and Kavanaugh studied should to revoke their diplomas based upon the fact that they are acting against Jesus by denying water to thirsty individuals.
6
@TMOH
You seem not to recognize that the RCC is a political banking organization that uses magical teachings to gain employees and income. They do not actually believe those things, at least not the top leaders who control the money.
Oh Linda, we passed mean 3 years ago. The word you want now is cruel. Purposefully, going out of their way to do it, cruel.
8
Ms. Greenhouse, you can use all the flowery language you wish concerning illegals. The fact remains, despite what you say, that the US is a very generous country! We - the majority - just want migrant-illegals to follow our rules and not their rules!
7
@JePense My understanding is that the public charge rule affects legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants. These are people who did legally follow the rules and are on the path to citizenship, but who made use of legally available services. Now if they make use of those services as indicated, they will be deemed a public charge. How unfair! Do not put a stumbling block in front of the blind!
5
@sherri - That may be your understanding, but you are not replying to anything I said in my comment. But to respond to you, most citizens who work and pay taxes in this country do not approve of freeloaders who migrate legally or illegally to the US.
1
Justice Roberts sat on the impeachment trial as the courts were blamed for their slow inaction on all things pertaining to Trump They are cowards who will not express their opinions openly, but their inaction speaks volumes for enabling Trump and his assault on the constitution and every thing human.
When is it a crime to give water to people dying of thirst? We treat our worst criminals better than those seeking asylum in this country or do the courts think as Trump does that all Mexicans are murderers and rapists?
5
We’re mean! We’re winning! We’re mean—
2
"Mean" isn't the word. I don't think there is one word that describes what the U.S. has become in three years, and it's only going to get worse. This is what laying the groundwork for fascism looks like.
5
"The Freudian concept of psychological projection refers to the behavior of people who, unable to acknowledge their own weaknesses, ascribe those same failings to others."
I've noticed a long time ago that most of the insults that Trump spews out really apply to him. Examples: "stupid", "weak", "worst president", etc. The Democrats ought to collect them and apply them back where they belong.
3
and separating unborn children from their parents with a vacuum is better? stop recycling old saws and look at the progress that has been made. or, better yet, find a new profession.
1
@Steve Borsher 'children', by definition, have already been born. A fetus is something else.
1
You are not kidding. This country, with the 'faithful' guidance of an unhinged cruello named Donald J. Trump, has earned the awful epithet, or term of 'endearment', of being MEAN. These United States are a country of immigrants (if we could discount, for a second, the African slaves and the indigenous folks we belittled and exploited for far too long)...and owes it's success to the determination, entrepreneurship, perseverance and sacrifice of so many, to make this country what it is. Actually, what it is now is shameful, as a mafia in government has decided that Justice has become irrelevant, and that the imposition of poor people's suffering is a given. Do we expect now that any new immigrant come with a hefty banking account and life's insurance? How stupid, and unfair, is that? That Trump is such a 'cretin', as a narcissist, is a given, and beyond remedy; but an entire republican party? This is preposterous. Unacceptable and inhumane. So, who are we, willing to look the other way...as long as this horror unfolds without our feeling it? Just remember that, if we remain indifferent to our beighbor's suffering, when our turn comes (and it will if Trump is re-elected) no one may remain to help and defend us. And deservedly so!
2
I think this is a bit dishonest towards Mayor Sarno. Towns like Westport, Connecticut and Scarsdale, NY should be taking refugees in, rather than pushing them off onto poor cities like Bridgeport, CT which are already struggling. It's wrong to concentrate poverty in the first place, it's worse to put even more poverty on top of it.
I 100% believe that Trump is wrong to try to bar refugees, however placement should be in wealthier communities. If they cry that housing isn't available and other NIMBY sob stories, the federal government should build it. Refugees are smart, hard working people who deserve a decent shot at a good life, with good schools and opportunity.
3
I read all your columns and support your views and scholarship.
2
Seems to me that describing what's going on as "mean" is incorrect and a little namby-pamby. The correct word is "cruel"--an inability to empathize with the suffering of others and a desire to make them suffer even more. It involves the dehumanization of others and a joyful glee in their pain. Any civilized person would find this utterly disgusting.
5
I wonder, Linda if it's true that Congress or the President can appoint as many as 12 Supreme Court Justices for lifetime appointments? If so what are Pelosi and Schumer waiting for? What we are seeing here is not 5 Supreme Court Justices. We are seeing 5 Republican Operatives. Could anything be more obvious?
The question is: How did we get here? The rise of Trump is a cultural phenomenon with many branches. Like many, I wear out my brain trying to make sense of it. On balance, there is a self-centeredness in our society that allows many to believe that they are victims which, in turn, gives them the justification to "pull up the ladder" after they have prospered from the very establishment that they now decry. There is no honest self-examination---only focusing on the perceived faults of others in order to make themselves feel better. Trump pours salt in the wound by exemplifying victimhood which is really the opposite of what we once admired in a leader. Nobody knows how this will change--but it must and will. We just don't know what that will look like.
199
@Richard Winkler
No, my take is that we as a country have been systematically robbed blind by the gop since reagan.
Cheat, steal and then lie about the whole thing.
There is the gop successful playbook.
So now I believe most everyone has been driven crazy and then lashes out at anything that moves, except the real cause of the distress. People do not even know what or who they are angry at, or resentful, or spiteful.
This and way too much TV.
13
The concept of meanness is nothing new in this country. Indeed, meanness has been a part of the American character from its very beginnings. Slavery and its depredations were mean. The decimation of Native Americans was mean so that white people could take their land for free. The forced march on the Trail of Tears was especially mean. The imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent and confiscation of their property was mean. The efforts to undermine rights of Latinos in Texas and the rest of the Southwest after those territories—and their long-established citizens—became part of, and citizens of, the United States was mean. The denial by white men of the right for women and minorities to vote was mean. The caging of babies and children of migrants legally seeking sanctuary was and still is mean. We have other examples of meanness. We have had members of Congress and the Supreme Court in the past who saw that meanness for the sake of pushing white privilege violated the concept of equality under the law. We no longer have such a Congress and Supreme Court. We have a Republican Party for whom meanness and outright cruelty are tools to punish and control people, and we have a Supreme Court that says the rights of some people are higher than the rights of others; e.g., corporations are people and have the right to discriminate at will based on a simple claim of religious objection. Preserving white, mostly male, privilege is a goal of our meanness, not an accident.
368
@BG I couldn't agree with you more. Please add 250,000 civilians killed during the Iraq war. 2 million more killed in Vietnam. After all there is no difference in the end result of a civilian casualty of war and someone murdered.
37
@BG
I would agree if you restricted your condemnation of Congress and the Supreme Court to the guilty members. In Congress, that is all Republicans -- I'm sorry to say that, it didn't use to be as bad as that. It also includes some Democrats, I'm sure, but by no means all.
Yes, Virginia, there is a difference between the parties.
12
@BG Let us not forget the Asian exclusion act.
9
"I saw the children in the holding pens
I saw the families ripped apart
And though I try I cannot begin
To know what it did inside their hearts
There was a time when we held them close
And weren't so cruel, low, and mean
And we did good unto the least of those
Or was it all some kind of dream?"
-Lyrics from "All Some Kind of Dream" by Josh Ritter. Give it a listen.
1
Doesn't matter what your position is on immigration. The question is:
1. What is your position on denying water to children dying of dehydration in the desert, and,
2. What is your position on the Court using its power to delay hearings on the Republican case to end coverage for pre existing conditions or breaking protocol to grant stays to aid a politician or their political prejudices?
"Do the justices realize how they are being played?"
Played by whom? The current Court, more than Trump, is destroying our Constitutional Republic.
We're witnessing the culmination of a half-century assault on the Supreme Court and the Judiciary. The Judiciary was consistently the biggest thorn in the GOP's side, preventing it from denying Americans a host of fundamental rights, including the most basic right of representation, without which there's no republic and no democracy.
The GOP packed the judiciary with right-wing authoritarians so the Supreme Court could unconstitutionally claim for itself the authority to set nationwide policies of every kind, usurping the political power The Founders deliberately gave to Congress.
The GOP has eviscerated Federalist 51, a foundation of our tripartite government and separation of powers, transforming the Supreme Court into an authoritarian super-legislature accountable only to the GOP.
This is how we got Bush v. Gore, where 5 right-wing Justices picked a Republican to be president; how we got Citizens United which didn’t just legalize anonymous expenditures on political campaigns, but destroyed protections preventing partisan corruption; and it's how we get Rucho v. Common Cause where 5 right-wing authoritarians had the gall to claim federal courts cannot redress partisan political corruption because it's political.
The greatest threat to our republic, our democracy, and the rule of law is not Trump, it's the Supreme Court.
445
@Robert B
The GOP scheme to flood the federal benches with authoritarian-minded judges will be what undermines American values. Trump will be gone either this year, or in a few more. Those judges, who have a greater impact on your life, will the there for the rest of theirs.
64
@Robert B Read Nancy MacLean, “Democracy in Chains” to get the background of this assault by the money men.
17
@Robert B
Right. And this is why ANY Republican president is a danger to our way of life, not just Trump!
30
We are engaged in a fight for the soul of our nation. For decades upon decades we have been told from a very young age that we live in the most advanced, the most free, the hardest working, the wealthiest, and the most welcoming country the world has ever known and that we are the brightest light in a world that is often filled with darkness. There are those among us, including especially the current occupant of the White House, who want to change that in the name of “Making America Great Again.” It is beyond ironic that in advancing their goals they eschew many of the very attributes and aspirations that have made the United States great and that have made us the envy of the world. Those attributes and aspirations include fairness, open-mindedness, generosity, opportunity, refuge, and freedom (including freedom from oppression). To be sure we have not always met our aspirations but the vast majority of us prided ourselves on trying, on making a genuine and good faith effort. All of that is at risk now and that risk is grave. An infection has taken over every branch of the government and we, the people, must fight that infection.
The next 10 months will tell us and the rest of the world just who we are and and whether we can defeat the infection and whether those things that have made us great continue to be our values and our guides. Yes, it is that dire. It is a fight for our souls and the soul of our nation.
546
@Donald Seberger
Beautifully said.
If Trump is re-elected, the Supreme Court may be the last line of defense against autocracy. Nothing suggests that the current majority on the court would have the courage to stand up for the Constitution at the expense of fulfilling a right-wing fantasy of white Christian rule.
214
@Donald Seberger And as Linda Greenhouse has pointed out here before, a crucial test is coming in March, when the Supreme Court will decide whether or not Trump’s taxes and the workings of his accounting firm will be made public. Precedent unambiguously shows that those documents should be revealed. Should this Court rule against precedent, and protect the President, we will have lost our last bastion of democracy.
272
@Donald Seberger Above all Trump values ”strength” and he does not see compassion or any of the qualities you have listed as indicating strength. Only the power to tell others what to do is valued and only his value system counts. It is a total rejection of our democratic values but many people in this country who have felt unlistened to for years believe they can get their power back by piggybacking on his : just like every other nation that acquiesces to a self-impressed strong man.
31
Some 62 million voters and our bizarre electoral college has unleashed something toxic.
4
Hypocrisy abounds. The rule is unabashedly about race. It has nothing to do with economic factors. It is a thinly disguised effort to keep hated Latino minorities out of America. Will the rule be applied against unskilled and poor migrants from Norway? I doubt it.
All of my grandparents migrated here. None had any skills, nor money nor support groups here. They worked in very menial positions, one as a prize fighter just to be able to eat. If the rule were to be applied to my grandparents, all would have been likely to become public charges. They did not because they worked hard.
Trump simply plays on the prejudices of his stupid voters. They believe that Latino immigrants are lazy criminals. The reality is that they are no different from my grandparents. They want a better life, to work hard and become citizens in a country that became great because of migrant's efforts.
The tragedy is that SCOTUS now allows, in fact, encourages racism. The Justices know they are being played. Unlike Senators, who I believe take positions they know in their hearts are wrong in order to be re-elected, Justices serve for life. They truly believe the mean and evil policies and laws they uphold. America is in a very bad place.
4
Ah Linda, dear Linda (he said bordering on exasperation). You are too kind (very, very possible in today's US of A).
"Do the justices realize how they are being played?"
One must assume, Ms.Greenhouse, the justices to be innocent and not rolling in an ecstasy of cruelty enabled by our dear Commander-In- Chief and inherent in their and many other 'conservatives' souls.
4
Since 2020 is the biggest year in the election cycle, maybe we should be grateful these five justices are reminding us that the election has consequences for the judiciary. Bigly!
Bottom line: This writer equates "meanness" with strict adherence to the law. Really?
2
I don't remember a Greenhouse essay in which she so specifically called out the Justices' integrity. It is warranted. The organizing principals of the party they act for are cruelty and using the law to consolidate power for their political side.
The majority of the population is subservient to a political class and the sophistry of the Supreme Court as it undermines equal protection, voting rights and established process in favor of its political preferences.
Václav Havel spoke about those “who are starting to lose their battle with the temptations of power.” Politicians, he said, soon learn how easy it is to justify staying in power even as they give up bits of their soul in the process. It is easier than they think, he said, to get “morally tainted.”
“Politics is an area of human endeavor that places greater stress on moral sensitivity,” Havel concluded, “on the ability to reflect critically on oneself, on genuine responsibility, on taste and tact, on the capacity to empathize with others, on a sense of moderation, on humility. It is a job for modest people, for people who cannot be deceived.”
He is right. The unearned and misplaced arrogance of the Justices has failed our country.
8
Punishing communities who break the law by ignoring Federal immigration law and declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" is "vicious" and "mean" huh?
If you really believe that, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and make the Presidential election a referendum on the issue and see how the left does.
Same goes for giving illegal immigrants free health care and free money when there are gigantic homeless camps full of US citizens in the middle of the largest liberal (pick a city in California) cities in the country.
If you don't dare do the above during an election year you can choose to be sanctimonious on this issue, but don't have the gall to claim to be right.
4
The Supreme Court is no longer worthy of respect. It is a partisan institution dominated by right wing goons. when Democrats regain power they should pack the court and take away its power.
Those who argue that this country doesn't need poor and uneducated immigrants now, are history illiterates and snobbish. The vast majority of immigrants between 1880 and 1920 were poor and nearly illiterate and, yes, the parents or grandparents of today's snobs who forget their own roots and define themselves as super-Americans. If you look at the Supreme Court "eminents" they also descended from "immigrants." Too bad that some of them share the principles of rejection that would have denied their ancestors a place here. How sad for all of us. Supremes, you have it on your conscience!
2
I don’t believe the 5 justices are being played at all. They understand exactly what they are doing, and they have no qualms about it whatsoever. Obviously, they never consider the commonalities between the people whose lives they are ravaging, & their own ancestors b/c their ancestors were deserving, white Europeans, as were mine. Of course, they have apparently forgotten that some of our ancestors were also white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants who did not approve (to put it lightly), the incursion of these dirty, drunken Catholic Italians, Polish & Irish refugees.
In those days, religion was fairly important. These days, skin tint is all.
3
Mean indeed. Brilliant exposition on using deterrence as a justification for cruel and unusual punishment. God Bless you Linda Greenhouse. I always read and enjoy your columns. I learn from them and appreciate your grasp of, and ability to explain clearly the complexities of the law, our Constitution and the sometimes bizarre workings of the Supreme Court. But here you got your Irish (!) up, in an appropriately demure Greenhousian way. Good for you! Keep up the good work. And keep on Roberts' case!
2
Trump and his supporters, and their appointees, all feel that if they could only get rid of these pesky immigrants, all would be well. This is a perfect example of short-term thinking. After all, most of the US population immigrated from elsewhere. Also a bit of empathy is needed. I feel ashamed about Trump and his friends. They give the entire US a black eye in regard to mercy, justice and fairness.
3
Judicial activism in favor of liberal action = just.
Judicial activism against a liberal action = mean.
