Decimation, Due Process, and Deportations

posted by Vince Coyner at American Thinker 

Since the Enlightenment, the Anglosphere has had a laudable commitment to due process, which means opposing the brutality of group punishment. But what happens when that commitment leads to societal suicide? Our Founders cannot have intended this, especially regarding those people who ignored due process to enter America illegally.

In 73 BC, 70 slaves escaped from a gladiator school in the town of Capua, in central Italy. They spent the next two years attacking various towns and encouraging slaves to revolt and join them. This was the beginning of the Third Servile War.

By 71 BC, the force numbered 120,000, had at its head the former gladiator Spartacus, and had become a formidable foe, defeating a number of Roman legions on the battlefield. It was then, with much of the peninsula living in abject fear of both the rebels and their own slaves, that the Senate appointed Marcus Licinius Crassus as Rome’s general commander.

Crassus was brutal, reviving the ancient ritual of decimation. Decimation takes responsibility to an extreme, for it requires that, as a group punishment (often for losing a battle), members of the group will kill 10% of the members. While it’s unclear exactly why Crassus utilized decimation —he ordered the deaths of up to 4,000 men out of his force of almost 40,000 —the result is clear: His men feared him more than the enemy. They defeated Spartacus and crucified his last 6,000 men along the Appian Way.

That one in ten responsibility ratio has been a defining maxim of American law since before there was an America, although not in the same direction. In the mid-18th century, William Blackstone published his Commentaries on the Laws of England, which became a foundational element of English and later American law.

In Commentaries, Blackstone draws on the Old Testament to turn Rome’s commitment to group punishment on its head. Blackstone’s Ratio stated, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” This maxim was picked up by Ben Franklin, stating “That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer…”

John Adams put it like this:

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished...when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever.

With all due respect to Blackstone, et. al, I disagree. My disagreement is perhaps best personified by my favorite quote, attributed to Voltaire, “Perfect is the enemy of the good.” (Voltaire actually said, “the better is the enemy of the good.”)

There is no system that is perfect, which led Blackstone to say that the ratio of good to bad should be 1 in 10 and Franklin to say that it should be 1 in 100. But both numbers are arbitrary. How about 1 in 2 men, or 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 1,000,000? If not, why not?

That maxim sounds noble and virtuous, but civil society cannot survive such a caveat. While society and the government should do as much as they reasonably can to ensure that no innocent men are going to pay for a crime they did not commit, the reality, again, is that imperfect men make imperfect systems.

Why does any of this matter today? Because our Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Over the last 4 years, over 10 million illegal aliens invaded the country. Over the previous 30 years, another 20-30 million came. In total, there are approximately 35 million illegal aliens in the United States, and we finally have a president who has decided to take on the Herculean / Sisyphean task of deporting them.

And now that someone is trying to do something about the cancer of illegal immigration, the left is throwing roadblocks in the way seemingly every other day. The rationales are varied, but a fundamental argument is “Due Process.”

Due Process is an important element of American history and jurisprudence, but like the Constitution, it’s not a suicide pact.

Thirty-five million illegal aliens are 10% of the American population. Judges across the country are telling the administration it must exercise Due Process as to each one of them before any of them can be deported.

That is simply not feasible. Between scheduling court dates, conducting court cases, and waiting on the appeals process, there’s literally no way for the American judicial system to handle that number of cases.

If each case could magically be fully adjudicated in just one day and the government could deport 10,000 people a day, it would take a full decade to deport all the illegals already here. But they don’t take one day. In most circumstances, the deportation process can take months and often takes years.

But we’re told that without Due Process, it’s possible that someone legally here, or even an American citizen, could be deported. And that’s true; it is possible. But is that a reason not to expedite deporting the 35 million illegals in the United States? No.

To say yes would be basically to treat the United States the way blue states treat homeowners victimized by squatters. Across the country, we hear horror stories of homeowners whose lives are turned upside down by squatters. The owner not only loses access to or use of their homes, but they’re still required to pay the mortgage, taxes, and insurance. This can go on for years. And when the squatters finally leave —sometimes only after being paid to do so—the homeowners often find their property damaged to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. Such situations make anyone with a functioning brain see red with fury. It’s simply insane.

Now multiply that exact scenario by 35 million, and you have America’s illegal immigrant disaster.

Which brings us back to Blackwell and Adams. One wonders if they would suggest that it’s better that 35 million immigrants remain in America illegally than one citizen accidentally be deported. What if the number were 45 or 75 million, either of which would be possible after four or eight more years if another Democrat gains the White House? At what point does “Due Process” become “Accept the collapse of the Republic”? That question must be asked because that’s exactly the position in which Democrats and swamp-dwelling RINOs have put Trump and America.

Of course, this is only an issue because activist judges across the country have overstepped their constitutional powers and embraced nationwide injunctions as the vehicle for undermining Trump.

