Trump counterattacks Supreme Court
PLUS Pundits’ mistakes
Gordon L. Weil
Trump fights the Supreme Court
Trump wants to limit birthright citizenship, mainly because
he does not want the children of illegal foreigners to become citizens. The Supreme Court has overruled Trump,
finding that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any person born in the
country and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., (excluding children of
foreign diplomats).
Justice Kavanaugh, voting with the majority, pointed out that
Congress could define what is meant by being subject to American
jurisdiction. Because it had failed to
do so, he agreed with the majority. (The
minority thought the Amendment applied only to Blacks and that the parents must
be permanently domiciled in the U.S.)
The Kavanaugh opinion broadly hinted that the administration
could have a chance to limit the scope of birthright citizenship, if it induced
Congress to define “subject to the jurisdiction.” It could draft a bill and send it to
Congress, either creating a good campaign issue or getting it passed.
But that is the kind of legislative work Trump avoids. He dislikes the time it takes and the need
for dealmaking with members of Congress.
Instead, he issued new executive orders with his own
definitions of who could be excluded under the jurisdiction provision. Besides the undocumented, he wanted to
exclude person who came to the U.S. for vacation childbirths (who are already
denied visas). His orders will go
through a new and lengthy judicial process and will likely be suspended until a
final decision is made.
Trump is launching his boldest remaining ideas and moves
before he runs the risk of facing a hostile Congress. He avoids exposing himself to the possibility
of congressional rejection now, but might again use immigration to influence
voters. His support on reversing illegal
immigration and expelling people has been falling, so he needs a boost.
Pushing back on the Supreme Court ruling also enables him to
express his growing and openly hostile attitude toward the Court. He believes its conservative majority betrays
him, when justices he appointed fail to faithfully support his policies. He wants to put the Court in its place,
joining Congress in accepting or approving his policies.
He expects other branches of government to support his
presidency. For him, the unitary
executive should extend to other branches by dominating or ignoring them.
Pundits mislead, use anecdotes to support their prefab
analyses
The November elections are either a national test of
movements the MAGA and Democratic Socialist movements or a collection of the
usual midterm challenges to the president.
The results could be a validation of Trump, a Blue Wave or
the continuation of extremely narrow majorities in Congress.
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are engaged in
a national struggle between DS and moderates.
They could blow their chances if it prevails. The pundits view the facts influenced by this
thinking.
The main directions of analysis are that (1) the election
will depend on a few swing races and will be close, (2) the Democrats are
throwing away their chances and (3) prices at the pump may turn Trump
supporters away from voting for Republicans.
The underlying belief is that Trump’s Iran war is making GOP
candidates vulnerable, but that Democrats are failing to take advantage of the
opportunity it provides. And what’s true
in Michigan is also true in Maine, because politics have been nationalized.
To support that belief, news people spread out across the
country to produce anecdotal reports based on a few interviews. Their reports are tailored to conform to the
national narrative.
I won’t hazard my analysis, because, like the pundits, I
don’t know enough.
But here are some questions that I think should be explored
before leaping to conclusions based on a short visit.
1. What is the local media saying about state or district
politics differing from national analyses?
2. What is the price at the pump in the state compared with
pre-Iran?
3. What are in-state industry and commercial groups telling
their members?
4. How does the state behave politically compared with
national elections and why?
5. Are candidate age and demographic change relevant?
6. What are the recent indicators of conservative or liberal
leanings among voters?
I don’t see questions like these addressed in the New York
Times or Washington Post.
In Maine, the national media sees Troy Jackson, the
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, as evidence of the risky, progressive
takeover of the Democratic Party. What’s
the risk in a state where Democrats favored Bernie Sanders in 2016 and which
was one of only three states to approve same-sex marriage though a referendum?
The bottom line is that you are your own best pundit. What do you think? What about people you know? Whatever you conclude, don’t rely on the
national media to tell you about yourself.