3
@Dr. Sam Rosenblum Liberal action in these cases is just humane action. Invoking political labels to make your case doesn't address the basic issue of this story. This administration is mean. It's run by a bully who is mean. It is trickling down throughout the system. And, this court is clearly politicized. I don't know if it's more than any other SCOTUS has been, but its actions are based on political, party politics. We don't have to bring up liberal vs conservative arguments to make that case.
3
Do they realize how they are being played? Seems like that question partly lets them off the hook. They bear full responsibility for what they do. They aren't stupid, just evil. They were put into place to maintain Republican racist hegemony, and they're fulfilling their roles, following their marching orders. (The last two, of course, were appointed strictly to cater to the whims of their appointer.)
As you well know, American history is full of federal judges, up to and including Supreme Court justices, who angered, disappointed, and defied the presidents who appointed them. For the most part, we are much better for it. But these five puppets will do so only after pigs fly.
5
Republicans who call themselves Christian need to go back to Sunday School. And Republicans who call themselves Americans need to go back to civics class.
5
@Citizen-of-the-World When they go to Sunday school, I think their teachers are telling them that Trumpism is good for them, that he's carrying out their God's wishes. So, Sunday school isn't going to help.
‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Mathew 25:40
Trump christian supporters are ALL racists.
9
Meanness. That's what is it, pure and simple. It goes against every Christian principle, or just the simple one, the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
7
@JB I truly wish the evangelicals understood the principal of the Golden Rule and Jesus's only commandment to "Love each other as I have loved you." I refuse to put the word Christian in relation to evangelical because I have not seen any actions among many of them to demonstrate that "you will know them by their acts."
2
If judges were nominated and confirmed solely on the basis of their legal qualifications, experience and judicial temperament, the Supreme Court would not be catering to the Trump administration’s vile and sadistic immigration policies.
All five of the conservative justices were nominated and confirmed by conservatives who touted their candidate’s pronounced conservative political bias as a reason for nominating them. The clear expectation was they would interpret the law according to conservative principles.
In plain English, the Court was openly rigged.
(Two of the conservative justices lied to Congress under oath; Kavanaugh and Thomas.)
All five pervert the law to promote conservative principles, which in the case of Mr Trump’s immigration policies are motivated by the mental disorders of xenophobia, paranoia and grandiosity, and Mr Trump has justified his policies by falsely claiming immigrants are murderers, rapists, drug dealers and gang members.
Mental disorders and lying are not Constitutional principles. The conservative justices turn a blind eye to Mr Trump’s abuse of power to promote his political fortunes by catering to his base’s racist prejudices against immigrants.
Watch these people. They might come for you next.
7
So we can expect nothing of these five "conservatives" who radically adjust the rulings of the Court in search of abeyance towards the vicious, mean occupant of the Oval Office?
6
In addition to being the most corrupt country in the world, (though well hidden), we have now been shown that our government is also cruel and mean spirited.
6
All I can think about is that legal immigrants who face hardship will not get the services needed to feed their children. Children who do not eat cannot learn, cannot function. Some children will die or get taken away and put into foster care.
How did my country become so absurdly, mean-spirited and cruel?
10
The Supreme Court justices are given life tenure specifically to be immune from political interference. That these small men do the bidding of a criminalized Executive Branch is another tragic loss to our nation. Not only have the republican justices kneeled at trump's altar, they also worship along with Barr at the repressive and extreme Catholic altar.
Can we still trust in God with this aberrant behavior by our most powerful leaders?
5
And how many of these justices are supposedly devout Catholics? It is now undeniable, the Catholic church is just another institution that has been stained by the vile touch of the Trump regime. No more of that "whatever you do for the least of one of these brothers and sisters" stuff from Jesus. No way. Trump can count on Catholics when it comes to right-to-life votes. Forget about all that charity stuff. It only applies to white folks.
5
The Justices are not being played. They want to punish poor brown people and this is just another method for them to do so.
3
The Republic has fallen.
Long live the Empire.
3
Wonder what happens should the next Democrat POTUS recalibrate federal money going to the Red States which contribute less to the federal treasury than they receive. It wouldn’t be to punish states whose electoral votes went Republican...of course.
This should get the support of Republicans. After all, a feature of conservative passion is punching down on “freeloader losers ” while advocating for the ‘“wealthy winners”...on principle, of course.
3
WE have lost the SC as a legal entity ,its another political group. The media is under attack every hour. The Senate has become a puppet for dear leader and the Dems are divided and squabbling over nonsense things. Things are looking dark.
This reminds me of Germany in the 1930's when people became sheep for a cult to lead. Yes, we are at a very serious time in our history.
5
@Wilt26
What was it Cain said to God - am I my brother’s keeper? And what was it Jesus said - whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do to me?
I am not a Christian or a Jew, but many people in this country are and, regardless, these are good thoughts to live by.
4
I gladly help 320,000,000 people. I can't be the keeper of every person on the planet. You go ahead and do that! Your position is unreasonable. Sometimes if you try to help everyone you end up being able to help no one.
1
GOP "meanies" have adopted a tough-minded, apathetic, and disciplinarian approach to immigration policy that can best be described as medieval. In addition, Democrats are accused implicitly of being a bunch of weepy, whiny, softies who just want to cry about, coddle, and enable these immigrants who Trump calls " some very bad individuals".
A curious thing happens when hate or meanness masquerades as a personal sacrifice in the service of moral toughness. The implication is that treating unlawful immigrants with cruelty is somehow best for everyone, including immigrants. That assumes, however, that there is actually some lesson that can be learned. These indigents have walked out of their countries to escape to safety with only the clothes on their back. I fail to see how additional gratuitous cruelty at our borders will teach anything at all to those who are already in despair.
Those who support Draconian immigration measures no doubt take personal comfort and pride in the knowledge that "difficult decisions" had to be made.
But I don't buy it. What some call moral toughness is just a smokescreen for good old-fashioned racist xenophobia.
6
All these -- family separation at the border, DACA, DAPA, etc. -- are 100% avoidable: just stay in your home country or come in legally.
Not complicated now is it?
Don't look at me for sympathies. Yet an another reason to reelect Trump.
2
@Bhaskar
Right, perfectly fine returning a ship full of fleeing Jews to the Nazis. Perfectly fine sending a family or two back to Honduras to be raped and murdered.
Seeking asylum has a special status in the law that has nothing to do with other legalities. A lack of empathy is the calling card of a sociopath.
1
Linda seems to be performing an autopsy on our judicial system--describing in minute detail the death of our systems of justice and of our democracy.
There is a straight line drawn to be between this republican party's animus against the rule of law (and its concomitant willingness to use any means necessary to achieve its goals) and the debris field that has become our government.
I ask: Where is the outrage?
This thing that we have built, a government of, for and by the People, is being dismantled before our eyes. An autocrat has taken the helm and there are enough of us stupid, angry, blinded by one thing or another, supporting him to really grasp what Franklin meant by a 'republic, if you can keep it.'
WE are watching dispassionately the loss of our dream, aided and abetted by sanctimonious republican representatives who never really were so much in love with democracy and the rule of law, as their own smallness and fervor to be led by the nose to perdition.
7
The irony, of course, is that we love to call ourselves a Christian nation. We are anything but.
4
These ugly dark days of trump will be remembered for the meanness that began with his symbolic descending ride down that escalator (into chaos and hostility to the "other") and continues in an accelerating way with his "exoneration" from impeachment--sorry Susan Collins couldn't have been more wrong. NO learning goes on in this White House.
Are his voters as mean as he is? Do they like his meanness? Are they glad to see America try to squash desperate South and Central Americans like bugs at the borders? I have begun to despise them as much as I do their "dear leader". When Amy Klobuchar talks of working with both sides, I wonder what she would have to give up to get a trump voter to agree to something that doesn't benefit him personally. We are looking at deficits into infinity.
3
I am always amazed that the only explanation for a conservative interpretation of the law is "mean spirited" or "racist". I imagine all trespassing laws are also "mean" as long as the trespasser has less than the property owner?
1
There is another deserved and very succinct four letter word that the Brits use to describe Trump. And which well defines anyone who Cannot Understand Normal Thought.
2
Linda, please explain what is wrong with wanting immigrants to come here by the established laws, in other words, LEGALLY and after they get here to not be on public assistance drawn from the taxes of legal citizens? It's really not that hard to understand and all the sophistry and harping on emotions won't change that basic fact. More than 99% of the people in this country are the descendants of legal immigrants or came here legally, (or were born here like the desendants of tragically unfortunate slavery) so again I ask, what's wrong with wanting people to stand in line, remain in Mexico while their asylum claims are being processed and then being able to provide for themselves once the get here - legally?
6
Okay, Trump is a character and his grace non-existent. He is abrasive and talks way too much about himself and criticizes his criticizers with a little too much venom and zealousness. But why would you blame all the problems of today solely on him. Many of the issues you state in your opinion are policies put in place by Congresses with Administrations of the past, both Democrat and Republican. The Democrats have thrown everything they have at the current administration and nothing has stuck. Now you want to condemn the SCOTUS in your frenzied efforts to bring down an elected President and Administration. The Democrats can't find a decent candidate to run, so you search for anything else to bring down the Republicans. That doesn't change what will happen on Election Day.
2
In this country we should just get a divorce and call it good. We are so divided on our beliefs on what we value vs. what they do I can not see any way around it. With constant fighting and disagreement what kind of life will we have here it has effected all of us to a point of madness. The right want's to rule not govern! One of the big problems for them is blue states fund for the red states. Again I do not see this getting any better so let us cut our losses.
2
Thanks but as always criticism of the court that is too weak and too late to protect us all.
1
I have been canvassing and writing letters, etc. since Jimmy Carter, and will continue to do so. But I no longer have a real belief that the country I love will ever be the land that I hoped for. I enter this part of my life believing that I am wasting my time fighting for democracy and civic virtue. This whole immigration thing is based on an Anglo-Saxon vision of what America is. Racism, in short. I am grateful for the few years of hope that I enjoyed.
5
When I look around and see what passes for justice these days, I want to throw up. I don't know this country that I've lived in for 60 years.
5
God love you, Ms. Greenhouse, as I have your columns over the years.
1
The math cited by some activist judge quoted in this article that the injunction affects hundreds of thousands of people “who were previously eligible for admission and permanent residence in the United States" is not correct.
1. There are 5,000,000,000 or more people in the world eligible for admission into the United States but...
2. At any one time there are only a few hundred thousand people in total who are already here AND seeking permanent residence (and therefore only a few thousand MAYBE POSSIBLY already here who are actually using public assistance)
All the people in the first group are as eligible as they have always been. That is a total prospective decision by consular officials just as it always has been.
It is the latter group under DHS supervision of a few thousand that is affected by the new rule which actually states that DHS must consider "the totality of the circumstances" (not just the 36-month propaganda point made by the opinion columnist) for applicants already here looking for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence from whatever form of legal temporary status they have.
The current public charge part of the law has been on the books for 20 years in current form (150 overall) but has never been spelled out. Now we have a bureaucracy finally doing its job.
3
I suppose Canada and Australia are "mean" also, expecting immigrants to be able to support themselves. Taxpayers already support tens of millions of American citizens with safety net programs; now we should support anyone who desires to live in America? Otherwise, we are mean?
If we don't allow homeless people to degrade our quality of life in California cities, then we would be mean? If we don't provide free healthcare for illegal immigrants, then we are mean? If we deport criminals who are here illegally in America we are mean?
Is America simply a giant charitable institution responsible for the well-being of anyone and everyone who sets foot here, otherwise we are mean people? You cannot be serious.
5
@Stew R
well said.
2
It is hard for me to determine how fascist elements in the current U.S. administration can be defeated. Yes, the election in November will be important, but President Sanders will face a Republican Supreme Court and possibly a Senate in enemy hands. The rule of law is paramount, but when the law is made by the bad guys, what does one do? If 'Roland Freisler ' is on the Supreme Court for life, that's a problem. Maybe the court can be expanded and Bernie can appoint some progressives.
1
It appears the thought has never occurred to Gorsuch and Thomas that “the gamesmanship and chaos” attendant on “the rise of nationwide injunctions” is due to the large volume of poorly reasoned and vindictively issued executive orders of the current administration.
4
The opinion writers for the NY Times should stop lambasting Trump for his tweeted criticism of judges while at the same time doing the same thing although in full sentences. Ms. Greenhouse seems to think that her calling into question the validity of Supreme Court rulings that she disagrees with is somehow less destructive of the public confidence in the rule of law than Trump's musings. It is not.
4
The thing is- we are a country if immigrants- and a motivated poor immigrant is willing to work very hard, something that generations of Americans have benefited from. Amazing that a large segment of the population has so little empathy or a vision to see how well thought out and controlled immigration might be a long term benefit to the country.
Population growth=economic growth- especially when the new population is dirt poor and can contribute and earn.
1
The SC now includes among its conservative gang a justice who failed the Bar evaluation and probably lied about sexual harassment, a justice who probably lied about drinking and sexual harassment and who spent time as a party hack, an Originalist whose opinions are not so Original as agenda driven and a justice who is occupying the position of an equally or better qualified Democratic nominee who owes his position to McConnell's usurpation of established nomination process.
They are expected to be Conservative/right wing. They are living up to these expectations. Why should we expect anything better from them and given Trump's America?
And the contamination is reaching into lower levels of the judiciary with lamentable appointments.
There is really only one solution if we value Rule of Law--retake the White House and Senate.
5
@Chris P ...
Good heavens, didn't you fully and enthusiastically endorse Barack Obama when he opined that "elections have consequences"?
The luck of the draw says that you on the left lost more than a thousand elections during the period between 2008 and 2016.
It seems to me that you need to take some serious responsibility for the problems that you believe you see...Elections DO have consequences and you have only yourselves to blame if you are unable to convince the voters that yours is "the better way"!
1
We currently see Republicans as mean. In a different era, it was Democrats. We include all the current mean behavior as being caused by Trumpism. The party affiliation and "fearless leader" identity changes depending on the time period of American history. What really does not change is the "Mean, angry, selfish" vs "Compassionate, conciliatory, and sharing" parts of our population embodied in our courts and political parties. We currently call these the "Right" and "Left", respectively. Today the Right prevails, and when the pendulum swings back it will be the Left. If we do not like the position of the pendulum we must push it where we want it to be.
3
@Mike W ...
There are many -- you just have to read the comments on Ms. Greenhouse's essay to see -- that believe that all it needs is some powerful wizard to wave a wand and make it all better.
The past three-plus years have shown that the left is unwilling and/or unable to put together a program and develop a messenger that can reach the voters needed to do the job...
So the whining continues.
Well, this column is final proof positive that one of the very best chroniclers of the Supreme Court has concluded that the Court has become politicized beyond all doubt.
This a milestone of a sort in that it finally does away with the fiction that the SCOTUS is above politics, above the momentary to and fro of a huge and fraught nation, and is interested only in upholding the Rule of Law as embodied in the Constitution.
Once, this was true. But the steady politicalization of the nominating process, as well as organized and well funded attempts to insure a conservative majority on all federal courts, have taken its toll.
The theft of the Merrick Garland seat, then, remains the watershed event when the Court lost its innocence, thanks to a man of little ethics or morals but an outsized and extreme partisan streak. The Court has not been the same since, and the damage is irreversible.
Ms. Greenhouse was among the last holdouts, believing that the Judicial Branch of government could and must steer clear of the political vagaries of the moment. History will record ar some future moment that the erosion of political neutrality of America's federal judiciary was the crack in the dam that maintained blind justice.
So long, farewell, auf weidersehen, goodbye.
9
I am not an American but my wife is and much of my family. The Canadian Supreme Court determines Justice and the law is always on trial Our barristers and solicitors when they do their duty are neither representatives of their client or the Crown their duty is to Canada and the cause of Justice.
If the USA is a country of laws the country is beyond repair; it is more a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta than a serious attempt at justice. It is time that lady justice is depicted without a blindfold and her thumb firmly on the scale. I am sure Mr Scalia is quite pleased. You don't have to be a lawyer and constitutional scholar to know the second amendment was about conscientious objector's right to freedom of religion.