I’ve advocated for the president to ignore the judges, but so far, he’s chosen not to do so. He is considering, however, a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, similar to what Lincoln did in 1861. As I read the Constitution, it seems to my non-lawyer eyes that it’s only Congress that can suspend the writ,* and perhaps Trump’s planning on asking them to do it. Of course, there’s zero chance that that snake-infested swamp will do so. Or he could do as Lincoln did and suspend it unilaterally and then ignore SCOTUS.

I realize that doing so would open a Pandora’s Box of potential disasters from Democrats and RINO swamp weasels in DC, but if the leftists leave Trump no other options, is his job to sit by and watch the Republic collapse? I don’t think so. But make no mistake, we’re not here because Donald Trump is some sort of would-be dictator. We’re here because Democrats have been attempting to decimate American exceptionalism for decades.

X22, And we Know, and more- May 15

 

Time to Prosecute Democrats Who Break the Law

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

After years of cheering the ignoring of the law by Joe Biden – student loans, immigration, etc. – Democrats are now insisting that to enforce the law is to somehow break it…as long as it is being enforced against them. Not to get too hyperbolic, but this is how the Nazis acted, this is how the Taliban acted, of which the modern “progressive” Democrat Party are the direct descendants. Insisting they are above the law makes them the most dangerous political force in the country, if not the planet. They need to be held accountable. 

This latest foray by Democrats to defecate on the Constitution happened in New Jersey, as Democrat House Members showed up at an ICE holding facility for scum of the Earth criminal illegal aliens on their way out of the country. These are the current human props Democrats have elevated above actual law-abiding Americans because too many law-abiding Americans won’t obey them. 

These showboating Democrats pretended they wanted to do “oversight” at the facility, but showed up with an entourage and multiple camera crews. If you’re only interested in “doing your job” if it’s being recorded, forgive me if I don’t think you’re all that interested in doing your job. 

The House Democrats there, and the Mayor of Newark, all represent pits of crime and economic depression, as Democrats do. These people care not for their legal American constituents who elected them – and honestly, why would they? These people vote for morons simply because they’re Democrats, no matter how ineffective or feckless they are at their jobs. How could anyone elected that way genuinely care about or have respect for the idiots who gave them power? Democrats clearly do not.

When guards did not allow this parade of idiots into a high security holding facility, the Democrats did what 3-year-olds do: they threw a fit and started shoving the guards. They’re lucky they weren’t shot, and the mayor was arrested.

Immediately, these terrorists attacking guards simply doing their jobs screamed that they were the victims to the cameras conveniently there to capture what they had planned.

They claimed to be doing legitimate oversight, not a publicity stunt. But the members themselves are the only people granted access to ICE facilities without notice, not mayors, activists with them or some random boob with a camera. And no one is allowed to shove guards, Congressional ID or not. (Read who can get in and under what circumstances here.)

Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatened Department of Homeland Security officials if they dared arrest the law-breakers, though it’s unclear what a doughy dim-wit back-bench member of Congress in the minority party can actually do aside from post Instagram videos when not flying first class on donors’ dimes to “fight the oligarchy.” But she deserves a head-pat for the effort, and possibly a charge of threatening federal officials, as members of Congress only enjoy absolute immunity, both civilly and criminally, for the things they say on the House floor and nowhere else. 

Even Nancy Pelosi’s puppet in House Democrat leadership, Hakeem Jeffries, is talking tough. “We’re not going to be intimidated by their tactics to try to force principled opposition from not standing up to their extremism,” he whined to the press the other day. When Nancy gives her pet enough leash to make a fool of himself you know it’s serious.

These Democrats are clowns who, like the judge in Wisconsin who helped a domestic abusing illegal alien escape ICE in her courtroom, think they’re above the law. Well, a federal grand jury, not “the Trump administration,” returned an indictment of the leftist judge and there's no reason to think another grand jury wouldn’t do the same against any and all Democrats who assault members of law enforcement or otherwise break the law. 

We aren’t dealing with honest or good people, or even people who like the country, let alone love it. You don’t have to love this country, even if you’re elected to represent people in our government, but you do have to follow the laws. Democrats have gotten away with breaking them so often over the last decade – the Junkie Riots over George Floyd, the Michael Brown riots, the Trayvon Martin riots, the anti-Semitic riots, the hate America riots, etc. – that they really believe the law doesn’t apply to them because Democrats have not been applying the law to them. 

That needs to change and change in a serious way. Throw the book, throw the bookcase, throw the book store, throw the whole damn library at them. It’s fair, it’s just, and it’s probably the only way to return some sense of sanity to the cancerous rot that the Democrat Party has become.

