Posts

Posted on

If You Have Open Borders, Then You Always Get Far Right Politics

David Leonhardt, In an Age of Right-Wing Populism, Why Are Denmark’s Liberals Winning?

Around the world, progressive parties have come to see tight immigration restrictions as unnecessary, even cruel. What if they’re actually the only way for progressivism to flourish?

Mr. Leonhardt is a senior columnist for the New York Times, and the author of Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream.

This is a very long article from the New York Times magazine. It takes 53 ½ minutes to read it aloud. (If you would like to hear it, go here.) In support of the thesis that is the headline of this post, the article covers a great deal of ground (geographically and historically), is well researched, and argues the case in great detail.

If you think that all US working class anti-immigrant feeling is grounded in simple racism—if you believe that the Democratic Party’s position on borders is coherent, well advised, and politically saleable—then I challenge you to read this article, consider it carefully, and articulate wherein you think it goes astray. 

A central focus is the anomalous continuing political success of Denmark’s Social Democratic Party. Leonhardt writes, 

Since the Social Democrats took power in 2019, they have compiled a record that resembles the wish list of a liberal American think tank. They changed pension rules to enable blue-collar workers to retire earlier than professionals. On housing, the party fought speculation by the private-equity industry by enacting the so-called Blackstone law, a reference to the giant New York-based firm that had bought beloved Copenhagen apartment buildings; the law restricts landlords from raising rents for five years after buying a property. To fight climate change, [Prime Minister] Frederiksen’s government created the world’s first carbon tax on livestock and passed a law that requires 15 percent of farmland to become natural habitat. On reproductive rights, Denmark last year expanded access to abortion through the first 18 weeks of pregnancy, up from 12 weeks, and allowed girls starting at age 15 to get an abortion without parental consent.

All the while, the country continues to provide its famous welfare state, which includes free education through college (including a monthly stipend of about $900 for living expenses), free medical care and substantial unemployment insurance, while nonetheless being home to globally competitive companies like Novo Nordisk, the maker of the anti-obesity drug Ozempic. In 2022, Frederiksen won a second term, defying the anti-incumbent mood that has ousted incumbent parties elsewhere since the Covid pandemic. As part of her success, she has marginalized the far right in her country.

But there is one issue on which Frederiksen and her party take a very different approach from most of the global left: immigration. Nearly a decade ago, after a surge in migration caused by wars in Libya and Syria, she and her allies changed the Social Democrats’ position to be much more restrictive. They called for lower levels of immigration, more aggressive efforts to integrate immigrants and the rapid deportation of people who enter illegally. While in power, the party has enacted these policies. Denmark continues to admit immigrants, and its population grows more diverse every year. But the changes are happening more slowly than elsewhere. …

Leftist politics depend on collective solutions in which voters feel part of a shared community or nation, [the prime minister] explained. Otherwise, they will not accept the high taxes that pay for a strong welfare state. “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come,” Frederiksen says. Otherwise, “it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.” High levels of immigration can undermine this cohesion, she says, while imposing burdens on the working class that more affluent voters largely escape, such as strained benefit programs, crowded schools and increased competition for housing and blue-collar jobs. Working-class families know this from experience. Affluent leftists pretend otherwise and then lecture less privileged voters about their supposed intolerance.

“There is a price to pay when too many people enter your society,” Frederiksen told me. “Those who pay the highest price of this, it’s the working class or lower class in the society. It is not — let me be totally direct — it’s not the rich people. It is not those of us with good salaries, good jobs.” She kept coming back to the idea that the Social Democrats did not change their position for tactical reasons; they did so on principle. They believe that high immigration helps cause economic inequality and that progressives should care above all about improving life for the most vulnerable members of their own society. The party’s position on migration “is not an outlier,” she told me. “It is something we do because we actually believe in it.”

Posted on

Good News!

Jeff Shesol (N.Y. Times), John Roberts Has One Chance to Get This Right

In many ways, as of the last week in February, it feels as if we are all taking a trip on the Titanic, fast approaching that iceberg. Take for example the New York Times piece from today. I don’t disagree with a word in it. 

Our situation is dire, in so many ways that it’s difficult to count all of them. But … I really hope you can spare a few minutes to watch Rick Wilson’s video, to supply some needed perspective. 

And permit me to supplement Wilson’s take in the following way. Begin with several things we know for sure, or at least to a very high level of confidence, about how events are going to evolve over the next few weeks. 

Five Things We Know for Sure, or at Least to a High Level of Confidence

1. Trump, Elon Musk, and their henchmen remain high on their own supply. In very important ways, they literally do not know what they are doing. In many ways, they don’t know the harm they are causing (or are about to cause) in the lives of their own supporters. In many ways, they have a fundamental misperception of public opinion. (Yeah, lot of that going around.)

