Jonathan Turley vs. Person Illustrating How Not To Argue Against Trump's Travel Ban
Note to The Raw Story: Turley made it extremely clear that he was not "defending Trump's ban." He just doesn't think it's illegal.
posted by Winston Smith at
4:15 PM
5 Comments:
I believe Turley is right Winston, but we should remember: he's making a legally positive, not normative, statement.
And if that moment is not already here it soon will be: the one where we regret granting so much deference to the executive regarding 'security' in general, and especially 'at the border'.
Check out this comment by Sebastian at OW:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2017/01/national-security-council-replaced-with-yes-men.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201b8d25a57f5970c#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201b8d25a57f5970c
With an administration that is already loose with any limits on power, the existing case law that Turley alludes to could be one of the fig leaves it needs to start us on the road to Putin-level autocracy.
I think everybody should have been worried about the re-growth of executive power for a long time now, actually.
But anyway: Turley was clear and I was clear that he's (a) disagreeing with the policy and (b) offering his legal conclusion that it is not illegal / unConstitutional. So I think we're all clear on what he's saying. He says very clearly: if you are going to oppose the ban, you better make sure you understand the legal situation. Shrieking that it's awful won't change that. It's not a fig leaf. It's a refusal to pretend that the law magically conforms itself to liberal moral judgments.
Am I missing something here?
No, Winston, I don't disagree with anything you said, but I believe it's important to recognize that [the law not magically conforming itself to liberal moral judgments] =/= [the law has been correctly decided].
So while the longer game is changing the underlying law (which we both agree is faulty), we presently have no alternative but to focus on the disaster of a person who currently holds that power, as well as the practical effects of him exercising it, 'moral judgments' notwithstanding. This seems important, since most experts seem to agree the EO won't make us any safer, and could actually help ISIS recruiting. Also there are ways of applying pressure to change the policy before the law itself is changed.
And that focus on practical effects does not seem to me to be confined to liberals at the moment, judging by Bruce Bartlett's and David Frum's Twitter feeds. The worry about *the effects* (NOT the legality) of the policy is spread across the entire sanity spectrum as far as I can tell.
This is all not to mention that we have some initial indications that the orders may not be *legal* at all, since a few judges have issued temporary restraining orders.
BTW, I recognize that that is beyond the point you were making, merely that the other panelist was unable to see that Turley saying the EO may be *legal* is not the same as him saying it is *good*.
But I believe there are times when it is possible to fetishize 'legality'. IOW, some measure can be both a) legal and b) upsetting to (insert my ideological opponent here), and still be f*cking stupid and imprudent.
Sorry for being cranky about it.
Well, these are crankiness-inducing times.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home