When Conservative Theory Collides With Unconservative Reality

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

It’s always amusing when someone who has not been an active conservative and free marketer for over 40 years and did not run his own small business for nearly 30 years, as I have, gets accused of being a socialist because he refuses to pretend that the world is not as it is. I like free enterprise. It’s in my blood – everyone in my nuclear family had his/her own business. And while I am not sure that Donald Trump‘s latest heresies to the Cult of Milton Friedman (and I’m definitely a Friedman believer) will ultimately prove efficacious, I know the current system certainly isn’t doing the job for us. And the current system isn’t anything like free enterprise.

I’m tired of the unprincipled application of conservative principles. What we have here are many conservatives making the same fundamental error that they make about so many other things. They are assuming the world is as they wish it to be, not as it is. They are mad because real life is screwing up the application of their beautiful theories – and again, I want to emphasize, I love these theories. I would love to have a system where the courts do the courts’ proper things, the Congress does the Congress’s proper things, and the president does the president’s proper things, but that’s not our system. I would love to have a system where immigration is rationally handled both for input and output, but that’s also not the system we have. And I would love to have as free a market as humanly possible. I would also like a pony.

But in so many areas, we don’t have a free market. The problem is that many of our co-conservatives demand that we pretend we do. They wish to govern based on that fantasy. Of course, our opponents don’t feel themselves bound to that. They do what’s to their advantage. This is how we get a situation where we are charged whatever other countries and large companies want to charge, but we are effectively barred from putting price pressure downward by the imposition of regulations and monopolies. In other words, we’re supposed to pay only what the market will bear, but we end up paying what the government and big corporations tell us we must pay.

This is not capitalism. This gives capitalism a bad name. The “principled” conservatives pretend that a free market exists where there is no free market, and they tell us that we must accept the downside of free enterprise without any of the upside. The upside is defeated, in large part, by other players who are not expected to fulfill their obligations under a free enterprise paradigm. That’s a pretty lousy deal, and it should come as no surprise that we’re tired of it.

What Trump is doing is beginning the discussion over how we resolve this problem, because us normal people getting screwed while other people benefit cannot continue. I’m tired of being told that I’m violating conservative principles by pointing out that I’m the only one expected to adhere to the conservative principles, and the people who don’t are getting a free ride.

Just last month, we had that discussion over tariffs. Of course, the default conservative position – the super-simplistic one – is tariffs bad, no tariffs good. OK, I think that’s the correct default position if you only consider the economic considerations. But there are other considerations; it’s not all about the money. There’s national security. Even Milton Friedman understood that you had to have your own on-shore bomb-making industry because you can’t rely on cheaper foreign bomb producers. But there are also cultural considerations. We destroyed the Midwest by allowing massive outsourcing of our manufacturing. According to some conservatives, I’m not supposed to notice that, but it’s hard to miss unless you’re in Manhattan or Washington, DC. The hell with that. Having millions of my fellow Americans impoverished and their communities wrecked is bad, and we should not do that. I’ll sacrifice some economic efficiency so that tens of thousands of Americans aren’t so broke that they turn to fentanyl and other social pathologies. If it makes me not a conservative to point out there are effects other than ones that involve bank accounts, you are free to call me whatever name you like. My country is more than just a profit and loss statement.

Here’s the thing. We didn’t have a free-market tariff regime before Donald Trump came along. We had America with, in many cases, significantly lower tariffs on stuff imported from foreign countries than those foreign countries put up against us. There was once a reason for that. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, it allowed the rest of the world to rebuild. We hadn’t been destroyed as many other countries had. But I just checked my watch, and it’s been about 80 years since Hitler blew his brains out. Why are we still doing this? If, after eight decades, a country is not back on its feet, it’s on its own.

All we hear from the hyper-principled gang is how raising our tariffs is terrible, but we never hear anything about how the foreigners’ higher tariffs are terrible. Once again, we bear the obligations of the free market paradigm, but don’t get the upside. I’m looking for a good argument for why, in 2025, we should generally allow foreigners to have higher tariffs on American goods than Americans put on foreign goods. Why are we forbidden from leveraging our economic power to force reciprocity with other countries? I have yet to see someone make a case for the status quo ante Trump. All I hear is about how I’m now a Democrat and maybe even a socialist for not believing we should get the short end of the stick in a non-free enterprise paradigm.

It hasn’t helped the critics’ case that the sky did not fall. Yes, there was some disruption immediately after Trump began to change the postwar order. Who would think there wouldn’t be a disruption when you’re disrupting the post-war paradigm? But the disruption seems to be dissipating. As I write this, my 401(k) has nearly recovered from the shock of Liberation Day. There might still be some problems down the road. There are plenty of people out there predicting/hoping that we’re going to have an economic convulsion that they can pin on Trump – remember, a lot of the uproar is pure politics from people who hate him. But the fact is that the free marketers who are mad at Trump’s refusal to pretend the old tariff regime was a free-market regime have not seen their dire predictions come true. Nor have they offered any alternative to the old regime that has caused us so much non-economic damage. Their only suggestion is to keep unilaterally free marketing even harder in the face of foreigners who aren’t free marketing at all.