I am sure Scalia would be pleased to see his death turn the Supreme Court into a British Star Chamber rather than another foundation stone in a country that once believed in equality before the law for commoners and nobles alike.
After 56 years from the San Francisco GOP convention Reagan's hold on the title of the man who destroyed America I am seriously considering John Adams the Federalist President who believed in law rather than justice as the American birthright but in an nation that has no memory of Woodrow Wilson's Creel Committee I guess blaming Barr, Trump and McConnell for the demise of the USA is the best we will get.
8
Judge Daniels is clearly acting on value judgments that he is making about policies adopted by an elected administration. I don't approve of those policies either, but Daniels is stepping well past what should be the powers of a judge to block public policy. The standard for public policy can never be whether a judge feels you have a "good reason" or not. That sort of judgment must left to elected officials.
I hope and expect that Daniels will get slapped down by a higher court for overstepping his powers.
3
@Tom Meadowcroft He is following established precedent and the law, not acting on his "value judgments". Get educated.
1
Ms. Greenhouse your opinion is music to my ears, and I am sure many others. The meanness of Christian conservative Republican lawyers and judges is sicking and definitely not an embrace of Christian values, the rule of law or the Constitution.
Lawyers in the Senate, like McConnell and Graham trample the Constitution and legislative processes for power and money. Many lawyers in the executive branch are working full time to protect the president, his family, and friends, while attacking people like LTC Vindman.
I have witnessed corruption in the WH and govt. go unchallenged and unpunished for most of my 71 years. Most of the corruption has been advanced or abetted by lawyers choosing power and money over country. I have been witness to the replacement of American Bar Association by the Federalist Society in the selection of judges. I have watched lawyers like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham corrupt the senate and attack the Constitution unchallenged by the partisan Roberts Court.
That said, the country needs lawyers like you, and those who resigned from the Roger Stone case, to step up and protect our democracy from Trump, AG Barr, and the Federalist Society. The failure of lawyers, who embrace the rule of law and the Constitution, to protect our country in this time of crisis will result in the US going the way of Poland, Turkey and Russia, all faux democracies run by criminals and autocrats.
19
I would urge people to keep in touch with the Oyez website or others like it. Obviously there are periods in our country’s history where the Supreme Court reveals, that it consists mostly of partisan sophists. One need only look at Gorsuch (where the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree), the dour Thomas, snarling Kavanaugh and supercilious Alito to know that we’re in the midst of a dark period of judicial mediocrity.
12
The US has been mean in actuality for some time, perhaps always. It's only media propaganda that has said anything to the contrary. Mass delusion is a real thing. Brainwashing is real. Most people do it to their children, insisting that they become cult members when they are 4 or 5 years old. Insisting that authority is to be respected. Trump is the ultimate authority now and you have no choice but to respect him or be punished. This is nothing new in the land of fake freedoms and false justice.
4
If this new definition went into effect last August then we are still more than two years away from there BEING a 36 month period. Is this ex-post-facto?
One person's meanness is another person's sense of fairness and law-abidingness. The law is contentious and is implemented in pursuit of policies that have winners and losers because nothing is free in this world where there are limited resources.
The fact that Greenhouse thought Springfield's mayor's choice was mean says a lot about the misguided morality of progressives: Immigrants matter, their own countrymen don't. I stopped reading the piece at that point.
8
@LR
I have never met a liberal who thinks that their own countrymen don’t matter. It’s just that they also think immigrants matter. And most believe that working immigrants are positive for the economy. Most everyone I know is liberal and most everyone thinks there needs to be controls on illegal immigration, but also better opportunities for legal ones to get here and stay. I’m sick and tired of the mischaracterization of us by the president, Fox News and others. It’s unnecessarily divisive. I have never personally met the mostly mythical beast that advocates for open borders.
1
The Supreme Court is not being played. Its five right-wing members are mean, too.
10
Springfield, MA, has a population of only about 150 thousand. Referring to it as one of the biggest cities in MA is technically true, yet misleading to the reader. The author's use of misleading facts like this weakens her overall argument.
5
Over the past three years of Trump and Republican (that includes SCOTUS) offensive trampling of American norms and human values, we are compelled to ask, who are we? For far too many the answer is ugly, the answer is more than mean, it is cruel bordering on sadistic.
Who did the Border Patrol recruit? Emptying water bottles where human beings may die of thirst reflects a barbaric character.
Who sits on the Supreme Court? Enabling Donald Trump is paving America's path to perdition.
The proverbial "ugly American," refers to rude, offensive behavior abroad. Today we have ugly Americans running our country but they are not simply rude and offensive, they are without a conscience, without morals, without compassion, they are inhuman.
12
Chief “Justice” Roberts just finished providing the official SCOTUS stamp of approval on nothing less than a banana republic worthy show trial in the US Senate, with no witnesses, no evidence, and not even anything resembling a coherent argument for the defense.
Roberts clearly has no interest in justice. He is taking is 5 to 4 majority and running with it, granting Republican wishes and doing his part to destroy democracy. With William Barr as DOJ there is really nothing they cannot do to pervert and twist the law into a framework for a corrupt dictatorship.
This is nothing less than a blatant abuse of power.
Even should we win the election, how do we fix this? This corrupt court cannot stand if we are to ever end the nightmare this country has become.
9
This article not only sets forth the immorality of Trumpism, but writes the script for what should be an effective campaign ad against the administration of cruel injustice.
6
Thanks for this article.
I knew something was wrong when pictures of immigrant children in cages started surfacing during the Obama administration.
It was confirmed by the recent UN report condemning the US for having the world’s largest number of immigrant children separated from their families based on 2015 data. (Obama administration).
It retrospect, it would be nice to see some comments lamenting the evilness of the Obama administration and its child separation policies.
6
“ The government responded that the four had simply “recited” religious beliefs “for the purpose of draping religious garb over their political activity.”
And what to say when Republicans like Jeff Sessions cited Bible verses in defense of the policy of breaking up families at our borders. How’s that for “reciting religious beliefs for the purpose of draping religious garb over political activity?” I can hardly think of a “meaner,” less compassionate group of individuals than Donald Trump, the Republicans in general and the majority of the current Supreme Court.
5
The meanness of Trump and his heartless Rasputin, Stephen Miller, has infused the entire Republican Party along with multiple government agencies including ICE, the Border Patrol, the Justice Department, HHS and yes, the Supreme Court. Immigrants used to be welcomed and asylum seekers were treated with compassion, even if they crossed the border illegally. Now children are separated from their parents and charitable Americans are prosecuted for giving water to border crossers dying of thirst in the desert. That's what the Federalist Society is really all about -- I've got mine Jack and the devil take the rest.
9
The Supreme Court has become the agency of a radical, vicious Republican President. Hasn’t this been the aim of the Federalist Society for decades?
7
”Do the justices realize how they are being played?”
The justices are the ones playing us. We are the poor fools still hoping that there is a semblance of impartiality left in the Court, even though it’s become painfully clear that the SC is nothing more than an unelected wing of the Republican Party. If Trump gets a second term, the entire federal judiciary will be as such (if it’s not already).
6
A lot of reactions to this are local. Have you ever read anything about the homelessness in CA, section 8 housing, and immigrants? It is an eye opener.
4
Keep hammering away, Ms. Greenhouse. Much appreciated.
5
We have the most activist Supreme Court in history. If it weren't for the thirteenth amendment they would probably re-instate the Dred Scott decision. But they can and probably will refuse to order of Congressional subpoenas that may uncover Trump's crimes.
5
Remember in "Judgment at Nuremberg" when the defense claimed the judges were not aware of the things that were happening.
Burt Lancaster's character -- the chief judge in the dock -- said they were aware. They knew what was happening and they just went along.
Some day, after Donald's gone and the histories are published, a few federal employees may well be asked: Were you aware?
5
If the current president is re-elected this year, ensuring a continuation of the arcane, cruel, inhumane, and yes, mean, decisions. My guess is the oldest Justice will retire or otherwise depart the Court. The 5-to-4 balance will no longer be meaningful because the "Chief Justice" will no longer have to pretend to apply balanced judicial wisdom to his votes and will return to being the hard-right Justice he has been for a long time.
What a sad state of affairs we have.
6
Ms. Greenhouse, as always, eloquently and with perfectly balanced sharpness, brings to light judiciary issues that would otherwise pass by the general public's awareness unnoticed.
Having read her articles for years, I can say that she is usually so matter-of-fact about the nuance and legal subtleties and precedence of the judiciary as to render many of her articles dry for readers who do not already have a keen interest in the subject.
The fact that she has unsheathed the full arsenal of her wit, perception, and depth of knowledge on the subject is indicative of the disturbing state of the Supreme Court and its subjugation to the infant in the White House.
12
The higher the percentage of 5-4 decisions, the more evidence that SCOTUS has been politicized. The Supreme Court *must* be above simple majority rules. If it isn't, it has no credibility. Period. I worry that if this continues, the next time power changes to the other side there will be court packing. And as much as I would prefer a liberal justice majority, that would be an extreme hit to the credibility of the judiciary. Unlike other branches, the power of which is enshrined in the Constitution, the authority of the judiciary exists only because we believe in it. When we stop believing, it's game over.
4
Mean. Yes, that is a good description of our country. There is not much compassion, either for the present generation or future generations, evident in our society. We barely know each other, speak to each other little, abjure compromise, and fall prey to disinformation and the lure of social media "me-too"-ism.
Our political system is utterly broken. Our governance is drifting toward authoritarianism. The judges on the Supreme Court - at least, the five Republicans - were put there to make sure that trend continues. They are not there to defend the law, individual rights, or the necessity of accountability. They are politicians in robes and, like their GOP colleagues in Congress, they do what Trump demands and they don't ask questions.
I feel lucky to have lived in a time when the United States of America did have ideals, did stand for human rights, did believe in policies based - at least to some extent - on knowledge and rationality, and did at least pretend to uphold equality before the law for some of its people.
Those days are gone and, I'm quite sure, the country I grew up in is, too. Within a few more years we will be like Russia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan, where an autocrat rules, dissent is punished, billionaires do whatever they want as long as they tithe to the
"president," and judges are rubber stamps for the dictator.
Rest in peace, America.
14
For the three years of this administration, I have known that our country is in a place and a condition those of us alive, even the oldest of us, have never experienced. I am not a U.S. historian and I wonder if we have ever in our nation's life had such an experience. I doubt it. The Founders left such extremism to create something better in a new place.
I have friends who are staunch Trump followers; they cannot see anything wrong with anything the president has done. I hope some of them read this column and understand that it is a LEGAL opinion column more than a partisan political opinion column and that what is happening to our legal system will not be good for them, either.
I would remind them that the "plain language" used by the president - my Trump follower-friends "love" his language! - and the horrific, inhumane policies enacted by this administration, enabled by a president who loves only himself and his money, not us, go against everything this country has been.
This hard-right charge can just as easily turn to the other extreme and become a hard-left, hyper-liberal environment. They would not like that and I would still not like it.
Having a politicized, almost militarized Supreme Court removes the one remaining pillar of government that would protect the citizens and inhabitants of this country by preventing extremist presidents from doing what they want and ignoring inconvenient things...like that pesky Constitution.
Lord help us. Please.
14
Shame on everyone. Our once beautiful country even with some significant flaws has always tried to move forward with strong leadership and policies that in time gave a 'leg up' to all. We would not be a country were it not for immigrants and slaves that were forced to come here. We would be a homogeneous community of people without worldly views and no understanding of the struggles of the world at lodge. No reason to excel or demonstrate free thinking. Status Quo would rule and Puritanical thoughts/rules would be the norm.
Oh wait. that's what we are headed for. Thanks to Trump, Barr, Pence and of course Mr. Miller.
7
These "justices" who agree with Trump at every instance are not listening, nor are they decent, caring people.
7
The system whereby judges are elected and remain on the Supreme Court until they die is clearly not working. First of all, the politicisation of justice is wrong. We can't agree on everything, but the way in which party politics has become such a part of the Supreme Court is ridiculous. Every time RBG goes into hospital I panic, not just because of her as an individual but because if she were to leave the Supreme Court then its decisions would be be one-sided for years to come.
As you can probably see from my tagline, I'm not from the US. I don't know enough about the system, but from what I understand wouldn't a rotational system where judges are allowed on the Supreme Court for fifteen year term limits (or something similar) work better? If anything it would help keep up with the course of modernisation that exists in all countries.
The head of the current Supreme Court in the UK is well-liked. However, she retires at the end of this year. When that happens an independent committee will elect a new head. This is sad, but probably good. While she is fairly liberal she is also 75. I don't believe any modern country should have such an old judiciary, it always becomes stale. Whatever happens, the current SC in the US is not working! I am not saying that from my high horse either, SC reform in the UK was fairly recent and before that the system was highly flawed.
I hope that for the US it might be seen as an example of possible change in the way justice is delivered.
9
@Ella The rolling term limits you describe most definitely would work. Americans are learning fast how vulnerable our system really is. No one has ever challenged in so completely. You can point pretty much all of this corruption to a single Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, which neutered the validity of voting. No vote = no democracy. That's where we're at.
6
@Ella It is far worse than that. The Federal Court system has hundreds of judges, all appointed for life. Any one of them can declare a law "unconstitutional' and therefore null and void. Dozens of challenges to the constitutionality of our Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) have been filed since it became law. Currently, a judge has ruled it unconstitutional. His ruling will be reviewed right after our November election.
Many of Trump's lifetime appointees are just political operatives that the American Bar Association has deemed "unqualified". They will torment this nation until they die. Republicans know they are a shrinking minority in this country, and I see their packing of the courts with these people as an attempt to create a an unelected political/ judicial government above an inferior elected government that we now have. The model is much like that of Iran's.
2
When we speak about the extreme inequality in the country today the gilded age or the era of robber barons is often invoked.
But most Americans have no idea of life in that period. And that’s because the history of the American labor movement is rarely taught in college and almost never mentioned in our popular media.
But that was a period when workers had to work 10 and 12 hour days under backbreaking and dangerous conditions. It was a time when the deaths by accident in steel mills read like combat casualty lists.
Children worked in mines, textile mills, slag heaps and sewers. Inequality was considered God’s will by rewarding the talented and punishing those who had no initiative.
The meanness in America is not new. And the courts played their role then by helping American capital cement an almost ironclad control over workers.
The only rights that workers had was the right to quit a job and starve. It was only through organizing and supreme sacrifice that some semblance of equity entered the workplace.
Even then the court responded with the theory that workplace safety laws were actually a violation of a workers right to contract because these laws limited the hours for certain types of labor.
Today we have a similar court, ideologically driven to use the law to favor rich over poor, capital over labor and inequality over fairness.
Justice Brennon once said “the law is what five justices say it is.” These five have declared meanness to be both letter and spirit.
12
@Drspock Thank you for the eloquemt comment about the force, and make no mistake it took force, of the original labor unions who made the middle class viable in America. Unfortunately, once the unions leadership got fat and happy and began to use workers reitrement funds for political purposes and to line their own pockets, unions were seen as a corrupting force and Reagan broke their backs. Then came NAFTA - the ultimate BIPARTISAN sellout of the American worker which is why you see all the hollowed out cities and towns in the south and in the rust belt, accompanied by the desperation of the everyday American working man/woman. And that is why DJT sits in the White House today and hopefully Bernie Sanders sits in it this time next year.
There is nothing comical about this article, but I thought this line by Ms. Greenhouse was very funny: "Do the justices realize how they are being played?"
The irony here of course is that we are the ones who are being played by the Supreme Court.
Posing as "originalists," justices like Scalia and his like have been "activist" from the word "GO," bending the law according to their ideology.
OK, bend the law according to your ideology, but don't call yourself an "originalist."
The present Court is no different.
