Yes, I may have condensed (slightly) Mr. Ponnuru’s sentiments, so let me provide some backstory.
A few days back, as Politico’s Matthew Choi reports, a federal district court judge in California, Judge Jon Tigar, ruled against President Trump in an immigration case, causing the president, unsurprisingly, to bellow in rage, claiming that Tigar ruled the way he did because he had been appointed by President Obama, and further bemoaned the fact that the White House had to appeal the ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, calling the Ninth a “disgrace,” and adding “Every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit because they know that's not law. They know that's not what this country stands for. Every case that gets filed in the 9th Circuit, we get beaten. People should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and then file their case.”
This evidently did not sit well with the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, appointed by President Bush, who issued a remarkably pointed statement saying “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
Well, not so fast, Mr. Chief Justice, says Ramesh:
The argument for this type of statement is that it undermines respect for the courts, and for the rule of law, when people view courts as partisan instruments. But there’s a problem with Roberts’s strategy: What he’s saying is pretty obviously untrue. The decisions of judges appointed by Clinton and Obama generally differ, in predictable ways, from the decisions of judges appointed by Bush and Trump. In an ideal world, the difference would be smaller than it is and perhaps would not even exist. But I do not think that we will move toward that ideal by rebuking those who notice we are not already there.
Well, perhaps I may help Ramesh by unpacking the Chief Justice’s perhaps too gentle sarcasm, for the CJ’s statement was, I believe, quite consciously quoting the language of our newest Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by none other than Donald Trump himself. Our newest justice said at the first of his confirmation hearings that there is “no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge – we just have judges in this country.” You see, Ramesh, it’s almost as if the Chief Justice were using the words of a “Trump justice” to refute Donald Trump and uphold the concept of an independent judiciary. You’ve got to watch out for these Bush guys!
But, obviously, you’ve got to watch out for Ramesh Ponnuru as well, because, obviously, Trump didn’t say “Hey! Did ya ever notice? Republican judges and Democratic judges don’t always agree!” No, what he said was, the decisions of Democratic judges are “not law”, “not what this country stands for”.
Nothing is clearer than that Donald Trump does not accept–indeed, cannot even understand–the concept of an independent judiciary. And it is equally clear that Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t seem to mind.
Afterwords
It’s “interesting”–interesting if you care to study the psycho-pathology of the conservative “mind”–to notice how some “Reformicans”–right-wing pundits and panjandrums who say they wish the Republican Party would try to do something for the middle class other than cut rich people’s taxes–who previously held aloof from Trump on the entirely reasonable grounds that a man entirely without restraint or honor should not be president are now thinking “Hey! This guy might not be so bad! He’s rude and crude and pisses off all the people I don’t like! The fact that his ‘policies’–to the extent that such things actually exist–would likely impact negatively on the lives of the people I ostensibly wish to help begins to seem less and less relevant to me when compared to the emotional satisfaction I obtain by surrendering my capacity for independent moral judgment and engage instead in the out and out hero worship of an unscrupulous bully.”
Now, not every Reformicon is going down the Ramesh road, fortunately. But, clearly, the nostalgia for the mud is having its way with M. Ponnuru.
A Concurring Opinion
David Post, writing for the libertarian Volkh Conspiracy, explains why Trump, and, by extension, Ramesh, is/are so full of it.
He [Trump] is not the first President to get publicly angry at actions taken by the federal courts. But he is the first President to so relentlessly characterize judicial decision-making as an overtly partisan political act, where "Obama judges" issue their (politically-motivated) rulings - Boo-o-o! - and "Trump judges" issue their (politically-motivated) rulings - Ya-a-ay!. It's all just politics, played out in a courtroom.
His words have real consequences, and the consequences here are very serious and very troubling, even frightening. If Americans come to believe that federal judges are nothing more than partisan politicians wearing robes, that there are Democratic judges issuing Democratic decisions and Republican judges issuing Republican decisions, we are one step away from a very frightening precipice, one where Democrats believe they are entitled to disregard Republican decisions and Republicans believe they are entitled to disregard Democratic decisions.
Judicial systems can crumble, leaving nothing but power and might, force and terror, as ruling principles; they have done so, repeatedly, throughout human history. We should perhaps accept Chief Justice Roberts' invitation on this Thanksgiving day to be thankful that ours has not done so, and to speak out against, and resist, efforts to make it do so.
UPDATE: Ross Douthat, also gettin' muddy
One of Mr. Ponnuru's fellow Reformicons, Ross Douthat, writing in the New York Times and affecting, as is often his wont, a more in sorrow than in anger pose, and also claiming that the liberals started it, says that the president is doing little more than stating a politically inconvenient truth, that judges appointed by Democratic presidents often decide cases differently than judges appointed by Republican presidents, silently ignoring the fact that, in "modern" times, the assumption has been that such divergence was the price we pay for the greater good of an independent judiciary. As I have already said, and as both Mr. Ponnuru and Mr. Douthat pretend not to know, Donald Trump rejects the concept of an independent judiciary because he is not capable of understanding it. He is, in fact, incapable of understanding anything except the a priori validity of his own appetites. Let "them" eat cake? No, only Donald gets to eat cake. The others get to watch Donald eat cake.
UPDATE II: Why Trump's rage is doubly groundless
Or even trebly so. David Post explains why that wacko Judge Tigar's decision, that so provoked our president, is utterly unexceptionable–to anyone who cares about the rule of law, that is.
