Credit Where It's Due

 Credit where it's due: I gotta write one of my two mega-GOP senators today. I had written them previously to ask them to stand up to Trump's badmouthing of judges who rule against him. It seems now that some Republican senators are doing just that, including the one I wrote to. He was quoted saying, well, good things?

Of course, other Republican legislators are trying to replicate that end run with extra steps, proposing a bill to strip federal judges of blocking executive acts beyond the immediate parties bringing the challenge. That seems like a bad idea, one that GOP senators would have (rightly) decried had Democrats attempted the same to curtail challenges against Biden's or Obama's executive orders. Hopefully they'll see that.

Did my letter make any kind of difference, play any kind of role in that senator's stand? Almost certainly not. But it was good to see.

Thus he gets this letter tonight:

Dear [SENATOR]--

About a week ago I wrote to urge you to stand up to the White House's badmouthing of federal judges for rulings they don't like. I was pleased to see an article from thehill.com: "Senate Republicans urge Trump, allies to stop threatening courts." You were quoted, speaking against Speaker Johnson's plans to defund federal courts. 

I applaud your stance and thank you for defending our system of checks and balances.

I am less thrilled by Senator Grassley's proposal to limit the injunctive power of federal judges. Limiting injunctions to the immediate parties bringing a challenge would seriously hinder a major check against executive overreach. Temporary stays and temporary injunctions already have a limiting factor: they're temporary. If the acts in question are legal, then they will find their way through judicial scrutiny. If they're illegal, then they should never have been issued in the first place.

By contrast, victims of ill-considered executive orders require broad and immediate protection. Waiting for a class action lawsuit to redress a sweeping illegal order by the President is like filling out mail-in request for firefighters while the house burns. 

I note that Republicans have never taken a stance that judicial injunctions go too far when Democrats occupy the White House and issue executive orders. Nor should you. Executive orders that overstep should be challenged and when necessary paused. Thus we have judicial stays and injunctions.

That there have been many injunctions against the President indicates executive overreach, not judicial activism. Over the last two months, the White House has proudly adopted a "move fast and break things" attitude. The President has "flooded the zone" with sweeping executive orders and novel interpretations of old laws to justify a range of actions. It's no surprise that causing a flood triggers floodgates to close.

The broad powers the President claims call for extra caution. Already we've seen how imprudent acts such as the Venezuelan deportations to El Salvador turn out badly. News reports tell of mistakenly identified several innocent people as violent gang members. It's a nauseating abuse of power and flagrant disregard of due process. The worrisome practice of "disappearing" legal residents who break no laws at all likewise cries out for close scrutiny.

Great power requires great oversight and accountability. The White House has so far been reticent to accept oversight on its own. (Witness the shameful whataboutism and excuse-making around the Signal debacle.) Congress and the courts must step in to compensate for the White House's rashness.

I ask that you and the rest of Congress continue to hold the executive branch accountable to the law and to the Constitutional protections for all.  

Thank you,