The same thing is true of Trump’s drug proclamation. We all know that Big Pharma has been in the pockets of Democrats and screwed Republicans over for decades, so on a purely tactical level, I don’t understand why we would sacrifice even an iota of political capital to keep our enemies happy. Defending the status quo, where drug companies charge Americans hugely inflated prices compared to the rest of the world, has a political cost. Why should we bear it so that allies of our political enemies can get even richer?

We’re hearing a lot about price controls. Price controls are a bad thing in general. But here’s the thing. Drug prices are already controlled. They are controlled by government action and regulations, which Big Pharma directly influences through direct lobbying. How is that free enterprise? Maybe it’s time we do the controlling ourselves to our advantage, since nobody seems interested in deregulating the medical industry and making it an actual free enterprise system.

We should. I was a lawyer, one of the fields that is about as close to a free market as you can get. I could charge per hour what the market could bear with very minimal regulation – the ethics rules said I could not charge “an unconscionable fee,” but what was that? Plus, there was also substantial price pressure downward. I often defended large companies. I could charge them a decent rate because I was pretty good, but somebody else was always good too and might want to undercut me. As such, we had real price competition in the legal market. Consumers could put pressure on providers, and providers could put pressure on consumers. That’s how it’s supposed to be.

But that’s not to pretend that the drug market is like that. It is super-regulated on every level, from production to testing to distribution to what can be charged by whom. Big Pharma manipulates the government via lobbying; that’s what stands in for competition in setting prices. We consumers have almost no price power regarding a product where, if you don’t get it, you literally die. 

In other words, the drug market is not a free market, but we’re being told that we have to pretend it is and not play by the rules that actually exist. In a free market, I could find cheaper drug sources. How do I do that today? For example, drugs are much cheaper in Canada. In a free market, I could go buy them in Canada. Except I can’t go buy drugs from Canada. That’s not legal. There’s no way for consumers to force prices down via consumer spending choice, yet I’m supposed to pretend there is and refuse any attempt to regulate the market to my advantage while not objecting to the current regulation of the market that is not to my advantage. Yeah, no thanks. Trump has recognized that political power sets drug prices, not competition; he’s simply using that power for our advantage rather than for Big Pharma’s. I’m unsure why that’s unprincipled. One set of rules, folks.

There is nothing wrong with belonging to the mainline Cult of Milton Friedman, but I’m not going to be part of any fanatical offshoot demanding I offer human sacrifices. If we want to convert the medical sector of our economy into a real free enterprise paradigm – something I think would be a great policy choice – then let’s do that. But the idea that we’re going to highly regulate the industry and also decree that any attempt to regulate it in our favor, as opposed to Big Pharma’s favor, violates the sacred texts is just not going to fly. I didn’t want this system, and I don’t want this system, but I’m not morally obligated to pretend this system doesn’t exist as currently constituted. None of us is. So, if Trump is going to change the rules of the rigged game so that we get screwed a little less, as he’s done on both tariffs and Big Pharma, cool. When you “principled” conservatives who demand unilateral free enterprise puritanism present me with an actual free enterprise paradigm, we can talk. Until then, we’re going to play the game by the game’s rules, and if you don’t like it, you can go ahead and call me a “socialist” again.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Tucker Interviews Ed Martin – The Scale of Corruption at DOJ/FBI is “Much, Much Worse Than People Think”

As the Washington DC U.S. Attorney, Ed Martin was in position to address the known and documented activity of a variety of former DOJ officials. There’s a strong argument to be made that’s the reason why the DOJ’s corrupt allies in congress moved to eliminate the threat Martin represented. However, their collective result didn’t remove him, nor did it change the objective, it just changed Mr Martin’s title.

Washington DC USAO Ed Martin carried the authority of the Attorney General, in the changed dynamic special appointee ADAG Ed Martin now carries the authority of the President of the United States to investigate a weaponized DOJ/FBI apparatus. It became a serendipitous outcome.

In this episode of Tucker Carlson the former Fox News host interviews the head of the newly formed ‘weaponization working group’ Ed Martin. Within the interview Martin outlines the mysterious motives of the FBI handling of the J6 “pipe bomber” case, alleging that basic investigative steps were overlooked. “They didn’t interview some of the people that you would have said, ‘That might be a suspect.’ They hadn’t interviewed him,” he said. Raising concerns about the agency’s competence, he added, “The question becomes, ‘what’s happening here?’ Is it incompetence? It feels worse than incompetence.”

