By WILLIAM MAYER
September 25, 2016 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - A month or so ago this writer spent some time on the phone with a noted scholar from one of DC’s top line think tanks. The subject matter was broad but I will attempt to compress it as succinctly as possible, however it will by necessity be a bit circuitous, so - as is often the case - we beg the reader’s indulgence.
Noting that the concept of the separations of powers in the United States is all but dead, felled by an imperial, hard left federal judiciary which uses its considerable power to legislate from the bench, the question raised was, “how might a new GOP administration start the process of turning back the ‘night of the black robes,’ before it becomes so entrenched that it will be impervious to constraint?” The idea was to use the powers set forth in Article 3, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes substantial legislative authority pertaining to the organizing and rearranging of the federal judiciary as a “lever” for fundamental change…of the benevolent variety.
The “nightmare” model of abuse in mind at the time of the chat as to the direction which the U.S. judicial system seems to be heading, was and remains, the Israeli Supreme Court, which for all intents and purposes might as well run the country.
Renown Constitutional scholar [and culture war casualty] Robert Bork had written and lectured widely on the matter [calling it judicial imperialism] before his death in 2012, taking particular aim at the breathtaking power grab by Jewish state’s high court, especially under it’s then president Aharon Barak.
“Robert Bork, the eminent American law professor from Yale University, once described the Israeli Supreme Court as the worst in the Western world. Israel, Bork wrote, "has set a standard for judicial imperialism that can probably never be surpassed, and, one devoutly hopes, will never be equaled elsewhere." Bork finds "less and less reason for the Israeli people to bother electing a legislature and executive; the attorney general, with the backing of the Supreme Court, can decide almost everything for them." To make things worse, judges in Israel, including Supreme Court judges, are chosen by a non-elected panel dominated by other judges, and there are no possibilities for impeachment of judges by the parliament or by ballot initiative. Appointments of judges are not subject to approval by the Israeli parliament (the Knesset). [source, Steven Plaut, The Threat to Israeli Liberties from the Israeli Supreme Court , American Thinker]
Evidence of this spreading domestic rot is replete - at both the state and federal levels. One might note in passing numerous recent SCOTUS decisions, some of which border on the bizarre [for example, King et al. v. Burwell and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch] and at the state level, one might look to the out-of-bounds activism of Thelton Eugene Henderson, Senior Judge of the Federal District Court of Northern, who had taken the extraordinary step of placing the entire state prison system under his “federal receivership” for a period of six years upon [shaky] allegations of improper medical care being provided at those facilities. Henderson also has the distinction of having been the party responsible for singlehandedly overturning CA prop 209, passed by the voters intent upon outlawing racial preferences, a decision subsequently, not to mention emphatically, reversed.
So, working back to our discussion with the think tanker, we proposed the not so novel, in conservative circles, idea that the imbalance created by judicial usurpation of power - weakening the tri-partite system of checks and balances - could be legally remedied via Congressional manipulation of the federal courts, reorganizing, perhaps abolishing entire federal districts and maybe even adding members to the Supreme Court. The thinking was that even a modicum of “adjustment” to the way federal courts operate might serve as a pretty big shot across the bow of further judicial activism, a low risk, potentially high reward gambit.
Delving deeper however, the conversation turned more serious as the expert took a great deal of time to deal with the issue which was of course far more complex than one might surmise, certainly more than I had imagined. Troublesome issues came into resolution regarding legal standing, the breadth of appellate versus original jurisdiction, extant [and confusingly contradictory] case law and precedents as well as a host of even more technical issues, all of which had encumbrances attached indicating that this might not be a can of worms that needed opening.
After a thorough hash-through this writer came to the unpalatable but inescapable conclusion that there was only one really effective way to remedy judicial despotism, upon the simple yet profound understanding - voiced by my temporary advisor - that to affect the kind of change I had in mind, “you just have to win more elections.”
This naturally makes perfect sense within the framework of conservatism, under the theory that elections do have consequences. As always there are caveats, one of which is the realization that the left has been naked in its constant pursuit of “legislators in black robes” and goodness knows what kind of screening process potential nominees are put through. On the other hand the twiddle-dee-dee conservatives aren’t anywhere near as obstinate or obsessive about using similar litmus tests to winnow out the lefty activists, so we never really know what we are getting and don’t seem to really care that much…more shrug-shouldered evidence of the GOP loser mentality.
