Latest news with #SenateForeignRelationsCommittee
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
How progressive critics paved the way for Trump's attack on judicial supremacy
One of the key axioms of politics in our, and any other, era is that nothing lasts forever. Today's seemingly new political arguments, almost certainly, will find their way into an opponent's arsenal. Evidence of that axiom is abundant. Where once Republicans were rapidly anti-Russia and anti-Putin, today they favor accommodation. Where once Democrats were suspicious of free trade, today they embrace it as part of their criticism of the president's protectionism. The most consequential of those inversions involves attitudes toward courts and judges. Where once progressive critics called the rule of law a myth and worked to expose the politics of law, today the president mobilizes that argument to accuse judges of being driven by partisan motivations. In the first Trump administration, as the president stacked the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary with MAGA-allied judges, progressives eagerly denounced those judges and what they labelled 'judicial supremacy.' They argued that the authority to interpret the Constitution was not lodged solely in the judicial branch. It was, they contended, also the work of the other branches, and the American people themselves, to say what the law is. Now, they are appalled when members of the Trump Administration take up those arguments and offer constitutional arguments of their own. Before saying more about the source of attacks on the courts and positions now being appropriated by the Trump administration, let me cite a few examples of its escalating critiques of judicial supremacy. On May 20, Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered his own rendition of the powers and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the handling of the Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation case, and the administration's reluctance to 'facilitate' his return, Rubio insisted that he does not have to obey court orders when they touch on the foreign policy of the United States. 'There is,' Rubio said, 'a division in our government between the federal branch and the judicial branch. No judge, and the judicial branch, cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy.' The Secretary of State insisted that 'No judge can tell how I have to outreach to a foreign partner or what I need to say to them. And if I do reach to that foreign partner and talk to them, I am under no obligation to share that with the judiciary branch.' Rubio is not the only one in the administration to act as if they get to define what the Constitution means or what authority courts have. Two months ago, Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed Federal District Judge James Boasberg, who, as NBC News noted 'is presiding over the case involving the administration's use of the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act to deport what officials claim are gang members to El Salvador' was 'trying to control our entire foreign policy,' and that under the Constitution, he 'cannot do it.' And then there is the recent insistence of White House staffer Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that the president has the right to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Some might call these comments unconstitutional or anti-constitutional, but I suspect they would say that they have as much right to interpret the Constitution as the judicial branch. That is the position of conservative allies of the administration. Adrian Vermeule, for example, Professor of Law at Harvard, argues that the law 'is to a large degree what the President and the agencies say it is.' And 'The President, as a key figure in the republic, has a responsibility to interpret the Constitution in a way that promotes the common good and effective governance.' This brings us back to the fact that arguments made with the goal of advancing one political program may be flipped and turned to another purpose. It was not so long ago that progressives chaffing under the rulings of the Roberts Court called for the same kind of diffusion of the authority to interpret the Constitution that we are now seeing from the Trump Administration. In September 2020, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie quoted with approval the following: ''The judiciary is not the sole guardian of our constitutional inheritance and interpretive authority under the Constitution has varied over time.'' In his own voice, he said: '(I)f protecting the right of the people to govern for themselves means curbing judicial power and the Supreme Court's claim to judicial supremacy, then Democrats should act without hesitation.' Twenty years earlier, two progressive constitutional law scholars reacted to an increasingly conservative Supreme Court's erosion of the Warren Court's pro-criminal defendant Miranda v. Arizona decision by calling for what they called 'shared constitutional experimentation.' As they put it, 'Because constitutional meaning is so wrapped up in broader questions of governance, constitutional interpretation should be a shared endeavor among (at the least) all the branches of the national, state, and local governments. Each branch brings to the process both a constitutional role and a set of institutional advantages….' A few years earlier, another law professor argued that 'competition and debate among the branches concerning important constitutional issues may well promote the kind of public dialogue that would lead to adoption of constructive constitutional approaches while enhancing respect for the fundamental values inherent in constitutionalism.' One final example is drawn from the work of two prominent, progressive constitutional law scholars, Yale's Robert Post and Reva Siegel. They observe that it would 'be a fundamental mistake to define constitutional law in ways that force nonjudicial actors regularly to choose between obeying constitutional law and fulfilling what they regard as their constitutional obligations.' Trump administration officials would likely agree. They might claim to be engaged in the very form of constitutional interpretation and dialogue that Bouie and others on the left have held out as a healthy and welcome. Or, perhaps more accurately, they may be owning the libs by cynically using their arguments to secure the administration's own political purposes. Whatever their motive, using the tools of progressive constitutional scholars, Trump and his colleagues are creating what Princeton's Kim Lane Scheppele labels a 'counter-constitution, an alternative constitutional reality proposed in place of a current constitution.' That is why, if the Constitution survives this moment, we should be cautious about calling for the dismantling of the courts' ultimate authority to advance the political cause of the moment. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall got it right when, more than two centuries ago, he wrote, 'It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.' All of this is a reminder that in a constitutional republic, officials, citizens, and commentators need to take a long view and think not just of what will advance their immediate interest. Prudence requires considering what things would look like if, and when, their opponents come to power. Patience and foresight are underappreciated, but indispensable virtues of constitutional government.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Bob Menendez lashes out at Obama over Iran deal, ‘weaponization' of DOJ