When asked by Carlson whether the DOJ is worse than people believe, Martin went further, declaring, “I think it’s worse than incompetence.” “The only way forward is not to describe what I think of the motives but to expose over and over again what’s happened. If you expose what happened and the truth gets out, then accountability is possible.” Martin then described the issues facing the DOJ as “much, much worse than people think.” WATCH:

Chapters:

0:00 Ed Martin’s Response to the Crazed Leftist Who Spit in His Face
7:21 Why Would Republican Senator Thom Tillis Want to Destroy Martin?
8:33 Tillis’s Mission to Lock Up January 6th Protestors
16:14 The DOJ Is a Much Bigger Mess Than People Realize

21:43 The Republicans Trying to Sabotage Trump
31:12 Crime and Homelessness in DC
33:48 The CIA Operations Hidden Within Universities
39:02 Martin’s Plan to Clean Up DC
40:26 DC’s Absurd Gun Control Policy
54:09 Martin’s War on Wikipedia
59:54 Martin’s Plan to Repair Election Integrity in America
1:04:46 The Corruption of Merrick Garland, Obama, and Biden
1:10:04 Will We See the Epstein Files?
1:10:46 The DNC and RNC Pipe Bombs
1:12:34 Will We Ever Know What Happened With the 2020 Election?
1:13:52 Will We See Accountability in Washington?
1:18:54 Is the Democrat Party Getting Worse?

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Communications Devices Found Hiding in Chinese Solar Power Components

Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

One of the United States' significant vulnerabilities is our power grid. It's huge and complex, it's vulnerable to attack in any number of ways, from local attacks such as shooting up a couple of transformers to a grid-wide EMP attack. A large-scale grid failure has the potential to send much of the United States back to the mid-19th century, and we should note that there is no way we could support our current population with mid-19th century technology and distributions systems, meaning that, in the event of such a grid-wide failure, a lot of people would die of disease, starvation, figthing over supplies - you name it.

So it's a matter of some concern when we find unexpected communications devices hidden inside Chinese-made power inverters that form a part of this grid.

U.S. energy officials are reassessing the risk posed by Chinese-made devices that play a critical role in renewable energy infrastructure after unexplained communication equipment was found inside some of them, two people familiar with the matter said.

Power inverters, which are predominantly produced in China, are used throughout the world to connect solar panels and wind turbines to electricity grids. They are also found in batteries, heat pumps and electric vehicle chargers.

While inverters are built to allow remote access for updates and maintenance, the utility companies that use them typically install firewalls to prevent direct communication back to China.

However, rogue communication devices not listed in product documents have been found in some Chinese solar power inverters by U.S experts who strip down equipment hooked up to grids to check for security issues, the two people said.

Over the past nine months, undocumented communication devices, including cellular radios, have also been found in some batteries from multiple Chinese suppliers, one of them said.

Reuters was unable to determine how many solar power inverters and batteries they have looked at.

There is nothing about this that bodes well for the United States. New trade deals notwithstanding, China isn't a friend of the United States. Oh, we can do business with them, but should always check our collective wallet afterwards; it's as President Reagan said, "Trust, but verify," or as my favorite rogue uncle was fond of advising, "Trust your buddies but always cut the cards."

What might China be up to?

It's difficult to say without more information. A communications device, as these are described, might be used to send performance information back to China. But could these devices also receive and carry out commands from China? Is there some danger that there could be an en masse shutdown of equipment containing these rogue devices? If so, how extensive could that be?

The "two people" described in the story think it could be serious:

The rogue components provide additional, undocumented communication channels that could allow firewalls to be circumvented remotely, with potentially catastrophic consequences, the two people said.

Both declined to be named because they did not have permission to speak to the media.

It would lend some credence to the claims if we knew who these "two people" were. But that doesn't mean they are wrong, or their concerns are invalid. The quickest way to take down a nation with the size and power of the United States would be to shut down the electricity. Granted, our military would still be mostly functioning, and presumably, there are backup plans for much of the federal government. But the military and the federal government don't grow and transport food. They don't refine and distribute gasoline or home heating oil.

As for the inverters in question, the world's largest supplier is the Chinese firm Huawei. If that's not a great argument for bringing as much of our industrial base as we can back to the United States, then I don't know what is.

New Solicitor General Prepares To Take On Nationwide Injunctions At SCOTUS

The nationwide injunctions under the APA will likely fail too, but because there is no merit to the APA claims.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will appear before the Supreme Court on Thursday to argue against the nationwide injunctions entered by the lower courts in three birthright citizenship cases. As I detailed Tuesday, the Trump Administration appears poised to score a win from the Supreme Court given that five justices — in various concurrences and/or dissents — have criticized nationwide injunctions. 

Such a victory will be narrow, however, because the issue before the high court solely concerns the breadth of the remedy, namely whether the injunction should apply on a nationwide basis or be limited to the individual plaintiffs: The question of the constitutionality of President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order will await another day.