8
Thank you for this. I’ve also been thinking a lot about how "mean" the US is. No one can dispute that "something toxic has been let loose" under the Trump regime, and that things have gotten worse for many millions of people both in the US and around the world since Trump rose to power.
But we must acknowledge, first, that the Trump Administration is merely the logical conclusion and inevitable manifestation of a neoliberal ideology championed by Democrats and Republicans alike over the past four decades -- because an ideology which promotes unfettered capitalism and, thus, the creation an oligarchy, can, in the end, only lead to the kind of tyranny we see on the rise from Hungary to India to Turkey to the UK to the Philippines and beyond.
And, second, that the “meanness” we are seeing now pales in comparison to the cruelty and depravity of the Atlantic slave trade; pales in comparison to the cruelty and depravity of the imperialists settler-colonialists of earlier centuries in their behavior toward the indigenous peoples; pales in comparison to the cruelty and depravity of the global human trafficking industry on which our consumer-capitalist society is based; pales in comparison to the cruelty and depravity of modern industrial animal agriculture, which enslaves, tortures, and murders billions of sentient beings no less able to suffer than you or I every year….
3
@Daniel Normally I would point out the glaring differences when an equivalency like yours here is drawn about neoliberal ideology. But in this all Americans are complict. Check out Farad Manjoo's article yesterday about Amazon.com for a perfect example. Everyone participates willingly or not in this unfettered capitalism, certainly anyone with a 401k or portfolio. It is the national religion.
These five Supreme Court Justices are not being "played". They are projecting their own beliefs on the rest of us, despite any law.
They are in the position to toss any law they do not like, out.
Or making bad decisions, like Citizens United, Voting Rights and who has the right to buy a wedding cake from a baker. to mention just a few
There is no justification needed. They are the Law after all.
7
The new public charge rule is fascinating, in a morbid way. In theory, if we were a country with strong labor rights, good wages/benefits, and affordable housing, the rule wouldn't affect many immigrants. The social safety net would really just be for those in dire straits.
Instead, the rule provides a snapshot of just how hostile America is to the working class right now, because we can see that it will be effective. Corporations and conservatives made sure of it. It's like an autoimmune disease that leaves the body unable to deal with the common cold.
5
One thing that would be helpful is if we stopped referring to the opposing ideologies as "progressive vs. conservative." What we are witnessing is more accurately described as "progressive vs. regressive."
Progressive is to move forward. Conservative is to conserve, to maintain. Regressive is to move backwards. That's the direction this Republican Supreme Court is heading, and make no mistake this is an unabashedly Republican court determined to implement every regressive policy the Trump administration can come up with.
The Roberts court era will go down in history as a shameful aberration second only to the Trump presidency. And it will only get worse if Trump is re-elected and Justice Ginsburg cannot or will not serve out his second term, as William Barr continues apace with his audition for her seat.
9
"The mayor of Springfield, Mass., one of the biggest cities in one of the bluest states, has taken the president up on his offer to let local officials veto the resettlement of refugees in their communities."
That's because, according to Wikipedia, Hispanics and Latinos of any race made up 38.8% of the population - of which 33.2% - or a third of the city, are Puerto Rican. By comparison, 22.3% are Black or African American. Might I point out that Blacks were originally brought here against their will? We owe them far more.
We don't need more people in America. But if anyone thinks that we do, then immigrants should enter on a merit basis as we need their skills to supplement our workforce. The is not a racist argument or part of a white supremacist agenda, in fact, it is race-neutral.
As for Puerto Rico, the United States should pay off its debt and declare it an independent nation. That's what it should have been from the very beginning. Puerto Rican pride should demand no less.
6
@Chevy: yes, we do need more people in this country. Have you looked at our birth rate lately? Well below replacement. The only reason we aren’t already in the “elder” dominated position of Japan, Russia, China or most European countries is b/c of immigration. No one has yet figured out how to have a strong prosperous economy w/o population growth & w/o immigration we would have a shrinking population.
Those immigrants, legal & illegal, are saving this country from itself. The Court & administration are perpetrating immeasurable harm, not only on the immigrants but on this country.
3
@Cat
Az, I appreciate your thoughts and, although I rarely answer a reply, I must strenuously disagree on two bases.
First, there are plenty of people in the world who would love to be American citizens and have waited patiently in line and followed the rules. Those who haven't should be sent back to their native countries and get back in line. They should not 'Go' past our porous borders or collect $200.
What is wrong with shrinking the population of the United States and every other country with a large population? Are we agoraphobic, afraid of (preserving) open spaces? I noted 50 years ago that the American lifestyle was unsustainable, especially when everyone in the world wanted the same.
Our air is polluted, the highways clogged, our schools overflowing. It's time we stopped encouraging everyone to expect the Amazon delivery truck with their order overnight . China did the world a great service with its "one-child" policy. It's time for other countries to follow suit.
Less is more.
1
We haven’t seen this before in other countries, to which we felt superior? No, we are drowning in meanness from the Supreme Court to the lowest judiciary bench.
When trump gave his nod of approval to white supremacists, who would have thought justices were included. The robe isn’t immunity from racism, misogyny or any other flaw we are capable of. Barr is the definitive example.
14
The immigration policies of Trump and the practice of Stephen Miller represent a politics (after 1933) “… that dare not speak it’s name” (misappropriating Oscar Wilde).
Editors won’t allow it and journalist dare not make comparisons but until people call out what is really happening, it will get worse--moving rapidly to the predictable cataclysmic conclusion.
The moves--and outcomes--affecting a large number of people (without the proper papers) are too synonymous to things that have already happened in the past; and the excuse that “… we didn’t see it coming…” won’t past historic judgement.
You need to call things for what they are.
9
@Peter P. Bernard Adding the Russian radio broadcasts on the US airwaves mentioned in another article today clearly illustrate "the plan" that Trump and Putin have for all of us. The time for revolution is near, and I am heartsick.
2
Whenever I read thoughtful and compassionate columns like Greeenhouse's, I feel two two conflicting emotions:
1) Hope that sanity, compassion, and respect for the Rule of Law have not been totally destroyed by the Republicans, and that they will be resurrected sometime within my remaining lifetime.
2) Despair, anger, and fear that #1 will never come to be.
Lately, #2 has been winning.
12
I am so tired of hearing about illegal immigrants. I am sorry that they are not happy I their country of origin. How is there plight my responsibility? Why does my nation have to accept every person with a sad story because some citizens think it is mean to do otherwise?
I think the Democrats are crazy for their pro-illegal immigrations stances. I cannot support them.
The people who want to help illegal immigrants should go to the countries where these people are fleeing and help them there. No more immigration. This issue is destroying the country- the left has got to compromise or Trump will be reelected.
9
@Willt26
Lacking the ability to put oneself in another's shoes leads to so much of this inability to find a middle ground in the immigration debate. The truth is we are not really talking about accepting EVERY person with a sad story. We are talking about accepting some of them who are able to ask for help. Regardless if you think we should accept any of them is it just to separate babies and children from their families to prove a point?
Secondly, thinking democrats are crazy is completely different than whether or not they are actually crazy. A difference of opinion does not make one crazy.
Thirdly, this issue IS destroying the country, but in my view its the conservatives who are conducting this scorched earth approach, unwilling to compromise. Trumps re-election may or may not be predicated on any of this.
Its our collective inability to reason and thereby make compromises and agreements, that has us at odds. somehow a small minority of us has gained enough leverage as to prevent this from happening.
4
@Willt26
Lacking the ability to put oneself in another's shoes leads to so much of this inability to find a middle ground in the immigration debate. The truth is we are not really talking about accepting EVERY person with a sad story. We are talking about accepting some of them who are able to ask for help. Regardless if you think we should accept any of them is it just to separate babies and children from their families to prove a point?
Secondly, thinking democrats are crazy is completely different than whether or not they are actually crazy. A difference of opinion does not make one crazy.
Thirdly, this issue IS destroying the country, but in my view its the conservatives who are conducting this scorched earth approach, unwilling to compromise. Trumps re-election may or may not be predicated on any of this.
Its our collective inability to reason and thereby make compromises and agreements, that has us at odds. somehow a small minority of us has gained enough leverage as to prevent this from happening.
@Willt26 Unless you're a Native American...your ancestors went through the same battles to get here. The fact that you got here first (without a government barring your way) does not give you some higher claim of being an American. You're not "more American" than a refugee or illegal immigrant who is desperate to become an American. We're the melting pot. Unfortunately you haven't taken time to actually notice this. We're all connected whether you like it or not.
1
You could build a desk from the law review articles that delineate the reasons why nationwide injunctions are unhelpful to the Rule of Law. They emanate sour-smelling hubris. Yes, it's easy to cheer for the such injunctions in "your favor" but they are an Instagram-like cancer on the judiciary and place the executive branch and judicial branch prematurely at odds.
3
Thank you for bringing up these important issues at a time when all eyes are on the election and post impeachment.
3
Many Americans enjoy patting themselves on the back for their kindness and generosity. They revere George Washington for his cherry tree story, ignoring that the General owned slaves and that, when Quakers tried to liberate one of his slaves, Washington complained. Clearly, he saw himself as the victim.
The Fugitive Slave Act was passed to stop liberals from helping escaped slaves. When we dip into history, we see again and again laws and enforcement that belie any felicitous interpretation of our common motives.
Laws against drug possession are used selectively by police forces, often against minorities of whom the police disapprove. In the Central Park Five case, people who claimed to be good and Christian are on record as saying that innocent kids should have been put to death.
The judgment against the people responsible for kicking over water cans should be manslaughter: Never again should such a person be allowed to hold a job in our Federal government. Then again, so many of their supervisors, right up to the one in the Oval, should also be disqualified for spitefulness and emotional instability rivaling that of Travis Bickle.
A core of white Americans who would have approved of the Fugitive Slave Act and now applaud draconian measures aimed at the oppressed claim that they are the real Americans. It's possible that they are right, that every charitable impulse that has become law has been aberrant, and will now be cured by returning America to its 1850 greatness.
7
A great article, and Ms. Greenhouse hits right at the moral corruption that has infected our nation. We are no longer a kind and generous people. We are selfish and mean, resentful and vindictive. As much as we hate to acknowledge it, Trump really does represent well the values and character of so many Americans today. His greater than 40% approval rating cannot be dismissed as a fluke.
15
"Do the justices realize how they are being played?"
I think that they do. I have noticed in some recent cases that some of the justices "play dumb" -- that is they act like they don't understand what is going on or what is actually behind a case. But anyone who has the intelligence to get to the Supreme Court can't be as dumb as they sometimes let on.
There is a big streak of meanness in this country. By "meanness" I mean trying to make life tough on some people just to make life tough on some people. I hate to say that meanness is particularly prevalent in some parts of the South and West and has been for about 200 years. It has often played a big part in politics.
There are many people around here who hate the dark-skinned and poor and would like to put as many road blocks in their way was possible. Many immigrants are a "twofer" that is, they both dark-skinned and poor.
Thanks to Ms. Greenhouse for here column which I always enjoy. She has found out that the Supreme Court is not the great institution fighting for justice, fairness, and the American Way that she thought it was. Turns out that about half the justices are shills for The Donald.
6
@Aubrey My "favourite" example is the shrugging acceptance that poor people are that way because they just don't want success and won't work for it. As someone who has had to do the lecturer/adjunct professor circuit for a stretch, I can definitely understand that being poor is not a choice or a result of laziness. Being poor is often just the result of being offered a stacked deck. Race and demographics, and zip code are the principal determinants of success in America, not work ethic.
1
The Supreme Court's conservative justices are NOT being played. They are players in their own right. Keeping America white and patriarchal has always been part of this era's conservative project.
9
One can reasonably claim many things, but to claim that the SCOTUS majority is being “played” is not one of them. They know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. As a group, they hold the view that what the United States needs is to be a country controlled by a white, male, financial and religious elite. All benefits should accrue to them. All other “citizens” should get just enough to avoid a popular revolt. To the extent possible, all those not part of the elite should be stripped of their rights (such as the right to vote, the right to representation) through voter intimidation and gerrymandering executed with ruthless precision. They hate the idea of a democratic republic. They are now in a position to institutionalize the racial, paternalistic plutocracy that they all were raised in. In other words, they are going to “Make America Great Again”. Played? Please.
8
Are you familiar with Trump v. Hawaii? https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf I would assume you are.
So perhaps you remember Justice Thomas' concurring opinion where he stated: "District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system— preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch. I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality."
Perhaps Judge Daniels should have considered this before issuing a nationwide injunction.
2
I looked into going back to my ancestral homeland of Ireland and found out that for Americans and Canadians to retire there you have to have proof of an income of at least $130,000 for life! Not kidding. They don't want a bunch of poor old people being a burden on society in their final days. Yet the most recent African refugee who steps foot in Italy is entitled to immediately go and live in Ireland. Where's the fairness there? The cab drivers in Waterford are almost all from Ghana.
So the concept of limiting immigration to avoid "public charges" is not new or unusual. Just try and retire in Ireland or England and you'll see how difficult it is to do so. Trump is on the right track here and this move makes a lot of sense.
6
the right track for who?
This is another marvelous column by Linda Greenhouse, and it comes at a time when Chief Justice John Roberts and his four conservative colleagues at the Supreme Court have descended into a fetid morass of cruelty and abject subservience to President Donald Trump.
Apparently, these right-wing jurists on the nation’s highest court care very little about shaming themselves, as they scurry around to satisfy the mean-spirited impulses of the deranged Commander-in-Chief.
It is not an exaggeration to say that in approving a Trump war on legal immigrants who will be deported on a whim for briefly receiving public assistance, a majority of our Supreme Court have the blood of innocents on their hands.
Things are even worse for the undocumented men, women and children who die unnecessarily under the hot sun of our western deserts, simply because Donald Trump wants them to die. Those deaths are invisible from the lofty bench of the Roberts Court.
4
Your beliefs in this column are rejected by millions of Americans and is the reason why Trump will win in 2020, and many more cities and states will become “gun” sanctuaries. DACA will probably succeed, but DAPA was and is dead on arrival.
7
@Pvbeachbum Trump lost by 3 million votes. It's only the bizarre electoral college that got him elected.
2
It's unfair to label the Trump administration or the Supreme Court "mean." If you are rich, white, and male, their policies and rulings could not be nicer.
5
Yes, Trump has hurt weaker people his entire life. He enjoys it. And yes, projection of his mean, shriveled soul onto the Supreme Court and much of our society should not surprise. Interesting though that the “Five” all profess as Catholics. Guess they missed the Saint Francis part of the curriculum.
6
"Do the justices realize how they are being played?"
Oh, Ms. Greenhouse, that's just naive. The meannest justices themselves are key PLAYERS in this national wave. That is exactly WHY they were installed in the first place.
As for this particular kind of meanness, Fat Donny is simply playing a more vicious version of a very old game: Keep a certain kind of white persons, large in number, riled up against people who are not white, in order to distract them from the fact that it's rich white people, in corporations and government, who have rigged the system, sent their jobs overseas, destroyed their blue-collar towns, polluted their air and water, refused to provide a living wage, subjected them to the predations of the medical industry, and . . . oh, but why go on?
And, of course, to prevent said white people from noticing that they have a lot more in common with people of other colors (whether recent immigrants or not) than they do with the true sources of their plundering.
This thing has happened, is happening now, in various countries around the world. Just change the name of the ethnic group being "blamed."
And supreme courts like ours provide--eagerly--an official fig leaf for it.
6
The Right wing will never be happy. It's their business model.
They will always be a mean strike against anyone or group who is actually is happy, in the face of gross bigotry or inequality. You keep power by scaring and blaming people. Then getting them to pay for it.
There will never be a day that Fox and it's viewers are truly happy. They don't want be either, they just like being angry. It makes them feel alive. There always will be some reason or person which to project their self haltered onto and they charge money for it so hence no matter what, we will always have anger at other humans for not being the right kind of human. Wonderful isn't it.