It stands to reason then, that it’s our side which is continually flummoxed when a supposed “rock ribbed” conservative SCOTUS judge suddenly morphs into a lefty, as was the case with Chief Justice Roberts in the ObamaCare decision, where he displayed no hesitancy rewriting the clearly unconstitutional original legislation in order to create a massive and binding federal mandate which is now the law of the land.
Ok, we did say this would be circuitous, but finally the thesis is at hand and it’s kind of close to home, as it relates to our years of working what can loosely be described as the national security journo beat, which has been both a duty and an honor and one which we - despite our often flippant-sounding, naughty language combativeness - take with supreme gravity.
What we and our much larger and more influential allies in the mission basically do is to research and write about matters - especially those dealing with jihadism - that pose a threat [especially those of an existential nature] to the continued welfare of the country and in a larger sense Western society.
These writings can take the form of “normal journo,” such as this piece, longer monographs/position papers or entire volumes or books, one of which we will be publishing within the next few weeks…stay tuned.
But therein lies the Achilles’ heel of the enterprise.
Though the information that we collectively produce is absolutely vital in understanding important aspects of the enemy’s threat doctrine, which suggests possible avenues of redress; much of it is so technical and “in the weeds” to a layman that the potential audience [our demographic universe] is by definition relatively small and often already polarized in one or another direction…minds made up.
Hence the effect of the gross effort, given the massive inertia of current political trends, is more on the order of at best providing whispered guidance to those ambling towards the nation’s polling booths rather than a shove, which might have a better chance of at least getting their attention or changing attitudes.
But with all metrics pointing in the wrong direction, i.e., that [an increasingly atomized/balkanized] society is becoming more, not less vulnerable after [at a minimum] 15 years of relentless Muslim depredation; gnawing around the edges of the problem isn’t what’s called for; course corrections of this dimension aren’t trifling matters.
We don’t advise arm-tackling 240 pound running backs…assuming you wish to keep that appendage.
So at this point let’s harken back to the advice provided by Mr. Think Tank, we must win more elections…we hear there actually is one slated for November 8.
But the prospect of firing those who have brought us to this ugly nexus is shrouded in complications and the reality is that the public that was at first shocked by ISIS bringing its “holy war” to the streets of America, is quickly working its way towards accepting it as the new normal, that a certain amount of terrorism is simply a part of modern life.
Though this seems, and actually is on its face counter-intuitive and crazy, when the public is denied the truth, for example the constant refrain coming from the MSM that these terrorist acts have no base motivation, dots do not get connected, at least in such a manner as to force changes in policy.
That this is happening despite the fact that most of us know that Islam is driving the process is less proof of some kind of social dysfunction than it is a commentary on the human condition wherein we all tend towards at least some form of working around what we feel powerless to change…we just live with it as best we can.
Thus in large measure for many voters, especially ignorant young unmarried women [sorry gals it’s the truth] the blame for the current state of affairs does not intersect with the name Hillary Clinton or her party, though it is beyond argument that she along with her former boss were the ones who set the Middle East on fire with their insane adventurism in the first place.
Thus cause has been decoupled from effect, and no I didn’t see that coming…my guess is that very few of you did either.
The question then arises, why do we as a community of writers continue to do what has proven not only ineffective but actually empirically counterproductive turning off readers [by publishing only “inside baseball” content about a topic the electorate isn’t seeing through the lens of ideology, or politics] instead of broadening the approach and expanding into the type of material which, “a” might actually be read by literate consumers and equally important, “b” might prove capable of moving the concept of electoral victory from reach…to grasp?
We touched on this matter a few days ago [see, The Funding Dilemma: Are National Security Think Tanks Being Influenced by Their Mega Donors?] when we suggested that funding might be one of the drivers. This is not to demean those whose largesse keeps this small flotilla afloat, but those doling out the bucks understandably have biases as well as misconceptions upon which they act.
So where are we?
A subversive and intentionally racially derisive radical sits in the oval office. He and his “justice” department are meeting on a constant basis with the Black Lives Matter crowd whose ground game is being funded by Marxist revolutionaries such as George Soros and his ilk. Obama is keenly aware that his time in office is limited but he also understands that since he is not on the ballot this year he’s unfettered, freed of what limited constraints under which he has been operating over the last, very long, 8 years.