The Supreme Court’s eventual decision on the propriety of nationwide injunctions in the consolidated cases being argued on Thursday will also have a limited reach because the birthright citizenship cases do not involve the Administrative Procedure Act. That statute expressly authorizes federal courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that are arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. 

“Such ‘setting aside’ of an agency action will have a nationwide effect, much like a nationwide injunction, but the propriety of such an order differs, not in degree, but in kind, from the nationwide injunctions before the Supreme Court in the birthright cases.” And so, a holding in the birthright cases striking the nationwide reach of the injunctions will do nothing to prevent their continued use in cases brought under the APA.

When asked about this concern, a Department of Justice official told The Federalist that when courts have issued nationwide injunctions in cases brought under APA, the Trump Administration has challenged those injunctions on the merits — implying that the DOJ’s concern is not the scope of the remedy in the APA cases, but the underlying decisions.

That point provides a solid counterbalance to the concern that the Supreme Court’s decision in the birthright citizenship cases will do little to halt the flurry of nationwide injunctions. First, as the DOJ official stressed, much of the lawfare brought against the Trump Administration arose outside of the APA context, such as the lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s ban from military service of individuals suffering from gender dysphoria. Preventing forum shopping to obtain nationwide injunctions in cases such as those will help counter the judiciary’s interference in the Trump Administration’s governance.

But even in the APA context, the DOJ believes it will prevail on the merits, meaning any nationwide injunctions issued will fall as well. 

While this path may take longer, the DOJ has already seen some success by challenging the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the APA claims. Consider for instance, in one case where a group of nonprofit organizations sued the Trump Administration under the APA, claiming the layoffs of federal employees was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. In that case, the Supreme Court stayed a lower court’s injunction, holding the Plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient to establish “standing,” or the plaintiffs’ right to sue, under the APA.

The Supreme Court also stayed an injunction entered in an APA case brought by eight states against the Department of Education, challenging the Trump Administration’s canceling of grants. There, the Supreme Court held that the Plaintiffs’ APA claims were unlikely to succeed because a challenge to grant terminations concerned a contractual obligation to pay money — a type of claim that could only be pursued in the Court of Federal Claims.

These stays confirm the DOJ’s strategy of challenging the APA injunctions on the merits. The Supreme Court’s reasoning also establishes that the problem with the scores of nationwide injunctions entered in cases brought under the APA is not the breadth of those injunctions, but the judges’ underlying conclusion that the plaintiffs have standing to sue or that the courts have jurisdiction over challenges which should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims. 

Other APA claims should fail because they involve challenges to the firing of federal employees, which federal district courts also lack jurisdiction to consider: Federal employees must challenge termination decisions first with the Merit Systems Protection Board. And still other cases challenge day-to-day management decisions by the agencies and not “final agency action,” and only the latter can be challenge under the APA.

So, at the end of the day, the nationwide injunctions under the APA will likely fail too, but because there is no merit to the APA claims. Until that day comes, however, supporters of Trump’s America First agenda will have to take solace in the fact that the Supreme Court seems likely to limit nationwide injunctions in other contexts — maybe not the absolute win MAGA wants, but it’s a step.

If Rogue Judges Keep Thwarting The People’s Will, Congress Should Abolish Judgeships

It’s time to put rogue judges on notice: If you keep blocking the will of the people, Congress will pull your chair out from under you.

Mike Davis reporting for The Federalist

Since President Trump returned to the White House, activist judges — mostly from deep-blue strongholds like California, D.C., and Massachusetts — have lined up to sabotage his agenda. 

These judges have thrown out wave after wave of temporary restraining orders and nationwide injunctions to block his key initiatives: shutting down toxic DEI programs, deporting dangerous criminal illegal aliens, and slashing wasteful foreign aid. 

One example? The Biden administration handed out taxpayer dollars to bankroll a transgender opera in Colombia. That’s the kind of nonsense the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is trying to kill, but leftist judges won’t even let them access the data they need to clean house.

This isn’t just judicial overreach. It’s sabotage. The lower courts have become a shadow government, grinding the gears of executive action to a halt, not because the law demands it, but because the ideology of the judge demands it. Temporary restraining orders can hold up presidential action for weeks. And the worst offenders aren’t even trying to hide their motives. They issue nationwide injunctions to block federal policy with the stroke of a pen. A single judge in Rhode Island now has more power over Trump’s immigration agenda than the people’s elected commander-in-chief. That is not how a constitutional republic is supposed to work.

So what’s the fix? The obvious answer is for the Supreme Court to step in and shut down this lawfare. But the high court is dragging its feet. When Judge Amir Ali in D.C. tried to micromanage USAID from the bench, the Supreme Court didn’t strike him down. It issued a weak slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, Judge James Boasberg, another D.C. radical, wants to hold administration officials in contempt for deporting gang members. He’s even floating the idea of appointing a special prosecutor. The message from the Supreme Court’s silence? Go ahead, radicals, run wild.