2
Linda Greenhouse is a national treasure. If only the justices of the Supreme Court wrote with such simplicity and clarity. One point, however, strikes me in observing the continuing descent of the Court. President Trump is rightly criticized for his awful appointments, born as they are of his characteristic pandering to the ill-assorted biases of his "base". But let's spare a thought for the otherwise sainted President George H.W. Bush, of Andover and Yale, who gave us Clarence Thomas, whose knee-jerk assent to every one of those biases has blighted the Court and the country for these many years. The "meanness" that Ms. Greenhouse detects began its lurking perversion in one of the most cynical nominations of the pre-Trump era.
4
It was 1980 when a classmate told me to expect GHWB to use his connections to replace Reagan as president, with the goal of appointing three Supreme Court justices. "Those appointments are for life, and that way he can leave his mark for the next generation, when one of his sons might be eligible."
She said Congress can't be counted on to do the unpopular things needed to keep some of us rich and the rest not, but the CIA could get the party started quickly and hand Congress the bill.
"Congress will never debate a war when there are already boots on the ground."
She was off by one. Reagan left us Scalia.
"Donald Trump, seeing himself the innocent victim of attacks from vicious and mean people"
Maybe he is just mis-identifying those who harmed him originally : his own parents. He cannot now afford to identify them to himself.
3
There are many fables and tales of morality that were read to us as children and we grew up to read. Some come from long ago others from our books of worship. They define what is good and what we should avoid as decent people.
I often wonder if mean kids, or those who grew to be mean, like Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Mitch McConnell, William Barr, Betsy DeVos, Sean Hannity, Steven Miller, Devin Nunes, Kevin McCarthy, Rush Limbaugh, Mick Mulvaney, or Mike Pompeo were ever read to or ever read these lessons themselves and if they did, they just laugh at them saying "Suckers!"?
With the holiday season just passed, I wonder, while the rest of us were watching and reading "A Christmas Carol", a lesson of caring and redemption, did Republicans read "A Christmas Nightmare", where a good and decent businessman is corrupted beyond measure by caring?
Did we see "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" as a lesson in the meaning of the spirit of love and goodness while FOX played "The Grinch Who Owns Christmas" as a lesson in maintaining a strong commerce based society or risk losing it all to sentimentalism?
Did you watch "It's a Wonderful Life" as a tale of how basic goodness, sacrifice, and decency are rewarded or "It's an Unfair Life" as the tragic tale of the terrible treatment of poor Mr. Potter who not only deserved his wealth but was thwarted in his rightful place of controlling the lives and circumstances of others?
4
"Do the justices realize how they are being played? I started this column by mentioning psychological projection, a distorted view of others engendered by a distorted view of oneself. That’s Donald Trump, seeing himself the innocent victim of attacks from vicious and mean people. There’s another kind of projection, the image reflected when light strikes a mirror. Who do these five justices see when they look in their mental mirrors? Could it be Donald Trump?"
_____________
Being played? The MAGA base is being played. Red flag of immigration waived in the bull's face, enraging the beast. But, like the matador, the Duck is using the beast for other purposes. The 5 on the SC are in on the game.
4
More evidence of the long term, possibly irreversible, damage that the Trump administration has done to the liberal democratic traditions and practices that Americans used to honor and respect. Apparently, the only solution is to dismiss Trump, his family and his Congressional sycophants, through the ballot box. I wonder if we have the guts, the intelligence, and the means to do so.
1
Linda Greenhouse is our most cogent and critical chronicler of the grievous descent of the SCOTUS into partisanship, hypocrisy, and subservience.
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for fulfilling that sad duty.
4
Ms. Greenhouse, thank you for speaking truth to mean and cruel power
2
Trump's behavior towards both immigrants and the people of Puerto Rico has been beyond disgraceful. America is not a European ethno-state, but without promoting his misguided belief that it is and his affinity for organized crime, he would never have been anywhere near a successful run for the White House.
Trump's larger plan seems to be to limit immigration by eroding the rule of law, public morality and government competence to the point that no one who is not from here would want to come here in the first place.
1
@Alan
Soon, no one will want to come here.
Wonderful column and insights, as usual! Speaking of psychological projections, I’ve always thought the notion of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” falls squarely within that category—used by formerly sane conservatives/Republicans whose minds and morals have been obliterated by Trump, thus becoming unhinged worshippers in the cult of Trump.
2
After Citizen's United I ceased to have any respect for the Supreme Court. Trump is the culmination of that gross injustice towards the majority of this country. Are they under the delussion their progeny will be isolated from the damage they constantly create with their abject loyalty in protecting Trump? Releasing his tax returns rather than prolonging the decision possibly until June is testament to who is reflected in their mirrors. Not the hideously disfigured Dorian Gray but the equally hideous vision of Donald Trump. Those judges are one and the same with Trump only they sold their souls to promote the Federalist Society, Trump never had one.
181
@rhdelp
I lost respect in Bush v. Gore.
What I wonder is whether what we are seeing is the last gasp of a narrow, clutching, racist minority, or the flowering of a fascist state, as per Donald Duck's statement that he wants to emulate China's no-term-limit Leader. The Courts in a fascist state are servants, not judicial thinkers. The fact that the five conservatives are sincerely conservative and not merely trying to do whatever Trump wants from them hardly matters.
22
@rhdelp IRS bad actors are working diligently to clean up the tax returns before release.
3
I applaud this truth-to-power statement of fact. There is no denying that the dark elements we saw accelerating after Trump's escalator ride down and rallies leading up to his election have clearly rubbed off on so many in all three branches of government, the public at large and certain parts of the press. We are witnesses to the deterioration of our nation. We can rely on Ms. Greenhouse to shine the light with eloquence.
5
@Mitch Remember Trump thinks he came down on an elevator. no matter he confuses everything and is admired for it by his adoring followers. His misuse of language, his confusion over history ,his lack of understanding, his simple outlook, his anger are all things they can relate to. He is their kind of guy! Uneducated as Trump says.
1
I lost all respect for the Supreme Court with Bush v. Gore, a decision so bad that it cannot be cited as precedent. You know, if a Democrat wants to use it. So, Bush became President and he and Cheney and Rumsfeld lied us into the Iraq War. I blame the Supreme Court for that war and all of its fall out. Decisions have consequences that go beyond the simple facts of the case.
9
If you haven't seen it, Judge Easterbrook's opinion in Baez-Sanchez v. Barr is both disturbing (for its description of the administration behavior) and at least potentially reassuring (for those who believe we still have a country in which the democratic experiment consists of adopting laws and applying them fairly).
5
At the rate Donald Trump is appointing Federal Judges, soon meanness will be the law of the land rather than simply the mindset of the president.
14
Ms. Greenhouse seems to suggest that the rule of law can have a hard bite on law breakers, and can seem mean because of that. That is not a commitment to the rule of law, but a commitment to mercy or something else that is not fully articulated. As to nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts, that is a recipe for anarchy, and an invitation to unbridled judicial activism.
This piece is an interesting window in on the partisan distinctions in the law and culture.
5
"Tennessee enacted a law to cut off state money to cities that declare themselves “sanctuaries” from federal immigration enforcement."
The Constitution and the Courts have always said that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration. Here is one example. In 1994, Californians voted overwhelmingly to end non-emergency medical care, public education, and other services for illegal immigrants. Federal judge Mariana Pfaeizer declared the law unconstitutional, and stopped it from going into effect. She described the law as scheme to regulate immigration which would have infringed on the federal governments exclusive jurisdiction over immigration.
Sanctuary cities also infringe on the federal government’s sole jurisdiction over immigration.
7
@ann How do sanctuary cities infringe on the federal government's role in immigration? My understanding is sanctuary cities refuse to honor ICE detainers (which have been ruled unconstitutional in federal court) and that they prohibit local law enforcement officials from taking part in ICE activities without prior agreement and federal funding. In my view, sanctuary cities have decided to keep the feds from infringing on local law enforcement.
4
@Thomas Dye Exactly. The federal government using the power of funding and so-called federal primacy is doing nothing more than using the force of extortion against local law enforcement. Refusing to cooperate is not an infringement on the Trump administration's right to conduct extortion on sanctuary cities.
2
Isn't it a bedrock principle of just law-making that new laws and regulations are not retroactive?
It appears (from the verb tenses used in the article) that the new Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds rule is exactly that - it turns actions that were innocuous at the time they were performed into actions with serious, and for some, life-wrecking consequences.
Has SCOTUS swapped the principle of non-retroactivity for a trivial demonstration of its opposition to "the rise of nationwide injunctions"?
20
"... because I’ve been thinking for some time now that the United States has become a mean country."
It is not my intention to argue against the point you are making Ms Greenhouse. I am sorry to be the one to inform you but I know this "meanness" to be true for all of my life. I am sure millions of my fellow Americans, older and younger than I, have also had this experience of America for all of their lives as well. In fact i think we would say that this mean streak is America as much as the kindness and good is if not more so.
The Justices are not being played. They are fully aware of what they are doing. The GOP has captured all three branches. They intend to impose their projected reality on all of us. This is America.
26
Republicans have been using projection for more than a decade, at least since the election of George Bush in 2000. Indeed, they have no rationale for their own actions other than as raw power grab, so they depend heavily on projection which has a large portion of accusation of the other in it. The power of projection lies in its ability to stop your opponent momentarily and to force them into a defensive mode. But as soon as they offer counter arguments the Republicans claim that this is “just an excuse.” Or, they never let you get a word in edgewise as Steve Bannon did on the “Bill Maher Show” the other night and they continue to tell you what YOU did and where YOU are wrong.
Projection cannot be argued because it is a false front, a defense mechanism behind which the true self is protected from any pain from the Other, whatever it is: psychic or monetary or something else. So far as I can tell, only self-correction and self recognition can dismantle projection or the outright rejection of it entirely by one individual to another or by individual citizens rejecting the Party that uses it.
One thing is sure: until people recognize how often it is used they can’t reject it, and one reason they don’t recognize it is because they sympathize with the underlying emotional sense that one has been attacked by the other guy. That emotional identification destroys their own self protective mechanisms.
5
The thesis of this article is not examining the immigration issue in its broadest sense nor is it viewing its implications for election 2020. "Sanctuary cities", "eliminating ICE" writes off at minimum 40% of the electorate. This 40% will NEVER vote Democrat on this single issue. The U.S. has a myriad of its own problems, i.e. homeless, low wages, access to housing and health and that 40% view citizens come first. In the broader picture, the U.S., its CIA, ensure a neo-colonial empire( we love our cheap coffee, bananas), which is the root cause. Immigration laws have been around for over a century for a reason.
3
@tennvol30736
The Cavendish banana, what one commonly sees in markets, is basically doomed by a worldwide virus.
1
@tennvol30736
The world is unfair, "Mean" in it's disproportionate allocation of natures bounty with the numbers of humans living in a given region.
I didn't earn my lucky break of being born in this country, rather than a europian ghetto. The real distinction between Trump and previous Presidents (including FDR when closed borders were certain death) is that Trump is unapologetic, and revels in this being a sign of his personal courage.
The meme "Eliminate ICE" only exacerbated the partisan divide.
1
@tennvol30736 What is the reason immigration laws have been around for more than a century? Fear of the immigrant's difference. When my Irish ancestors immigrated before there were immigration laws, the good people here in the U.S. refused them employment, worried about the diseases they'd bring, judged them mentally inferior, and burned a few of their Catholic churches. After a while, as immigrants assimilate and citizens become accustomed to their differences, the fear subsides. When I was a youngster, the good people of the U.S. wisely elected one of our own, JFK, president.
The lesson seems clear--be confident, don't fear.
1
Our country is being hollowed out by the focused meanness of this administration, its foot soldiers and minions. With a second term it will accelerate faster than the climate change that is reshaping the earth as we know it. Even if the political pendulum swings back toward sanity and justice, our norms will be infinitely more difficult to restore than they were to shatter. I fear for our children and grandchildren. Right now our best hope is to get out the vote and support whichever candidate is chosen to run against this cruel president.
12
Wow! Gone are the days when Ms Greenhouse would look into the nuances of the SCotUS as it interpreted various words, phrases and prior decisions.
Now, we're standing out on our front porches watching billowing and ominous storm clouds racing to engulf us!
7
Just when I thought I could no longer be shocked by what's happening....heartbreaking...and and important and enlightening piece.
Thank you for continuing to shine the light on this toxic maneuvering and for highlighting the projection coming from this administration.
19
It wasn't until the S/C Justices who decided the Korematsu case were long in the grave before our current Chief Justice, John Roberts, kinda, sorta called the wisdom of that appalling decision into question. Now, with the rapid dissemination and dissection of information along with what one hopes is a somewhat higher standard for judicial temperament and action (OK, maybe not), perhaps some of our current Justices will get their comeuppance before their bodies begin to molder.
May the pundits, professors and reporters of the world unite to constantly call into question the decision of any Justice who so blatantly prefers the powerful over the poor and dispossessed.
11
We keep hearing about America and the rule of law. With the way the Supreme Court and the Justice Department have been acting the rule of law has become wishful thinking. Some old fashion idea that might interfere with the president getting what he wants. Chief Justice Roberts recently said there are no Obama judges or Trump judges or something to that effect. Who is he kidding, himself probably. There are no Connors or Kennedys anymore. All one needs to do is read a synopsis of an upcoming trial to know the outcome. These justices might as well just relax in bed and phone it in.
19
Following the 2016 election , I was certain that institutional norms would contain DJT and limit his destructive behaviors to superficial issues. My concern at the time was that his lack of awareness on foreign policy could trigger nuclear war with North Korea; all else was survivable. Such naivete on my part! Piece by piece the institutional safeguards have been dismantled. The last remaining bulwark was the courts and SCOTUS.
As Ms. Greenhouse has chronicled throughout this administration, the piecemeal, bit-by-bit, degradation of SCOTUS has occurred without halt. It doesn’t take a nuclear war to bring this experiment to an end. Just a willingness to accept incremental evil.
33
@Billfer I love how the left lumps immigrants and illegals as one. The ones who came here legally, put the hard work in to become actual citizens don’t even want the illegals. The fact that they care more for everyone else but their own legal American fellow citizens is appalling. We have our own homeless, hungry, and people who can’t afford medication, including insulin. Obama started this, and Trump is doing his best to undo that traitor’s policies. DACA people have had many years to apply and become full citizens. They choose not to. Illegals come because the left has promised them free everything. They vote in elections. They get driver’s licenses without testing or vetting. #AmericansFirst
I hit reply to someone else. How it needed up here, I don’t know and it won’t let me delete it.
@Jamie
I am a full-fledged progressive liberal Democrat (voted for McGovern!!) and I fully distinguish between legal immigration, refugees fleeing war and political oppression, and economic based illegal entry into the country. The underlying issue isn't "Obama started it..." rather it is that Congress has repeatedly failed to address these issues in a rational manner through numerous administrations long before Obama.
Additionally, having worked with H1B and Green Card individuals through most of my career in healthcare, a significant part of the problem and failure to resolve it stems from corporate conduct. It is in the interests of many businesses to employ illegal work forces. They cost less and don't file WC claims when injured or killed on the job. When was the last time an employer or corporate officer went to jail for employing illegal immigrants. Start serious enforcement with meaningful jail terms for employers and there will be a change in the flow of economically based illegal border crossings.
Lastly, I recall an instruction, " As you have done to the least of these, you have done unto me." Those were at one time words to live by; apparently not anymore.
Since the appointment of George W. Bush to the US Presidency after the votes were never completely counted, The US Supreme Court has worked harder to support The GOP than they have to support the US Constitution. Citizens United, the dismissal of every lawsuit that has challenged Trump's power, and oversight of a sham impeachment trial are just a few of the more blatant examples.
At every single opportunity, Trump has ignored or outright defied the Constitution without any check on his power from any other branch of the federal government. There is not a single example of Trump ever demonstrating fidelity to the rule of law or the US Constitution. Why would anyone expect him to respect the results of the election in November 2020? There is absolutely no precedent whatsoever for Trump ever doing the right thing, How will The Supreme Court respond when we reach that point? Would you honestly expect them to protect our nation from this lawless President?