2. Trump and his crew will continue to wreck the federal government, which will produce ever increasing levels of mayhem.

3. Trump and his crew will do jack shit to combat inflation, in violation of the one campaign promise that put him over the top in 2024.

4. The process of wrecking the federal government will culminate—in maybe a month, or it could be sooner—in a true constitutional crisis, where Trump openly defies the Supreme Court.

5. Any of several pending foreign policy crises will ripen into disaster. In particular, just as Biden had his Afghanistan moment, so Trump is probably going to have his Ukraine moment. 

Now, Let Us Hazard a Cautious Prediction

Here is the prediction:

While we cannot predict the outcome when all of these situations ripen into disaster at more or less the same time, we can say with some confidence that the five trends will interact with each other.

To take an example: The number of people who might be willing, in good times, to acquiesce in Trump’s overthrow of the rule of law is smaller than the number of people who will cheer when he defies the Supreme Court at the same time that he is royally screwing over the folks who voted for him. And, at the same time, selling out America’s allies and cheering on a Russian invasion.

Posted on

A First Ruling from SCOTUS on Trump 2.0—and a Reading of the Tea Leaves

The Hill, Supreme Court stiffs Trump, punts on firing whistleblower agency head

SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court sidesteps Trump’s effort to remove watchdog agency head

Trump fired someone named Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel, a body that prosecutes government misconduct and protects whistleblowers. He gave no reason for his displeasure; you are free to fill in the answer for yourself.

Mr. Dellinger sued to get his job back and found a district judge who granted him a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Trump from shitcanning him while the employment case proceeds.

TROs don’t last long. This one is set to expire a few days from now, February 26, by which time the parties can brief the issue and present evidence as to whether the TRO should or should not be changed into a preliminary injunction—which would allow Mr. Dellinger to keep his job until the case is tried. 

If the district judge should rule for Mr. Dellinger on the preliminary injunction question next week, then Trump can take the case to the court of appeals and on to the Supreme Court. Should that happen, the legal process will probably be as speedy as shit through a goose.

But that is not fast enough for Trump. Trump argued that it’s a red hot emergency if Dellinger gets to stay in office for another few days. That was the issue on which the Supreme Court ruled today. 

In short, the core issue in the case, though involving arcana of appellate procedure, was similar to that in State of Washington v. Trump, about which I posted yesterday. To wit, must the courts consider it a red hot emergency just because Trump claims it’s a red hot emergency?

In short, Trump was aiming for some Shock and Awe action from the High Court. He wanted the Court to smite his enemies with a mighty rod, and that right quickly, and without much thought.

That’s what he wanted. What he got instead was support from only two of the nine justices, Gorsuch and Alito.

At the other end of the ideological spectrum, Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would have ruled that Trump should just take a long walk off a short pier. 

Two at one extreme and two at the other extreme. That leaves five in the middle, at least for right now. And a motley crew they are: Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Thomas.

And the specifics of their middle position? To hold the appeal in abeyance pending until the TRO expires. 

And, in so doing, to say—along with the Federalist Society judge in State of Washington v. Trump—no, no, it’s not an emergency just because Trump claims it’s an emergency. 

And Now for the Reading of the Tea Leaves

And no, friends and neighbors, this is not a prediction. It’s just a first reading of the tea leaves, based on the first Trump 2.0 case to reach the Supreme Court.

Alito and Gorsuch are not a surprise.

But a big eyebrow raiser for me was that seven members of the Court stood up to Trump’s procedural bluster and bullying.

And the biggest eyebrow raiser was the presence of Justice Clarence Thomas among this crew. One is compelled to wonder whether Justice Thomas might have had a little talk with his bosom buddy and traveling companion Harlan Crow, a Republican megadonor who megadonates to a lot of Republicans not named Donald Trump. 

Posted on

The Ninth Circuit Panel’s Decision in State of Washington v. Trump, One of the Birthright Citizenship Cases—Shock and Awe or Shock and Awful?

The opinion, issued on February 19, denied the Justice Department’s “emergency” request for the appeals court to overrule a district judge’s injunction against Trump’s executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship, despite the language of the Fourteenth Amendment and despite consistent judicial interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, going back to 1898. (If anyone cares, that district judge, who reamed out Trump and his Justice Department, was appointed by President Reagan.)

To be clear, the district court’s ruling in question was not the judge’s definitive answer to the question whether Trump was right or wrong on birthright citizenship. It was, instead, a decision ordering a “preliminary injunction” pending full briefing, trial, and argument of the case. 