The Supreme Court’s inaction emboldens the lower federal courts. And these aren’t isolated incidents. They’re part of a coordinated pattern. Activist judges are using obscure procedural tools to obstruct legitimate executive policies, often before they even take effect. It’s government by ambush, and it’s crippling the very ability of the president to govern.

Congress can impeach judges. But removing them requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which means flipping a dozen Democrats, which is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Today’s leftist judges are shameless. They won’t lose a wink of sleep over impeachment. 

Even Chief Justice John Roberts seems more worried about scolding conservatives than defending the rule of law. He’s quick to warn about politicizing the judiciary when conservatives fight back but silent when left-wing judges ignore the Constitution.

There is, however, a powerful, legal, and long-overdue option: abolish their judgeships.

Congress has done it before. After Thomas Jefferson beat John Adams in 1800, Adams and the Federalists tried to entrench their power by stacking the courts with “midnight judges.” Jefferson and his allies fought back and abolished the courts themselves through the Judiciary Act of 1802, terminating the judges along with them. The Supreme Court backed it up in Stuart v. Laird, and that decision still stands today. Congress doesn’t need a supermajority to abolish lower courts. Just a majority. No impeachment, no drawn-out hearings, no smoke and mirrors, just a simple vote.

Just as with the Judiciary Act of 1802, Congress would pass a statute abolishing a number of courts (say, district courts in D.C., California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and other blue states). This abolition would prevent blue states from running to these courts in a way that jurisdiction stripping would not do as securely. A leftist judge like Boasberg in D.C., for instance, could argue that he maintains the inherent authority to enforce his previously issued orders, such as the one for which he found probable cause to hold Trump administration officials in contempt. Were his court abolished, however, his service, just like the service of the judges affected by the Judiciary Act of 1802, would be terminated. Congress pulled off a similar feat when it abolished a number of courts in D.C. in 1863.

Congress also should pass a law transferring pending and future cases. Congress has the power to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It could, for instance, pass a statute mandating that all pending cases challenging administration policies be transferred to courts in, say, Missouri or Texas. Missouri is about to be the beneficiary of four new judicial appointees of President Trump.

Congress can even order that cases be transferred to certain divisions within districts. In Texas, for instance, some litigants who sued the Biden administration filed in the division in Amarillo to ensure the case was assigned to Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. Congress could order that challenges to administration policies be brought in Judge Kacsmaryk’s division: the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division.

And if anyone’s worried about the Senate filibuster, the Democrats will kill it the moment it suits them. They already tried. The only two Democrats who stopped it, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, are gone. The next time Democrats control everything, they won’t hesitate. They will ram through their agenda with zero apologies. Conservatives need to stop pretending we’re still playing a gentleman’s game. This is a street fight, and it’s long past time we started acting like it.

This is a crisis of constitutional proportions. The federal bench has been hijacked by leftists and their weakling enablers who think their robes give them license to rule. They are no longer interpreting the law. They’re imposing their politics. The founders never intended for unelected judges to act like unelected lawmakers. If anything, they warned against it. Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary would be the “least dangerous” government branch. Well, not anymore.

Yes, abolishing judgeships would cause an uproar from the left. Let them scream. They’ve shown nothing but contempt for our institutions, traditions, and the rule of law when it stands in their way. If they want to talk about “norms,” let them start by respecting the Constitution. Until then, Congress must act. The stakes are too high to stand by and watch. It’s time to put these rogue judges on notice: If you keep blocking the will of the people, we will pull your chair out from under you. 

The courts don’t run the country. The people do. And it’s time they remembered that.

Russian shield for India: How S-400s gave New Delhi an edge over Pakistan

 From tactical results to strategic messaging, India’s deployment of the S-400 was as much about capability as it was about intent

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi made headlines when he publicly credited Russia’s S-400 “Triumf” air defense system with playing a key role in the country’s response to recent Pakistani strikes. More than a political gesture, Modi’s remarks marked the first confirmed combat use of the S-400 by Indian forces.

“Platforms like the S-400 have given unprecedented strength to the country,” he said while standing before the system. “A strong security shield has become the identity of India.”

He also noted that India now has access to military technology that its adversaries – chiefly Pakistan – simply can’t match. Coming amid a real military confrontation, his words carried unmistakable weight.

A real-world test

The clash erupted during India’s counterterrorism operation “Sindoor.” Pakistan responded with strikes on Indian military infrastructure using drones, precision-guided munitions, and air-to-ground missiles. For the first time, India deployed its Russian-made S-400s in combat, stationing them in the strategically sensitive states of Punjab and Rajasthan.