I believe that US Democracy is already dead and gone, but like the frog in a pot of water that is slowly being heated to a boil, Americans are oblivious to the death of their way of life. The Supreme Court and the GOP are fanning the flames.
28
Government is an institution of rules, not kindness or meanness. There are rules that dictate whether or not people are allowed into the country and whether or not people should be allowed to stay. Those laws should be followed. Cities and states are actively working to thwart the rule of law because they don’t agree with it. They should advocate for changing the law rather than refusing to follow it.
8
@John Until the Tenth Amendment has been repealed, cities and states have every right (and some would say, duty) to resist the federal government when it tries to compel them to enforce Federal laws.
6
John,
You have conflated rules with laws. The crux of the decision on the Public Charge ruling was that the government had changed the rules without any justification. People who are legally in the US can find themselves barred from citizenship forever because of Steve Miller’s loathing of immigrants.
4
@John Changing the rules mid-stream for people who have entered the country legally and complied thoroughly is mean.
1
The meanness extends far beyond immigration. In the interest of brevity though, I can see why Greenhouse needed to limit the conversation to a single subject matter.
I'm going to take the conversation in a different direction though. How does ICE know they are pouring out water and food intended for unlawful immigrants?
Caching food for resupply is a common practice in long-distance backpacking. Is ICE entirely sure the water isn't a life-saving resource for a lawful US citizen? How would you know? You would need to wait by the water cache to see who picks up the bottle.
I think these volunteers have a legal argument to make. ICE is endangering the lives of citizens by indiscriminately destroying resupply points without verifying the actual recipient. If I walk through a national wilderness refuge only to find ICE has dumped out my water, I'm dead. That sounds like public endangerment to me.
43
Another great article explaining to this reader what is often too deep, too complex, and too boring to follow. I especially appreciated seeing the very non-legalese term "mean". I know what that is, it's the perfect word to clarify so much of what's going on these days.
34
@Gene W.
I would use "mean and cruel," a result of 400 years of cruelty and disenfranchisement.
SCOTUS is hopelessly politicized. The only remedy is to elect a Democrat president who will expand the court, restoring a political balance. If the Republicans and conservative justices on the Court don't like that, they have only themselves to blame for making the Court a blatant policy arm of the Republican party.
32
@rhall There shouldn’t be a political balance. There should only be the law and the constitution.
1
The institutions in this country can no longer be counted on and , in fact, have lost much of their credibility. The Justice Department is history, and The Supreme Court is likely also compromised. Nobody is coming to save our democracy. Nobody is coming to save us from an unstable occupant in the White House. Will th American people act and will we act in time?
32
@Robin Oh
Probably not.
District courts imposing nationwide stays is pretty much the definition of judicial activism. It's courts acting beyond their delegated authority. If they want to impose a stay, it has to be limited to their district. Most district courts understand this, but there are a few who do not.
8
No, it’s not “judicial activism.”
It’s courts doing the job they were hired to do: Ruling on the constitutionality of legislation.
4
District courts only have jurisdiction over their specific regional district.
The comments section has devolved into a discussion about immigration and its benefits. However, as an immigrant myself I know that the "public charge" thing has always been part of the process. The government merely stated some firm guidelines about what this could mean exactly. We could take issue with its details -- 12 months, how different benefits are counted etc -- but surely it is not unreasonable to have some kind of rule about this, as most other countries have. Surely these rules can be tweaked by the next administration. What is against current law -- and against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans -- is unrestricted immigration of vast numbers of poor and uneducated people, at a time when inequality among Americans is already at one of its highest points in history.
The argument that descendants of immigrants will do better than their parents and thus make the money back is beside the point -- if a similar investment was made into people already in the US living in abject poverty, their children would also do much better.
9
@gus The argument is not about immigration per se. Everyone agrees that all thriving democracies need immigrants to continue to grow. The argument is with the apparently arbitrary change in the 1999 guidance which defined "public charge." The plaintiffs aver that the Administration has violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s core requirement of “reasoned decision making by giving no account of its reasoning in itss decision making to change the 1999 guidance.
12
@gus ...and furthermore: "if a similar investment was made into people already in the US living in abject poverty, their children would also do much better." Do you not recognize Medicaid, SNAP, ADC, etc., all the safety net programs as being available to native born Americans? You're sliding into the trope that immigrants "take from" the truly worthy. Is that what you think?
It was not that long ago we were reading that with the election of Obama we were becoming a post-racial society.
That lasted the few moments until McConnell made it clear he would do anything to make him a one-term President.
The pendulum has swung back to the extreme right with Trump's election and his unleashing of the forces of the darkest sides of our humanity.
46
@mjbarr
Oh please, Schumer hasn't expressed wanting Trump to be a one term President? Not everything has to do with race. If it was Hillary-Care instead of Obama-Care in 2010 there still would have been the tea party, Republicans still would have swept congress that year. Bringing up race constantly only divides us further.
1
I found the cruelty described in this article extremely painful to read. Thank you, Linda Greenhouse, for exposing this very dark and punitive approach to immigrants, legal or illegal. I am a first-generation citizen on my mother's side (she and her family escaped from pogroms in the Ukraine with no papers and no money in the 1920s) and have complete sympathy with current refugees. We MUST change administrations in November not only for the welfare of refugees but also for our own moral and ethical survival.
38
His majesty only cares about the size of his hands.
Once upon a time, the law belonged to all of us.
I look forward to voting, voting for a better future.
My late mother once said, "The worst thing you can do to someone is ignore them". I agree...so there.
7
@TucsonYaqui You live in a state that is now actively legislating to remove many people from the voter rolls and to prevent others from joining. Better make sure that you are still on those rolls and that these efforts by Republicans to “choose their voters” don’t succeed.
1
There are so many fears that I have about another 4 years of a Trump administration, but the future of the Supreme Court keeps me up at night.
24
“I don’t remember such hand-wringing a few years back . . . “ over the rise in nationwide injunctions.
Could it simply be that nationwide injunctions weren’t so common a few years back? That the rapid increase in nationwide injunctions from lower courts is a part of the anti-Trump “resistance”?
I realize this is an opinion piece, but maybe a little data is in order. Or is it easier to simply make an unsubstantiated assertion?
7
@Jared . I think you have mistaken what Ms. Greenhouse said. She said that in a prior instance of "nationwide injunction" there was no Supreme Court justices deploring the usage of such a tool, and she rightly suggested that the reason for the silence of the justices was their anti-immigrant bias.
14
If we lived in a different world, politicians and the Supreme Court would take notice of a very changed world. Climate change, not only mortal threats and corruption, are driving migration. If countries would understand that violating borders will become increasingly common due to circumstances beyond any one country's control, there would be an attempt to reorder our priorities and manage the crises, with humanity.
If leaders would admit the current situation is unsustainable - inequality, white supremacy, anti-semitism on the rise- we might have a chance. Immigration has become the tree people see when it is the forest that is on fire.
21
In law, the adjective “summary” describes a judicial process conducted without the customary legal formalities. The customary legal formalities were observed in all the judicial decisions Linda Greenhouse describes as summary decisions.
Judge Andrew S. Hanen actually issued a preliminary injunction to prevent Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) from going into effect. But he refused to issue an injunction to shutdown Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) because it was already in effect. He said ending DACA would be like trying to unscramble an egg. He said, “Here, the egg has been scrambled,” Judge Hanen wrote. “To try to put it back in the shell with only a preliminary injunction record, and perhaps at great risk to many, does not make sense nor serve the best interests of this country.”
The Constitution assigns Congress authority over immigration. Both DACA and DAPA was created to override Congress. In combination with DACA, the DAPA program would have granted half of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants immunity to deportation, all without congressional approval.
2
@William Case, does the Constitution give Congress authority over immigration? What about Trump's various executive orders regarding immigrants?
2
All undocumented immigrants already in the States should be granted immunity from deportation and permitted to apply for permanent residency.
1
@William Case - "Constitution assigns Congress authority over immigration.... all without congressional approval."
That's a fine argument you got there. Be a real shame should President Trump usurp the authority of congress on other matters.
Oh wait. He has! He has made a career out of it. From military to walls to tariffs. Oh, and funding. He was even was impeached over that one. Although the jury was, how does he say, biased.
Well, as they say at the RNC, expediency is the cornerstone of the law. Or something like that.
2
as some of the trump cases reach the building on the hill in washington, d.c, i'll be watching to see if it is the supreme court - or the supreme kangaroo court.
i am very concerned about the outcome of the cases - i think trump will do whatever he can, legal or extra-legal, to stay in the oval office.
he is a tyrant and dictator and the worst may be yet to come. congress couldn't save us. will the supreme court live up to its name?
8
We are mean, and getting meaner nationally. We will cite ideals like "the rule of law" to justify treating other humans deplorably - death and separation of vulnerable children being only two ways - even as we ignore the "rule of law" for Presidents, Senators and their cronies.
I am grateful that Religious Freedom can be used to defend human rights rather than to constrict them. It will be interesting to see if States Rights will be defended by the states rights zealots when the issue is not taxation and guns, but human rights. Somehow I doubt it.
As for the Court? Well, this was the whole reason that McConnell sold out the Constitution to be able to stack it. Roberts faces a very ugly reckoning in history books when his court and its legacy will be discussed. Except of course in Texas, where the book will be edited appropriately.
28
Mean spirited animus and repugnant policies cannot be the basis for nationwide injunctions by a federal district judge. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal court to cases or controversies. That means adjudicating the issues between the parties before the court.
Suing the United States does not confer on a district judge jurisdiction to enjoin the entire US government. The Constitution grants the power to legislate to Congress and the duty to carry out the law to the executive branch. The courts resolve legal disputes before the bench. Reaching beyond the the case is an arrogation of power by the district court.
Just as the president is not above the law, the district judge is not above the constitutional limits on jurisdiction.
5
Well, every single day the President does act as if he is above the law and the traditional ways that government operates. So there goes the argument that Federal District Judges should act in accord with the constitutional limits on the President.
6
You’re trying to claim that district courts don’t have the right to rule on constitutional grounds.
It’s been well establushed that they do have that right.
1
Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction to prevent Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) from going into effect. But he refused to issue an injunction to shutdown Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) because it was already in effect. He said ending DACA would be like trying to unscramble an egg. He said, “Here, the egg has been scrambled,” Judge Hanen wrote. “To try to put it back in the shell with only a preliminary injunction record, and perhaps at great risk to many, does not make sense nor serve the best interests of this country.”
The Constitution assigns Congress authority over immigration. Both DACA and DAPA was created to override Congress. In combination with DACA, the DAPA program would have granted half of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants immunity to deportation, all without congressional approval.
2
Another projection by Trump, combined with his narcissism, is his constant bleating about fairness, how there is a vast, galactic conspiracy to be unfair to him.
The GOP are also doubling down on being mean to citizens, for example, to cut away at SNAP, even though many receiving it are children. So much for caring about life.
11
@Archipelago
They only care for potential life. Once you are born, you are on your own.
We are not only becoming a mean country but a cruel country. The nonpartisan Center for Budget & Policy Priorities estimates, based on government information, that nearly three-quarters of adults who participate in SNAP (formerly food stamps) in a typical month worked either that month or within a year of that month of participation.
What this means is that recipients are in such low-paying jobs -- like washing the dishes and sweeping the floors in your local deli -- that they can't afford food without assistance. Are we such a cruel people that we would deny food to them and their children?
I'm heart sick that we want to punish legal immigrants who wish to become citizens and continue to be make productive contributions to our nation. I'm the child of immigrants who never went beyond grade school. My brothers and I have college degrees. One was a Ph.D. in science, the other a CPA who was the CFO of a major defense contractor. Don't we want more children of immigrants like us to form the backbone of the next generation?
13
"Do the justices realize how they are being played?" More importantly, do they care? Not likely.
12
I don’t see what the problem is welcoming immigrants who can provide something to the economy is a benefit to to the nation, on the other hand allowing immigrants who only take removes money from the system to help US citizens it is the duty of the government to help its citizens not anyone who shows up with their hands out. American tax dollars for Americans only.
4
@EAH A rather loopy point of view. The money that is given (lawfully) to immigrants is not eaten, it is spent. And it is spent right here in the USA. It does not remove that money from the "system".
1
It's ironic that we are tending steadily towards a situation of not having enough people in the job force, and simultaneously trying to keep immigrants out. This will not end well, particularly as people around the world come to realize that it's not a good idea to try to immigrate to the U.S., as we are mean and greedy society. Thank you, Mr. Trump.
21
Ms. Greenhouse remains one of our national treasures. We thank her for continued integrity and adherence to decency and justice.
45
@AJBF
i am not very familiar with Ms Greenhouse so I cannot comment on her body of work but I was very disappointed in this article. It was Trump bashing and psychoanalysis mixed with legal review.
I thought it was written by a high school student.
2
'I don’t remember such hand-wringing a few years back when anti-immigrant states found a friendly judge in South Texas to issue a nationwide injunction against President Barack Obama’s expansion of the DACA program to include parents of the “Dreamers.” The Supreme Court let that injunction stand.
"Do the justices realize how they are being played?"
The conservative justices on the Supreme Court are the ones doing the playing. They are the ones tailoring their rulings to party in power. Dems lose, Republicans win.
Judicial activism at its worst.
24
One of several problems with the public charge rule is that it allows agents to act on their prejudices. Microsoft, for instance, which pays enough that it's employees are not remotely public charges, still has trouble getting its people through. The effect of that, incidentally, is that the people and jobs are going to Canada.
20
@Greg I've noticed a few multinationals downstaffing global jobs in the US and UK in favor of locations in the EU.
I wouldn't call it a trend yet, but let's see.
6
These so-called judges are not being played. They agree with the meanness and were nominated for precisely that characteristic. The cruelty is the point.
75
What's next for this administration? Deporting everyone on food stamps? Send 'em all back where they came from, no matter how long ago? (One does wonder what they'd do with Native Americans, but I have complete faith that Steven Miller would figure something out)
I am a white, well educated, middle class woman, so I have many advantages. However, jobless during the 2001 downturn, I turned to food stamps to feed my daughter and myself. Does that mean we don't deserve to be citizens of the US?
I'm of Irish and Italian descent, both groups formerly demeaned as immigrants who weren't wanted here. My grandfather and his sister ended up in an orphanage, so I guess they should have been sent back to Ireland to starve.
70
What's next for this administration? Deporting everyone on food stamps? Send 'em all back where they came from, no matter how long ago? (One does wonder what they'd do with Native Americans, but I have complete faith that Steven Miller would figure something out)
I am a white, well educated, middle class woman, so I have many advantages. However, jobless during the 2001 downturn, I turned to food stamps to feed my daughter and myself. Does that mean we don't deserve to be citizens of the US?
I'm of Irish and Italian descent, both groups formerly demeaned as immigrants who weren't wanted here. My grandfather and his sister ended up in an orphanage, so I guess they should have been sent back to Ireland to starve.
6
After Bush v. Gore, which led to the appointment of Roberts and Alito,
After Gorsuch unhesitatingly accepted his appointment, thanks to the Senate's refusal to consider Merrick Garland,
After consistently supporting gerrymandering and voter ID requirements and over-turning the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance restrictions--in essence, creating an electoral map that will help elect the majority's elect ideological cohort and thereby help appoint more conservative judges,
Why does anyone believe in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court?
It's long past time to let go of such comforting myths.
123
@Jim Well said - don't forget the cryin' baby, handsy, drunk college boy Kavanaugh - can't wait to see his rulings!
1
Anyone who has appeared in front of, not just Article III judges but a circuit court panel should not be greatly surprised by what Greenhouse decries. The last time I appeared in front of the Tenth Circuit, arguing for a badly needed re-examination of the malicious prosecution cause of action to encompass officer-prosecuted cases, a red-faced judge argued against the Court's own precedent to justify denying my clients' appeal.