Brushing away lots of legalese, the central issues at play when a judge rules on a request for a preliminary injunction are three:

  • the “likelihood of success on the merits,” in other words, what does the judge think will probably happen when all the dust settles: Is the plaintiff more likely to win, or is it the defendant who will probably prevail? and, second,
  • the harm issue—will the plaintiff be harmed if a preliminary injunction is not issued to preserve the state of play, while the issue is litigated? Or is it the defendant who will suffer harm if it is enjoined from doing what it wants to do?
  • the public interest issue—apart from the parties to the case, what about the broader public? 

In my experience, the first of these factors—“likelihood of success on the merits”—tends to be dispositive. And so it was here. Two of the three panel members of the appellate panel, Judge William Canby (appointed by Carter) and Milan Smith (appointed by Bush the Elder), joined in a terse, one page decision, declining to overrule the district court, because Team Trump did not make a “strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits.” 

The third judge, Danielle J. Forrest, wrote a much more expansive piece of prose, concurring in the majority’s bottom line result, but “for reasons different than relied on” by the other two members of the panel. 

Many are wondering how the Federalist Society judges, who now bestride the third branch of our federal government, will deal with Team Trump. What the Supreme Court does with birthright citizenship remains to be seen. But Judge Forrest’s treatment of the case is not without interest.

A bit of background: Judge Danielle Forrest was appointed to the bench in 2019, during Trump 1.0. Reading between the lines of her Wikipedia biography, I glean that Democratic opposition to her appointment was weak, probably on the ground that, “Well, this is about the best we can expect from a Trump appointment.”

Interestingly, her Wikipedia entry says, in black and white, that “She was a member of the Federalist Society from 2002 to 2006 and again from 2017 to present.” One might wonder whether her renewed commitment to the Federalist Society in 2017 might have had something to do with a desire for higher office—given that Trump 1.0 farmed out the judicial selection function to the esteemed Society. That said, in any event …

In her six pages of prose, Judge Forrest manfully eschewed any views on the “likelihood of success on the merits”—in other words, whether birthright citizenship is found in the Constitution, or whether it isn’t.

Instead, the very large burr in her saddle was the purported “emergency” referenced by Team Trump. The implication is that birthright citizenship has been the law of the land ever since 1866 or 1898, depending on how you count. Letting it be the law of the land for a few more weeks, or a few more months, is in no way an emergency. 

And just because Team Trump SAYS there’s an emergency does not mean there REALLY IS an emergency. 

In short, for this one Federalist Society jurisprude, Team Trump’s legal Shock and Awe is really Shock and Awful. 

Posted on

The Mad King: a Tour d’Horizon

In this video, the two talking heads cover a whole lot of ground. I mostly agree with them. If you don’t, then God bless, and have a nice day. 

Toward the end, they turn to trying to suss out what’s going on in Trump’s brain. I particularly commend that part of the video. 

In case you don’t know:

Rick Wilson is a former Republican and former Republican political consultant. He currently writes political opinion pieces and is a political talking head on YouTube and elsewhere. He has written two books, including Everything Trump Touches Dies.

During the video Wilson refers, at one point, to his “misspent youth.” He may be thinking about the time he created the ad that defeated Max Cleland—a war hero paralyzed by his wounds—by implying that Cleland supported Al-Qaida.

Will Saletan has been writing on public affairs since 1996. He has also written two books. Sometimes he’s right, and sometimes he’s not. In 2003 he wrote a book arguing that conservatives had won the public debate about abortion rights. Well, if they had won it in 2003, they have lost it now; look at the headlines out of Missouri today. In 2023, he wrote The Corruption of Lindsey Graham: A case study in the rise of authoritarianism.

Posted on

A Little Context for the Preceding Post—the One About the New York City Bar Association

It’s the Incentives, Stupid

In a couple of hours, my wife will be having a pointed discussion with the local tax assessors over the value of her apartment. The condos in our building vary a whole lot in size, layout, and many other features. But guess what? It turns out that the thing that best predicts the sale price is the number of square feet in the condo. If you know that number, then you have a very good idea of the condo’s fair market value.

Why in the world make that point? Because, let me humbly submit, while people vary in all sorts of ways, the one thing that best predicts their behavior is their incentives.

I was in Big Law for a long time. Some of the people I knew were fine human beings. Some, I’m sorry to say, had the morality of a sea slug. But, like the rest of the human race, most of them were somewhere in the middle, morality-wise. 

I am confident that, for some of those who wrote and promoted the New York City Bar Association’s statement on the Adams case, promoting justice and good government was a driving concern. I am equally confident that the objective incentives of the Bar Association’s members was a driving force, as well.

Let me put it bluntly.

If the legal system breaks down, ain’t nobody gonna pay you no $2.5 million for your skilful manipulation of the legal system. 