According to reports, the system successfully neutralized incoming threats before they even entered Indian airspace. Debris found on Pakistani territory suggests that ultra-long-range 40N6E missiles may have been used, capable of taking down targets from up to 370 kilometers away.

Military analyst Mikhail Khodaryonok summed it up bluntly:

The ultimate test for any weapon system is war. That’s where it either proves itself – or fails completely.

He believes the S-400 not only met but exceeded expectations during Russia’s own military campaign, successfully intercepting a wide range of targets – from SCALP cruise missiles and tactical ballistic rockets to drones and MLRS projectiles. 

Now, it has proven itself again – this time in South Asia.

©  X / @narendramodi

Why India сhose the S-400

India signed a $5.43 billion deal with Russia in 2018 for five regimental units of the S-400 after an exhaustive review of the country’s long-term defense needs. The country’s primary concerns: China and Pakistan.

At the time, China had already secured its own S-400 systems and was reportedly planning to deploy them in Tibet, just across the border from India. Delivery to India began in 2021, and the final shipments are scheduled for 2025. With each new deployment, India extends a sophisticated “air defense umbrella” across more of its vulnerable frontier.

The decision to buy the S-400 was driven by its standout capability to intercept virtually any airborne threat: aircraft, helicopters, drones, cruise missiles, smart bombs, and ballistic missiles. No other air defense system on the market offers this level of versatility.

 The ultimate test for any weapon system is war. 

That’s where it either proves itself – or fails completely.

Khodaryonok points out that if the coordinates are known, the S-400 can even be used to strike ground targets – though that’s not its primary function.

Equally important for India, the system integrates smoothly with the country’s existing command infrastructure, which still bears the hallmarks of Soviet and Russian design. For India, adopting the S-400 wasn’t just a technical upgrade – it was an evolution built on decades of military-technical continuity.

S-400 vs. Patriot: Different philosophies

The American-made Patriot system is often cited as an alternative, but the two platforms reflect fundamentally different doctrines.

The Patriot was developed during the Cold War to protect NATO forces from enemy aircraft and short-range missiles. Its fire zones are narrow, and it can take up to 25 minutes to fully deploy – an eternity in a fast-moving conflict.

The S-400, on the other hand, was designed to provide wide-area coverage as part of a national air defense grid. It takes just five minutes to deploy and can simultaneously track up to 300 targets. Its engagement range extends up to 400km in distance and 35km in altitude.

As Khodaryonok put it, “In almost every key metric, Patriot falls short of Triumf – especially in range, target variety, and electronic countermeasures.”

The missile loadouts tell the story too:

• S-400 uses a broad mix: 48N6 (up to 250 km), 9M96M (up to 130 km), 40N6E (up to 370 km), and 9M100 for short-range defense.
• The Patriot relies mainly on MIM-104 and ERINT, with far fewer options.

Cost vs. Capability

The S-400’s biggest advantage might just be its price-to-performance ratio.

When China purchased two S-400 regiments, the price tag exceeded $3 billion. For India, each regiment cost around $1 billion. That’s enough to defend an area roughly 1,000 by 500 kilometers against simultaneous attacks by hundreds of aircraft and missiles.

By contrast, equipping India with enough Patriot systems for comparable coverage would cost several times more. A single Patriot battery alone is often priced similarly to an entire S-400 regiment – despite offering much less coverage and flexibility.

India’s choice, in this light, wasn’t just practical. It was strategic – and smart.

 

Strategic Reach and Export Appeal

Only a handful of nations can produce air defense systems like the S-400. So far, China, India, and Turkey have officially acquired the system. But dozens of countries – from Saudi Arabia and Algeria to Iran and even Latin American states – have expressed an interest.

“There’s a waiting list for the S-400—and it keeps growing,” says Khodaryonok. “Quality weapons don’t come cheap. But nations that prioritize defense choose Triumf.”

Turkey’s decision to buy the S-400 despite threats of US sanctions shows just how powerful that appeal can be. For many, it’s not just a weapons purchase – it’s a step toward greater strategic autonomy.

 

India’s S-400 Future: Ready for Anything

Once all five regiments are in place, India will be able to shield its entire northern and western borders, as well as critical coastal zones in the south—vital for securing trade routes and deterring precision air strikes.

What’s being built is more than just a missile shield. It’s a multi-layered, autonomous defense system designed to withstand massive air raids, drone swarms, hypersonic threats, and saturation missile attacks.

The recent conflict with Pakistan was a turning point. For the first time, India brought high-end Russian technology into real combat – and saw firsthand what it could do. The S-400 didn’t just stop enemy missiles. It sent a message.

The S-400 “Triumf” isn’t just another piece of hardware. It’s a political lever, a pillar of strategic independence, and a cornerstone of airpower in South-East Asia.

By Dmitry Kornev, military expert, founder and author of the MilitaryRussia project