The Supreme Court flatly denied cert in a case my father appealed from the Tenth Circuit decades earlier, going so far as to change the caption of the case, with the only conceivable reason for that unheard of action being to keep the press from noticing the famous (or infamous) name in the caption.
Should courts be apolitical? Of course. Are they most often than not, on the most significant calls? If wishes were horses, and horses could fly...
29
@J Young Thanks for your efforts to find justice in a country where it is more and more denied.
12
The Supreme Court Justices are not being played, they are just doing what they promised the rich supporters that plotted to put them on the Court. Quid Pro Quo.
These guys are professional players in the high stakes political game. They know how they are expected to behave
57
Ms. Greenhouse illustrates the alarming truth of the current administration. Given Trump's suggestion of repealing birthright citizenship, are we very far from shipping "unproductive" (or non-white) citizens to remote gulags?
I also noted the parenthetical comment about "Second Amendment sanctuaries" in Tennessee. Rather than work to achieve any kind of compromise, we simply turn our backs. The current president's narcissism, amplified by his propaganda networks (Fox News and Sinclair, e.g.) has ruled out negotiation. Perhaps our "experiment in democracy" really is falling apart.
33
We are seeing the fruit of the Republican efforts to control the courts -- the last backstop for the administration of fairness in law. The GOP has pushed abortion opposing policies for decades now and Democrats thought that was the only target. But now we see that abortion opposing legislators and judges (those who oppose the freedom to choose what happens within also have other goals. These other goals hurt those who are living and are striving for a better life. It has seemed to me for years now that the pro-life wing has never really cared about life, they only care about control. We are living the Handmaid's Tale and worse.
34
The next item on the judicial agenda, elimination of term limits. Want a piece of my bet????
The Supreme court under Roberts has made his body where justices can hide out as the country burns. Under the aegis of defending the constitution they allow it to crumble. the court should be an arbiter and a protector of our rule o law, but instead despite Robert's protests has become nothing but a Trump rubber stamp.
33
It is my guess that the justices choose to not believe that they are being played which makes me wonder about their intelligence. There is no Constitutional reason for the increased cruelty and thus, as so-called "conservatives," who are supposed to believe in a "dead" document, there would be no reason for the five justices in question to side with the president.
12
Don’t immigration laws require that legal immigrants have a U.S. citizen who will sponsor them, precisely so they do not end up requiring the use of programs like SNAP and Section 8? At least in the area where I live, there are people on a list for housing assistance vouchers.
15
Linda Greenhouse casts more light on what is happening to America than anyone I can think of. It is clear that the courts are the backstop against arbitrary cruelty, given the See- no-evil stance of the Senate. I am wondering what contortions the Supreme Court will go through if it is ever faced with Trump’s vindictive banning of everyone from New York from applying for a Trusted Traveler pass.
70
Frankly, such a well argued and based on the facts observation from Ms. Greenhouse, an expert among experts of the Supreme Court should both shame and bring introspection to the Court.
Frankly, there has not been such level of bias and ridiculousness from the Court since the nineteenth century.
64
Thank you for your wisdom, intelligence and compassion at a time when even the highest courts in the land seem to be lacking all three. My question: beyond voting and agitating, what is a citizen to do? I feel as if my country has been hijacked by those who embrace cruelty as a political strategy. McConnell won’t let my senators vote, Barr serves as Trump’s fixer, and SCOTUS is regularly substituting legal showmanship for blind justice, ignoring the need for consistency across party lines, refusing to defend the interests of all citizens equally. I’m wondering if we need a second American Revolution and trying to figure out what that means in practice. I am a pacifist, but never before have felt greater rage at those who REFUSE to allow us all to participate in our democracy. What has happened to “consent of the governed?” Those justices are condemning people to a grueling death and pretending they’re simply dealing with words on a page. I am ashamed of them. If they were my kids, I’d punish them. They are bordering on moral depravity and asking me to condone it. Enough.
77
@Elizabeth You make your point without even having to mention Citizens United by name, which may be the most pernicious of all the anti-democratic forces you note.
1
Civil War II. Beginning November 4th.
2
"It is repugnant to the American dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility"
While I agree, and don't like the decision, it makes me grimace when judges cite their desired outcomes as a basis of a decision rather than simply the law and legal process to arrive at their decision.
17
I struggle to look at "the other side" of the arguments of people with whom I (often bitterly) disagree, in order to better grasp a situation. It sometimes helps turn meanness into a more complex problem-solving matter, and might alleviate some divisiveness on my own part.
But there are times when I believe that malice is the intent for certain actions, decisions, and strategies -- and that no amount of understanding is going to turn a situation around.
Even the unlikely defeat of DTrump in November will reverse America's hard right turn -- his tens of millions of supporters, the rise of racism, the packing of the judiciary, the obscene wealth of the very few, the devastation of the environment, and more. This is more than ideology -- it is a lack of love, empathy, joy, integrity, humanity.
I'm not hopeless -- but the Supreme Court will continue for perhaps decades to make right wing decisions that undermine freedom, individual integrity, and common human spirit. I am having a harder and harder time understanding "the other side." And my hope is definitely withering.
62
It'a agonizing to watch Linda react to the reality of Trump-world and a beholden Supreme Court. Linda has always stood for the rule of law and a Supreme Court that provided rational decisions based precedent. She now sees her life's work trashed by mean-spirited group of captive men (including four Catholics) that she can no longer reach.
A summary decision kicks an untold number of legal immigrants off the path to citizenship.
31
@sequester
In law, the adjective “summary” describes a judicial process conducted without the customary legal formalities. The customary legal formalities were observed in all the judicial decisions that Linda Greenhouse describes as summary decisions.
5
The Supreme Court will overturn Judge George Daniels’ ruling because, in effect, it says the administration must convince federal judges that policy changes are good changes before putting them into effect. The next step would be giving federal judges veto power over congressional legislation.
11
@William Case Are you suggesting that the courts have not always exercised veto power over legislation that cannot pass constitutional muster? Nonsense!
1
Federal judges should have, and do have the power to rule on legislative measures, and executive pronouncements that are inconsistent with the Constitution and our laws. Your use of the term “veto” is misleading at best, and a right wing dog whistle at worst. When the Texas Federal court ruled against the ACA, in effect stripping health care from millions of Americans, did you consider it “vetoing” lawfully enacted legislation?
This is just the most recent example of the Supreme Five's fealty to the Republican agenda. The same thing happened with the Muslim ban, where the Five allowed the ban to go in effect before the case had been briefed or argued before them, an action which was contrary to the rulings of virtually every court below. They then later ignored the blatant admissions that the law was designed to discriminate based on religion and the fact that there was no evidence of terrorist attacks in the US by people from the named countries to rule that the president could do whatever he wanted, once again against well established precedent.
There are other examples of the Five's granting of expedited review of Republican cases, and granting review where it is not justified, as with the gun ban case from New York, where the law now being reviewed has been withdrawn and the plaintiffs formerly admitted they had not suffered any lasting or current harm. And don't forget the order from the Five hurrying to put prisoner to death without even consulting all the Justices. And there are the cases with exactly contrary reasoning (bakers and immigrants - one entitled to enforce its religion on all of us and the other not) and which overturn established precedent, but which each achieve a Republican goal.
They rule politically, to enforce the right wing agenda without respect for the law. They are not entitled to my respect, they need to be replaced.
45
The "Conservative" justices over the last 20 years, seem to take a sick pleasure in flat-out meanness. The late Scalia was known for his particular viciousness, sometimes described as "wit". I just saw him as obnoxious. Justice Thomas frequently seems to write from anger rather than law, and has, for nearly 30 years, been almost a Trumpian justice. Alito and Gorsuch, too, have that combination of coldness, elitism, and a soupçon of meanness. Gorsuch, of course, justified a company firing a truck driver for abandoning his cargo when the alternative was death by exposure. Living as an elite all his life, Gorsuch never once had to earn his living with his hands and the sweat off his back.
Surprisingly, it seems Justice Kavanaugh is the most careful of the 4 in his writings so far, albeit meager. I have to grudgingly congratulate him on that and hope it becomes the norm of his tenure, rather than the Scalia "standard" of vulgar rudeness and insults of his colleagues.
I expect nothing from this court, though. When the same issues that tripped up Nixon, Clinton, and even Obama come before them, I fully expect them to rule for Trump. The Roberts Court may WELL go down in history as the most dangerous since the Taney Court ruled against both Dred Scott and States' Rights (for Northern states), that made the Civil War inevitable.
119
This column highlights the effect of mixing 'law' and 'equity' without judges or court-watchers distinguishing between them. Law is supposed to apply to everyone equally: you don't follow the rules to enter the country, or leave plastic trash in a National Monument, it's illegal. Equity is the relief valve when the application of law to an individual would be unjust: It is the 'I shouldn't actually get in trouble for what I did because (excuses)' argument. A law can be changed. Changing a judge's buying into someone's glib argument or following a gut feeling or helping a sympathetic party is much harder, especially when it is shifted from the individual equities of the case to nationwide application. Equity was never meant to have that scope.
17
I guess, though, that when the law is applied to close friends of the President, that notion of equity just goes out the window. And in fact, as we are all well aware, there are two sets of laws in America: one for the wealthy and one for the rest of us
48
@Seethegrey
There are specific and obvious reasons for setting aside laws. When a policeman tails a speeder in excess of the speed limit we don't even THINK of charging the officer even when that speed reaches "Reckless Driving"! (15mph over the limit in NJ).
Years ago, a driver on my right wanted to make an illegal left turn despite the signs saying "NO TURNS". She slammed into me, so I was headed for a "Jersey Barrier" sure to kill me and my family. I could have turned back into her, probably killing her and her passenger, or, what I did...make the illegal left turn (luckily, no one was coming). It never even entered the officer's mind to ticket ME because I did what I did to save my family's lives and not kill the other driver and her passenger.
To paraphrase Justice Jackson, the Law is not a suicide pact and where it becomes one, it must bend, but not before, and not for convenience. And contradictions between laws MUST be resolved equitably.
Over 150 people who fled the gangs and lawlessness of the Northern Triangle, and were deported back by Trump as "illegal aliens", have suffered the very deaths they feared, by the very people they feared. We rejected thousands of Jewish refugees in WWII, and most of them went to their deaths, including the 937 on the MS St. Louis.
A person fleeing death is fleeing death whether by a government or by lawless gangs the government cannot stop. He/She is a refugee and deserves refugee status.
One needs to assume if trump is re-elected that he will have the opportunity to nominate another one or two justices to the Supreme Court. And with a strong economy and a strong stock market it’s hard to see him not re-elected
6
SCOTUS is not legitimate. All of the justices should be impeached and the court nomination process change to restore legitimacy. These judicial activists do not know their place and should be removed!
16
The present Supreme Court is the enemy of every liberal in our country. Once upon a time, long ago, many Americans awaited the rulings of SCOTUS with some curiosity because the Court's decisions were not always predictable. Today and for the near future, however, every conservative cause will win, and every liberal cause will lose. I used to believe that George W. Bush's greatest mistake was invading Iraq. But his appointments to SCOTUS (Roberts and Alito), however, have been nearly as damaging, and will be for many years to come.
108
”Judge Daniels added: ’The rule is simply a new agency policy of exclusion in search of a justification. It is repugnant to the American dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.’”
This is the definition of legislating from the bench. Immigration is the purview of the executive branch, and laws of the legislative. Granting a injunction not on legal grounds, but rather on policy disagreement, is repugnant and way outside the bounds of their position.
The “justification” is plain. We are a welfare state- we cannot afford unlimited open immigration of the worlds poor.
13
@AJ : You don't seem to have any familiarity with the Administrative Procedure Act, which the judge was applying. It's a law passed by Congress that judges reviewing policy decisions of administrative agencies cannot ignore. He was not legislating from the bench.
25
You misunderstand. Read the few sentences before that quote: the governmental opportunity, but repeatedly did not, provide grounds for the rule change. That’s the basis of the court case. The judge, far from legislating, simply ordered existing law be maintained pending resolution of the case. In so doing, he provided a modicum of stability for millions whose lives would otherwise be (and are being) upended by a rule that might never go into effect.
If you really think this is about money, it’s not. Immigration isn’t expensive. But let me ask: if I could prove that to your satisfaction, would you change your mind? If you knew immigrants were a fiscal net positive on the balance sheet, would you favor immigration?
18
@AJ
The justification cannot simply be "plain", it must be clearly and specifically stated, defended with specific statements of intent, rationale in support, and proposed measures of effectiveness.
Trump is notorious for trying to do these things on the cheap, believing whatever he says should be taken at face value as indisputable truth.
This judge is being the opposite of an activist, demanding Trump follow procedure, and offering both guidance and another chance to get it right.
To date Trump has responded to opportunities like this with abusive rhetoric and attempts to demean and discredit the judge involved. It appears he may have met his match this time.
You should be relieved. Love Trump or hate him, you cannot afford to live in a world where his every perverse whim becomes policy.
Judicial activism is not good for the goose or gander, yet it is what we have. This activism has been prompted by the inaction of the congress. As both parties become beholden to their radical bases there will be more of this in the future. Has the Balkanization of America begun?
13
You state that ‘both parties have become beholden to their radical bases,’ but that’s false equivalence and simply not true. Only one party is guilty of that: There is no ‘radical Democratic base,’ except between the ears of contemporary Republicans.
7
@Greg Waradzin The Democrats have moved to the left. JFK and Bill Clinton would be unwelcome. Imagine, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" seems archaic in a time of all the free stuff. The pandering to the left is amazing to watch. But then you may have a point, all the Democrats are leftists.
I can predict the future. Judge Marquez' and Judge Daniels' decisions will be reversed by the Supreme Court. ANY lower court decision against the Trump Administration will be reversed by the Supreme Court. Five justices on the Supreme Court are nothing more than wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Republican National Committee.
Warning to the Sanders-Warren crowd who will not vote in November if their candidate is not nominated: this will continue if you don't vote for the Democratic nominee.
Supreme Court memo about nationwide injunctions: they should be prohibited when the president is a Republican. They should be used abundantly and often when the president is a Democrat
87
"Supreme Court memo about nationwide injunctions: they should be prohibited when the president is a Republican. They should be used abundantly and often when the president is a Democrat"
You need to find another country to live in, Bob. There may be one where you can get everything you want. This isn't that country.
12
@Steve M - " There may be one where you can get everything you want."
Wait, that seems to be exactly what McConnell, Trump, and the Republican Part are creating for themselves. They even say so. Right out loud.
The whole point of Trump and his appointments is to get everything the want. All the time.
58
@Bob Sanders will likely get the nomination and the moderates will elect Trump. That is if Bernie is even allowed to live until the election. It is the hatred of policies that would help the poor that has us saddled with Trump. The serfs of the DFL just can't bring themselves to elect someone who is not first approved by the oligarchs.
It is the weakness and cowed nature of the people that will destroy the country, not Trump or the GOP. It's the people who are bred and educated to be always subservient to their corporate masters.
4
The justices are not "being played" - they are complicit. At every step they denigrate the Supreme Ct and our democracy. They take dilatory actions to appease the Trump Admin - pushing crucial court decisions until after the election because they already know they plan to issue unpopular rulings that would hurt Trump's re-election.
The Sup. Ct members (at least the majority) have willingly turned themselves into pawns of Trump - our last vestige of decency and rule of law is no longer viable or active and Americans will suffer for decades from their behavior.
89
@BMD their next move will be to combine fed and state double jeopardy to keep him out of jail.
But it all will come out and they’ll say they had no idea at the time.
10
I don't believe I am alone among NY Times readers to have identified vindictiveness and meanness as characteristics of today's Republicans. What we have learned from those who have said the unspoken part out loud (He's not hurting the ones he is supposed to be hurting) is that power alone is not the point of winning.With winning the power that comes with it is the means with which you can inflict pain and punishment on others. Republican voters have even admitted that they will happily bear financial hardship as long as they can see others suffer.
