“You
were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you
will have war.” So said Winston Churchill 87 years ago about Neville
Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement, infamously secured in the Munich Agreement
of 1938.
Much
has been written this week about the first 100 days of the Trump
Administration. But what strikes us, as we survey the state of our democracy at
this time, is how long it has taken for so many to heed Churchill’s lesson.
Thankfully,
however, that wisdom is starting to resonate, as institutions and individuals
who had once buckled to Trump—from law firms to universities—have begun to
strengthen their spines and realize that a single show of capitulation will not
satiate him.
That
bounce back was buoyed by the indomitable spirit of righteous indignation and
love of country that has swelled among people throughout the country. As that
one-two punch begins to wallop Trump, he has responded with increasing
brazenness and erratic-ness. Both dynamics were on display this week.
This
week, the Trump DOJ was dealt two significant blows by two Republican-appointed
district court judges. On Thursday in Texas, Trump-appointee Fernando
Rodriguez, Jr., ruled that
the Trump Administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act—a 1798 law that
allows the government to detain and deport noncitizens from the country during
wartime—was improper and unlawful. Rodriguez, Jr., ruled
that Trump’s proclamation “exceeds the scope of the statute and is
contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's terms.”
Earlier
in the week, Judge Royce Lamberth of the District of Columbia, who was
appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan, lambasted
the Trump Administration, preventing Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty from
being decimated and ruling that
“It is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary and
capricious actions than the Defendants' actions here.”
Lamberth
then took an extraordinary step back from the particulars of the case to
strongly defend the independence of the judiciary in our constitutional
system, writing:
“By enjoining the defendants’ efforts to dismantle the plaintiff networks,
actions which I perceive to be contrary to the law, I am humbly fulfilling my
small part in this very constitutional paradigm—a framework that has propelled
the U.S. to heights of greatness, liberty and prosperity unparalleled in the
history of the world for nearly 250 years. If our nation is to thrive for
another 250 years, each co-equal branch of government must be willing to
courageously exert the authority entrusted to it by our Founders.”
Beyond
the judiciary, institutions that bent the knee to Trump faced setbacks while
those that held resolutely against intimidation were rewarded. Notably,
Microsoft, one of the largest companies in the world, dropped the
law firm Simpson Thacher—among the shops that caved and made a deal with the
Trump White House—and signed up Jenner Block, one of the three law firms that
challenged Trump’s Executive Order in court.
The
cowardly firms that acquiesced cited, as their prime justification, their
obligation to their clients to maintain good relations with the government.
That was always a false choice, but it was also foolhardy in the long run—after
all, what client wants a lawyer who will be intimidated by its bad-faith
adversary?
That
is indeed courageous, a fact that can be quantified. In the law firms’
litigation against the Trump Administration, hundreds
of firms banded together to sign an amicus brief defending their
colleagues and decrying the president’s Executive Order.
The
first amicus brief a couple weeks ago, supporting Perkins Coie’s lawsuit,
secured about five hundred firms; this week, another amicus brief in the Jenner
Block suit garnered around eight
hundred signatories.
Meanwhile,
people from a wide range of backgrounds, regions, and professions continue to
pour out onto the streets. This week featured sizable labor protests throughout
the country. And the typical sight of lawyers in business attire in front of
federal courthouses in New York and Washington, D.C. looked decidedly different
on Thursday, as attorneys
gathered on the streets not to enter the courts but to decry Trump’s
attacks on the rule of law and Constitution.
All
of this growing opposition may be leaving its mark on Trump. But that only
seems to be ratcheting up his incoherence and cruelty. That split-screen was
made evident this week in two made-for-television displays broadcast from the
West Wing, both ostensibly commemorating his 100th day mark.
On
Tuesday night, Trump sat for an interview with ABC News, in which his ego
gave away the game when he responded that
he could get El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele to return Kilmar Abrego
Garcia to the United States, as the Supreme Court ordered him to do. But, Trump
said, his lawyers told him he didn’t have to. That admission directly undercut
the government’s position (that it did not have the ability to facilitate
Garcia’s return).
The
following morning, Trump held a cabinet meeting, which devolved into yet
another contest for ostentatious, baseless flattery. As our friend Norm
Ornstein noted, Pam Bondi won the lickspittle Olympics, when she claimed that
Trump and the Bondi-led DOJ had saved 258 million American lives—meaning that,
according to the Attorney General, 75% of Americans would be dead right now
were it not for Trump’s presidency.
The
ridiculousness of that display, however, obscures the harsh reality of the
administration’s actions. The federal government continues its indiscriminate
and inhumane immigration policies, with numerous U.S. citizens getting
caught in the dragnet. In one of the latest heartbreaking developments,
the National
Immigration Project reported that two children, including a
four-year-old who had been receiving treatment for a rare form of cancer, were
put on their mother’s deportation flight to Honduras.
As
The Democracy Index team takes the temperature of our democracy each week, we
are thrilled to announce our newest feature: Next week, we’ll be rolling out an
interactive graphic allowing our readers to easily digest the most important
democracy news of the week (please note that these temperatures were not set by
the team, but merely to offer a visual of how it will look). To prevent things
form getting too overwhelming, we’ve divided our metrics into six categories:
National Security, Rule of Law/Autocracy, Corruption, Free Elections, Civil
Rights/Public Safety, and Free Press/Disinformation. This is not a quantitative
project. Rather, it is a qualitative overview of where the country stands from
a democracy standpoint.
Until
then,
The
Democracy Index team
The
Contrarian is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, our
good troublemaking, and our ongoing legal battles, kindly consider becoming a
free or paid subscriber.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.