LUTTIG IS JUST ANOTHER DEFECTIVE PRODUCT OF BOEING. Josh Blackman not impressed with former-judge Luttig’s latest offering in the NYT.
I think every sentence is demonstrably incorrect. First, the Court has no power to “assert” its own authority. The Court lacks the power of the sword or purse.
Second, I can say with a high degree of certainty that a “rebuke” from the Supreme Court would do little to “cripple Mr. Trump’s presidency and tarnish his legacy.” As for the “legacy,” if two impeachment trials, an alleged insurrection, and federal and state indictments didn’t keep him out of the White House, then a few pages in the U.S. Reports will hardly leave a mark. By contrast, I think such a feeble effort to control Trump very well could “cripple” the Supreme Court.
Third, Luttig tries to invoke Marbury, but in that case Chief Justice Marshall had the good sense to not assert any authority agains Jeffrson. The Court did not order the Jefferson Administration to deliver the commission, as such an order would likely be ignored. Likewise, Marshall never ordered President Jackson to do anything. Marbury teaches the judiciary to avoid unwinnable conflicts with the President.
The last time such a conflict occurred, FDR rolled the Court producing the Surrender Of 1937, when New Deal programs started getting upheld after the “switch in time that saved nine.”
Plus: “Let me try to put this conflict in perspective. Donald Trump was able to roll over Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and every other politician that stood in his path. Does anyone think John Roberts can do better? Does anyone think Roberts’s press statement to respond to Trump’s social media post even moved the needle? Op-eds like this from people like Luttig likely give the Chief some faint echoes of praise within his echo chamber, but will not register beyond the Capital District. (I think Texas would be considered District 12.)”
Related: Federal judges’ Trump hate is only harming the courts themselves. “Chief Justice John Roberts has frequently expressed concern with the ‘institutional legitimacy’ of the federal judiciary. At times that’s seemed limited to gaining the approval of the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times. But he may need to consider what the rest of America thinks, lest he wind up on the 20% side of an 80/20 issue — an awkward place to be when you’re concerned about legitimacy.”