Republicans seek to punish people for their circumstances. Democrats seek to help people from their circumstances.
The evidence is in what they do and say. Republicans punish people for who they are or the circumstances they are in while Democrats seek to punish people for what they do.
Oh sure, Republicans will pay lip service to laws and justice. But, as we've seen, the application of laws is for others while justice is reserved for themselves.
Does all the above mean Democrats are perfect? No, of course not. But I wonder, hurting others, or helping others, which is closer to American ideals and the tenants by which so many worship?
78
@Marie, inflicting pain and punishment, as long as the target is "elites," people of color, immigrants and their children, women of reproductive age, LGBTQs, and anyone using any form of public assistance --- this is sadism unleashed. It solidifies Trump's "base" voters, who literally enjoy watching Trump and his associated bullies inflicting their vindictiveness on such victims.
But for those actually inflicting the pain and punishment, a group that now clearly includes the five Trump-supporting SCOTUS justices, I believe pain and punishment are the means to their end, which is administrative control, in a word, power. Meanness merely underscores their message.
Their indifference to the circumstances of those who suffer indicates that meanness is not the goal but, like terrorist activity, designed to drive home a message: acquiesce to authority or become a target.
No longer will they tolerate questions about the legitimacy of an administration that uses such weapons to enforce compliance. The threat of retribution alone kept Republican senators compliant in their vote to acquit Trump, and recurring displays of meanness seem to be working to keep other would-be protests silent, with the rare exceptions of a Romney vote and a Stone prosecutor's resignation. We should keep celebrating resistance as moral heroism; we should always explicitly reject the message of authoritarians.
8
Because of the rise of venue shopping for federal judges and the explosive use of nationwide injunctions, I expect there will soon be a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65 regarding injunctions, that limits the junior courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions or forces an expedited review to the Justice for that circuit or the whole SCOTUS.
23
Thank you for this powerful essay. By the tone of the few replies posted, you struck cords on both sides.
That the constitution is at grave risk is obvious to all. The President was blatantly guilty of bribery. Even more so, he was guilty of denying the constitutional right of the congress to oversee his activities. And the senate republicans suborned this crime. In full view of Chief Justice Roberts. All present being under oath.
It is not just the administration that is on trial in November. It is this Supreme Court.
143
Mean is the right word, one that everyone understands. We have all grown up around mean kids, but we never thought we would have a mean government.
We recognize it for what it is but do the the Supreme Court justices? Do they care? These supposedly religious men, mostly Catholics, seem to go against Pope Francis who espouses love of our fellow man.
Thanks for covering this aspect of our current leaders, one that needs to change.
67
Let it not be forgotten that a Republican senator recently suggested that the Pope owes Trump an apology.
3
@B. Moschner
I have known many mean Catholics, not all certainly, but many. I have guessed this is what comes of being taught that yours is the only true religion, only you have the truth, not unlike evangelicals.
This is why separation of church and state is so important. I will not argue against religious freedom, but I will argue against imposing your religious beliefs on me.
7
Citing the actions of Mayor Sarno in Springfield MA opens a difficult situation entwined in this larger argument. Third largest city in MA, Springfield is very diverse and has major financial stresses. The city was under a fiscal control board for many years and has not fully recovered. It is really a rust-belt post-industrial city situation. So there are issues with immigrants there, and Sarno is at an extreme position. Many would disagree with him, including his city council members.
11
The word "mean" at the top of this article strikes a bell for me. During the 2016 campaign I talked with a neighbor who said she was voting for Trump "because this is a mean world and we need a mean president." Trumpism depends on people who see the world as a struggle of Me versus You and Us versus Them, as opposed to people who believe we are mostly helpful and supportive of one another. What creates these different world views? Economics, education, psychology?
76
@Julian Gerstin : Fear is what drives the current Republican worldview. They're afraid of everything.
5
Psychology, probably flowing from genetic influences.
2
@Julian Gerstin
Maybe genetics. Maybe these are mostly people desended from the folks who thought nothing of murdering the indigenous peoples and stealing their land so that they could get rich from slave labor.
1
"The government responded that the four had simply “recited” religious beliefs “for the purpose of draping religious garb over their political activity.”
This is selective disbelief in the validlity of religious freedom claims, another worrisome example of the "double standard principle" now dominating the Trump administration.
When Democrats use religious defenses successfully employed by Republicans, judges question their sincerity. Conversely, when Republicans claim the same freedoms, it's clearly an enshrined right.
Why don't we just come out and admit it: in the case of power, be it judicial, legislative, or executive, the two parties aren't equal.
119
@ChristineMcM -- Years ago, when a friend applauded the Hobby Lobby decision, I told her she should think again, for that decision in effect empowered the government to decide whether your religious beliefs were "sincere" or not.
Now we have a fine example in the Arizona case Linda cites. Federal prosecutors claimed the defendants were simply "cloaking" their political actions in spurious religious views -- the government asserting stated personal beliefs were "insincere."
Far-right religious leaders who've yoked themselves to far-right politics are playing a dangerous game. They are selling religious freedom for the imposition of their minority views on all of us. Over the long haul the wheel always turns. They better pray that when majoritarian politicians are in charge that they respect religious freedom more than do present-day evangelicals.
22
@ChristineMcM
When has religious freedom ever been a defense for commission of a crime? You can't litter just because you worship a particular god.
As a lawyer and former political science major, my view is that immigration and citizenship are determinations made by the state as sovereign. Trump supporters seem to think it is a benefit or entitlement for them to enjoy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is not the state's job to protect citizens from economic competition but instead to grow the country. The so-called costs of immigrants are fabricated by those wary of new competition looking to create barriers to others and change. In my view, Trump immigration policy us harming economic growth in the US and creating welfare for whites stuck in place here. The true cost is not the immigrants, its the subsidies for citizens who get protections from competing.
26
@PAUL NOLAN
"It is not the state's job to protect citizens from economic competition but instead to grow the country."
Where have you read that it is the State's job to "grow the country?
I have never heard that is the job of government/ State
2
I am a US citizen legally living in France. In order to keep this status I must show each year that, among other things, I have a home here and enough money to live without earning in France. I am not eligible for any social programs except the national health care system. For this I pay a quite reasonable fee - French citizens pay nothing. None of this seems unusual or unfair to me.
On the other hand I am the granddaughter of immigrants from Armenia and Syria who went to the US in 1915. They were welcomed and became citizens. Their children and grandchildren are productive citizens. This is what the USA has stood for since its' inception and it's what has made the USA a great country. The USA is different from France in many ways and so it makes sense that France has its' immigration policies and the US has a different set of policies. Of course immigration must be regulated, but it should be done fairly and compassionately. Ms. Greenhouse is right that the US is becoming a mean place.
62
It is no surprise that the Donald J. Trump Supreme Court rules with the administration and will continue to do so. What is sad is that the very people supporting all of his mean and even draconian policies are the same ones who, when it comes to a woman's right to chose, will widely be honored for being "pro-life." Apparently, that is pro-some lives...
42
@Anne-Marie Hislop
It is funny how the pro life crowd is silent about the gun carnage in their midst. For them, cells are more importsnt than any other form of life.
3
Yes, meanness has been liberated. For too long the belief that making facts known and sharing goals would put down that danger. Remember President Obama’s meeting with the leaders in a circle? It did not work. Mitch McConnell had no intention of finding common ground. The meanness must be acknowledged. It can be gone around, but not denied.
41
@lee113
Is it simple meanness or racial discrimination?
Here's a different perspective.
Why should the US admit immigrants who will become a financial burden on society? Yes, reliance on food stamps, Section 8 housing and other public assistance generates a financial cost to taxpayers. Wouldn't it be preferable to admit immigrants who can bring needed resources -- intellectual, talent or financial -- to the country?
Why does a definition of 12 months of reliance on government assistance fail a rational basis test (the APA standard)? It most assuredly does not. The real issue here is the ability of activists to use the APA as a sword against pretty much any change in government policy by claiming the relevant agency hasn't taken their particular point of view into account enough to please them (by adopting it!).
And why should our country suffer from the radical effects of nationwide injunctions issued by a district court? Find one judge who is willing to play along, and bingo, a policy change is held up nationwide. As the opinions in this case pointedly showed, nationwide injunctions like this have no place in a sound judiciary.
33
why should they be admitted? because 2nd generation immigrants outperform native-born Americans. consider it a long term investment.
look at the Russian community in NYC. every one of their grandparents received Medicaid and Section 8 housing. a substantial portion of the working age adults recieved some sort of subsidy when they arrived too. a generation later and this community has grown immensely wealthy. the federal government has long since made their money back.
full disclosure - my friends and I are in this community, along with our parents who started as janitors/day laborers and now work in professional careers, our wives with their graduate degrees, and all the income tax we pay.
42
@Stuck on a mountain I think the real issue here is that when Executive Branch policy is made solely for the purpose of harming a particular group of people, then the Judicial Branch is obligated to ensure that the inalienable and Constitutional rights of all people are protected equally.
25
@AG
America used to be great. We can get back there someday if we can change the current cruel leadership.
3
An aspect of the Trump administrations to deny health care access to immigrants, documented or not -- and the Court's affirmation of them -- is the policy equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot.
For example, We have a pandemic of novel virus COVID-19 running rampant with the potential to kill millions, running up against a policy that discourages people from seeking health care or denies them care. How smart is that? How can our health system recognize or control this new pandemic if we prevent people from seeking care?
Perhaps Homeland Security can begin arresting viral pathogens with trillions of tiny handcuffs. Or maybe the policy will change when Americans start dying in droves from this this new virus given free rein to roam everywhere by our misguided health policies.
84
We need a reform of our Health Care System.
We need a reform of our Immigration System.
We need a reform of our Federal Courts.
That you can shop around and look for a Federal Judge
who will rule in your favor, hoping for a Nation Wide Injunction
while your opponents seek to find a different Federal Judge
to rule in their favor, with a Nation Wide Injunction
just makes a mockery of the Law and the Judges.
In terms of Immigration can anyone explain how
un-documented Immigrants who accept jobs where they
are paid under the table to work 70 hour weeks
helps the Poor of America ?
How is anyone being paid the minimum wage supposed to
get a pay increase when an un-documented immigrant can
take their job at any moment.
How do you compete for housing when un-documented
immigrants will sleep 8 to an apartment ?
Why should the Poor, who already have the worst schools,
have to see their children compete for an education with
the children of un-documented immigrants ?
Yes, it is nice for those who can pay un-documented immigrants
to be their live in nannies, maids, be their hard working gardeners, to have no border controls because they will never
hire Poor Americans to work those jobs. They prefer their
Economic Slaves who do their bidding 24/7.
I was in favor of Amnesty under Reagan, but we were told the
flow of un-documented immigration would be slowed.
I am in favor of letting the DACA immigrants stay and become
citizens.
But I am most in favor of Reform.
35
@John Brown
Reform no. 1 should be sanctioning people who hire and pay workers under the table. They are the reason for every complaint you have.
I have no problem accepting people like my ancestors who had the courage and resources to leave their homes for a better life. Our strength is our diversity and openness to new ideas. Trump is killing those strengths with his cruel policies.
3
Ms. Greenhouse,
I believe that much of what Mr. Trump, and his administration, have done is mean, but a lot of what you depict here could be better described by the word "cruel."
If you consider, meanness has an element of cheapness and low-class harshness to it, while cruelty has the sense of intentionally causing harm, whether or not doing so gives you pleasure.
Notably, "cruelty" was considered to be one of the traits essential for members of the SS, along with such boilerplate characteristics as loyalty.
552
@Eric
I agree "cruelty" is a more correct word. I would add a German word as well: schadenfreude
It is another "essential" trait of dictators and their devoted followers.
15
Although I sometimes disagree with Ms. Greenhouse's conclusions, I rarely take issue with her legal reasoning.
In this case, I do.
Her approval of the court's decision in the Arizona case effectively supports the principle that religious belief can trump the law, seemingly as a counter to other unconstitutional claims that religious convictions provide an antidote to the legal requirement to provide birth control coverage.
Since such decisions patently undermine the strictures of the First Amendment, it will be interesting to see how far their advocates are willing to go with them.
16
@Sam
Interesting comments.
I am willing to bet that the Supremes will find a way to say that "religious belief" does not apply in the Arizona case.
It does apply in cases relating to birth control, gay marriage, etc.
In the Supreme Court, "religious belief" comes into play when it helps the arguments of the religious right but not otherwise. It is like "freedom of speech." It can be used to justify all sorts of things.
Many of the justices just decide cases based on their personal biases and prejudices then dress it up with talk about "originalism," "textualism," "strict construction," and so forth.
Best wishes and stay positive.
20
@Aubrey
You're "right on the money" about judicial bias, which has been present since The Founding---[see the political machinations surrounding the orchestration of Marbury v. Madison] and in light of the present make-up of the court, your projection is probably accurate.
Which serves to underscore the need for Democrats to take a pragmatic, rather than cultural/ideological approach to the nomination for president, as well as reaching out to broaden their constituency.
3
@Sam Have you heard any progressives "take a pragmatic, rather than cultural/ideological approach to the nomination for president, as well as reaching out to broaden their constituency?" They believe they don't have to, since they are right and anyone who thinks differently is not only wrong, but evil. Alas, that doesn't win over many uncommitted voters, so 2020 is shaping up as a repeat of 2016.
9
To be frank, I'm not liking my country very much these days. This makes me sad.
496
@Watchful
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL immigrants. They recognize that the US cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al., and that they and other US taxpayers cannot possibly support the 20 million illegal immigrants already in the US, much less the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, etc. Indeed, many believe bringing children on such perilous journeys constitutes child abuse.
No other nation has open borders, nor should the US.
8
@Watchful Then leave. You can't have a country without the concept of and laws around who can be/live there. I, and most, don't want to live in a country with open borders or that sanctions birth tourism, and on and on.
5
@Mon Ray The new regulation is not directed only at "illegal immigrants." It affects people already here under legal premises. And why the red herring about bringing in children? Your post does not address the issues in the column, but simply reiterates anti-immigrant talking points.
17
On top of everything else that is so wrong about this administration, what stands out is the enabling of the Trump administration's by institutions most of us believed were serving the public interest. When asked why these men--mostly men, and some women, why they wanted to become legislators, most of them reply that they are committed to performing public service. Their actions, however, say otherwise. From the absence of universal health care, budgets designed to continue to oppress the ascent of working people--even something like family or maternity leave, America--the one Trump and his minions want to make great again--current policies tend to underscore the lack of compassion of our government.
"for some time now that the United States has become a mean country"--no, it's been a while since the US enacted the promise of Emma Lazarus's poem that can be found on the Statue of Liberty--even though the truth of that brief poem is what sustained and inspired most of our ancestors.
122
@SNA When Trump finally gets around to launching his infrastructure initiative (right), the first project will be changing the plaque on the Statue of Liberty.
It will now begin, "Give me your vigorous, your rich, your elite few yearning to grab more money...."
5
A powerful, compelling essay, many thanks. What we need is a new Charles Dickens to begin cataloguing this meanness and its impacts. It was his speciality in the 19th century. How amazing meanness has returned in this age of plenty.
191
@Bbwalker Maybe stick to US writers. There are more than enough: e.g. (a new) Upton Sinclair, John Steinbeck, John Dos Passos et al.
4
@Joshua Schwartz, Nice point!
2
@Bbwalker
Barbara Ehrenreich, "Nickled and Dimed"
3
I suggest that readers search "windfall and Alito" in the Times' search box. Two instances will appear of Justice Alito using the term windfall. One was finding against civil rights lawyers who had been awarded a fee that was larger than customary because of their excellent work. The second referred to windfall benefits of members of public service unions. In the former, SCOTUS reduced the fee; in the latter, the Jarema case, SCOTUS banned the union shop for public employees, allowing free riding, avoiding paying union dues, by workers.
An attorney of my acquaintance referred to Justice Alito, as "mean spirited."
174