Look at the results, Charlotte is burning upon a model established 2 years ago in Ferguson Missouri, followed by Baltimore where a hateful black, clearly inexperienced but full of herself DA maliciously prosecuted 6 [multi-racial] members of the city’s own police force on charges including murder.
Every evening, the mayhem is being run 24 x 7 on the cable news networks which means that our side has an opportunity to connect with voters who are genuinely and rightly scared out of their wits as to where this is heading…yet our side is still writing about Jeh Johnson speaking to ISNA, an organization associated with the Middle East Sunni terrorist group HAMAS.
Of course this is noteworthy, until you factor in that Team Obama has done far worse, engineering a Muslim Brotherhood coup in Egypt, which was eventually and massively thrown off by the Egyptian people. Additionally we all know that Team O has MB operatives working throughout the government including Johnson’s Department of Homeland Security, about which we have all written…multiple times.
Gun-running to Sunni terrorists, destabilizing allies, callously [and in our opinion with knowledge aforethought] abandoning our own in shit holes like Benghazi?
Eyes roll, people yawn and they move on. It’s really illogical to think that one can continue to hit the same nail on the head and expect to drive it deeper.
Therefore, Johnson’s ISNA speech pales in import as contrasted against the fire that is actually burning.
However…this same arrogant DHS suit did make a critically important and noteworthy speech on September 3, which some of us ignored and worse with which some seemed [reading goat entrails here] to be somewhat in agreement. During his early September address at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, he floated the idea of federalizing U.S. elections, an idea not only in contravention of the U.S. Constitution but one which - given this president’s 8 year record of treachery - gives rise to very reasonable concerns regarding the possibility of Team Obama seizing control of and possibly “cooking” election results as they roll in on November 8.
Again…burkini…or a rigged Iranian style election which is the definition of dictatorship? What is the most important data point…what issue constitutes the most elemental threat to the United States right now, not 6 months or 5 years down the road?
Moreover what issue is the public most likely be in the mood to consume over the next 45 days?
What to do?
Hell, I don’t run the ship, no one really does, many of us are part hired gun/part freebooters. On “larger” issues [Iran’s nuke program for example] generally we operate under an assumed and collectively unconscious consensus, a kind of seat of the pants self-guidance and hence concurrence that only experience provides.
But I do have a suggestion to my brothers and sisters, whom I respect immensely…
Let’s get real, our interests are best served by running the board in this election at the presidential, congressional, state and local levels. We have to support that effort with narrative based really hard edged pieces about things that have direct impact on Americans right now, especially targeting younger voters, or those possibly just tuning in, who have no idea what evil lies behind the smiling faces of Obama and his automaton, Hillary Clinton.
As heretofore mentioned people are more than concerned. They see their cities in flames, watch “law enforcement” permit unlawful assemblies then sit back in amazement as thugs are allowed to burn squad cars with impunity while big city police chiefs refuse to forcefully disperse violent crowds as is necessary in establishing defensible perimeters of sufficient size to allow fire departments to put out blazing homes and businesses.
These same citizens no longer feel secure in their own homes while Team O and Hillary move towards firearm confiscation, that last bit of defense between at least a modicum of security and total anarchy.
The average Joe and Jane are witness to an invasion by alien cultures, some from South of the border and some - with a very nasty demographic profile - from Middle Eastern cultures that want to destroy the West. They see America being transformed into some version of a shit hole Third World country.
Smell the fear, it’s in the air.
In general become an alt-right Alinsky…co-opt the big issues, create narratives that give us the moral high-ground, attack, attack, attack, be relentless. This is a street fight for the culture, forget the Marquess of Queensberry…gouge eyes, sucker punch, bring a cannon to a knife fight…do not take prisoners. Use combative language, get in the bad guys faces, wake the nation from its somnolence. Spread the word, abandon for the time being the sole production of scholarly clap-trap that few read and which has even less impact.
This is a war for the culture which we cannot afford to lose. Take up thy pens and repeat after me - by any means necessary, Just Win Baby.
Barring that…turn out the lights, it is over.
©2016 PipeLineNews.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.