Posted on

And Now, a Word from the Big Law Firms in New York City

Back in my day, it was officially The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, its original name from back in 1870, when it was formed to fight the judicial corruption promoted by the Tammany Hall machine. Now, it’s the New York City Bar Association. Its president is a partner in a global law firm with profits per partner of $2.5 million. Its leadership includes a number of the president’s peers in other global law firms (together with others too, like professors and legal aid attorneys). 

Yesterday, the association issued this press release. 

On United States v. Eric Adams

Since its founding in 1870, the New York City Bar Association has supported the rule of law as one of its core missions – regardless of politics or ideological persuasion. “The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government” is not merely an aphorism engraved in stone on courthouses but, together with the rule of law, the essence of American democracy. This mission and these values necessitate voicing our concern about the events of recent days in the ongoing federal case of United States v. Eric Adams, 24-CRIM-556 (S.D.N.Y.).

Prosecutors have a duty to act in the public interest, to perform their duties with objectivity, and to analyze all the evidence when deciding whether to pursue criminal charges. This is especially true in the prosecution of crimes allegedly committed by public officials involving abuses of power or corruption.

While the City Bar takes no position on the substantive merits of the Adams case, the numerous resignations by prosecutors from the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the Public Integrity Section of the United States Department of Justice, and the flurry of letters from those who have resigned and from the Acting Deputy Attorney General, command the City Bar’s attention and expression of concern.

The events of recent days are reminiscent of the Saturday Night Massacre resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, which precipitated the crisis of public confidence when they were ordered by President Nixon to dismiss Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox to halt the Watergate investigation.

The direction of Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove III to the Southern District prosecutors to prepare and file a motion to dismiss the case against the Mayor of New York City cuts to the heart of the rule of law. The unusual form of Mr. Bove’s direction via a public memorandum buttresses arguments that the direction is based on pretextual grounds.

The letter from Acting United States Attorney Danielle Sassoon and Mr. Bove’s response give every indication that the dismissal of Mayor Adams’ case, without prejudice, is predicated on his agreeing to increase New York City’s assistance in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. When the proposed dismissal is made “without prejudice” to the charges possibly being reinstated at some future date, the entire proposal raises serious questions involving both the potential quid pro quo and prosecutorial weaponization of our justice system.

Indeed, the justification offered by Mr. Bove for his decision expressly avoids any consideration of the merits of the prosecution, instead resting on a rationale which is expressly political. In particular, Mr. Bove suggests that dismissal is predicated upon Mr. Adams’s continuing agreement to use the power of his office as mayor to facilitate the administration’s immigration enforcement policies. The policy choices of the government of New York City cannot be dependent on or appear to be dependent on the decision of the Justice Department to prosecute or withhold prosecution of corruption charges against the mayor.

Against such a backdrop, the City Bar commends Ms. Sassoon for her courageous decision to offer her resignation from a post she assumed a few short weeks ago. Whatever the merits of the underlying case against Mayor Adams, her letter reflects the proper course of conduct for a prosecutor seeking to adhere to her oath to pursue justice without fear or favor. Her letter reflects integrity and a principled commitment to the rule of law and democracy. The City Bar likewise applauds Assistant United States Attorney Hagan Scotten, Acting Chief of the Criminal Division Kevin Driscoll, Acting Chief of the Public Integrity Section John Keller, and the other attorneys at the Department of Justice who chose to resign rather than acquiesce to a decision raising profound questions of legality, morality, and legal ethics.

The interests of the public are best served by the continuation of the prosecution of Mr. Adams. In any event, the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the charges must be resolved on the basis of a complete record, which should include a searching inquiry into the nature of the bargain struck and a determination of its benefit to the public. If, as Mr. Bove contends, the prosecution of Mayor Adams was brought for improper political purposes, such an allegation can and should be adjudicated in the District Court. There is precedent for the District Court’s appointment of amicus curiae to obtain input from an independent counsel. See United States v. Flynn, No. 20-5143 (D.D.C.) (brief by former federal judge John Gleeson). In our view, the District Court should not dismiss the indictment against Mayor Adams without hearing from an independent lawyer, as neither the Mayor’s counsel nor the lawyers from the Department of Justice can fulfill that role.

Now it is for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to examine whether dismissal of the charges in United States v. Eric Adams is “in the public interest” and is “not tainted by impropriety” or “bad faith.” All members of the public concerned about whether law enforcement agencies will protect the public rather than manipulate the criminal justice system for political means await the outcome. Whatever the outcome, this episode is a stark reminder of the dangers of political interference in our justice system and the potential such interference has to undermine the public’s trust and confidence in the rule of law.

About the Association
The mission of the New York City Bar Association, which was founded in 1870 and has 23,000 members, is to equip and mobilize a diverse legal profession to practice with excellence, promote reform of the law, and uphold the rule of law and access to justice in support of a fair society and the public interest in our community, our nation, and throughout the world. www.nycbar.org