Former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) lashed out Friday at former President Obama, adding on to his past claims of 'weaponization' at the Justice Department (DOJ) politically targeting him. Menendez alleged in a post on the social platform X that Democrats started the weaponization of the DOJ against him in 2015 when he was indicted in his first corruption trial, which ultimately ended in a hung jury, as he opposed Obama's Iran nuclear deal. He was subsequently charged and convicted in a separate bribery case last year based on different allegations against him, leading to his 11-year prison sentence earlier this year that he is set to begin next month. 'People talk about the Trump DOJ, but it was the Democrats who started weaponizing the Justice Dept,' Menendez alleged. 'When, as the Chairman of the [Senate Foreign Relations Committee], I didn't go along with Obama's Iran deal, I was indicted, and the next day after being stripped of my position, Obama announced the Iran deal.' 'Obama told me that he could not have the Democratic Chairman of the SFRC be against him. By having me removed as the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama removed my major opposition to his Iran deal,' he continued. But Menendez's claims have a few factual issues. Menendez was serving as the ranking member, not the chair, of the committee when he was indicted in April 2015. He had been serving as the chair until Democrats lost their majority in the Senate following the 2014 midterms. He also voluntarily stepped down from that position following his indictment, saying that stepping aside is 'in the best interests of the Committee, my colleagues, and the Senate' despite no rule requiring him to do so. While Menendez is correct that he was indicted the day before a framework agreement was made on what eventually became the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, he had been under investigation for a couple of years before that. After he stepped down, Menendez's successor as ranking member of the committee was then-Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who also opposed the deal. Menendez previously made claims arguing he was politically prosecuted, saying after his sentencing that President Trump 'was right' about the weaponization of the DOJ. Trump regularly derided the DOJ over the multiple indictments issued against him as politically motivated during the 2024 election. But the Trump administration has also come under criticism over allegations that it is pursuing political prosecutions against political opponents, like former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver (D). Menendez was found guilty on all charges he faced, based on allegations that he accepted bribes in exchange for favors from wealthy businessmen and served as an agent for Egypt. He resigned from the Senate shortly after. Some observers have speculated whether Trump may weigh in to grant Menendez a pardon as he has granted for others who have alleged politically motivated prosecutions, but Trump hasn't commented on the case and Menendez hasn't publicly asked him for one. Trump said at a press conference at the White House on Friday in response to a question about pardoning Sean Combs that he would consider pardons based on if someone was 'mistreated' and not 'whether they like me or don't like me.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
‘A historic betrayal': Murkowski slams Trump administration revoking protections for Afghan immigrants
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) denounced the Trump administration's decision to axe temporary protected status for Afghan immigrants — the latest break by the centrist Republican from President Donald Trump's administration. In a joint letter with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the senator urged the administration to reconsider the cancellation of the temporary protection, which affords Afghans a work permit and legal status in the U.S. 'This decision endangers thousands of lives, including Afghans who stood by the United States,' Murkowski and Shaheen — the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — wrote. 'This decision represents a historic betrayal of promises made and undermines the values we fought for far more than 20 years in Afghanistan.' The letter — which was sent May 23 and released Friday — comes amid reports that the State Department is shuttering the office that coordinated Afghan resettlement for those who helped with the war effort, part of an agency-wide reorganization aligning with the Trump administration's moves to reduce foreign aid and assistance and refocus on 'America First' priorities. Murkowski has not been shy about criticizing her own party, while encouraging her fellow GOP senators to do the same. The Republican has rebuked President Donald Trump for his close relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing the U.S. of 'walking away from our allies.' But she also acknowledged a reticence within Republican circles of defying Trump — saying 'we are all afraid' of Trump's retaliation. She's also not the only Republican to raise red flags about the cancellation of TPS protections for some immigrants, with Miami's members of Congress also urging the Trump administration to continue the protections for Venezuelans and Haitians. The Alaska Republican first criticized the decision on TPS shortly after it was announced by the Department of Homeland Security, calling it 'concerning' in light of promises from Noem to address a backlog of asylum applications — which could dramatically increase as former TPS holders look for avenues to stay in the U.S. But eliminating TPS has been one of Trump's key campaign promises from the start, after calling the program corrupt and saying the legal status had been extended for too long. The battle over TPS has made its way to the courts. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to revoke TPS protections for roughly 350,000 Venezuelans. Murkowski has previously called out the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, which happened under the Biden administration, saying the 'botched' operation endangered many who then came to the U.S. — and that ending protections would only exacerbate the problem. 'This administration should not compound that misstep by forcing them to return to the Taliban's brutal regime,' Murkowski wrote on X earlier this month.
Politico
3 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
‘A historic betrayal': Murkowski slams Trump administration revoking protections for Afghan immigrants
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) denounced the Trump administration's decision to axe temporary protected status for Afghan immigrants — the latest break by the centrist Republican from President Donald Trump's administration. In a joint letter with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the senator urged the administration to reconsider the cancellation of the temporary protection, which affords Afghans a work permit and legal status in the U.S. 'This decision endangers thousands of lives, including Afghans who stood by the United States,' Murkowski and Shaheen — the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — wrote. 'This decision represents a historic betrayal of promises made and undermines the values we fought for far more than 20 years in Afghanistan.' The letter — which was sent May 23 and released Friday — comes amid reports that the State Department is shuttering the office that coordinated Afghan resettlement for those who helped with the war effort, part of an agency-wide reorganization aligning with the Trump administration's moves to reduce foreign aid and assistance and refocus on 'America First' priorities. Murkowski has not been shy about criticizing her own party, while encouraging her fellow GOP senators to do the same. The Republican has rebuked President Donald Trump for his close relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing the U.S. of 'walking away from our allies.' But she also acknowledged a reticence within Republican circles of defying Trump — saying 'we are all afraid' of Trump's retaliation. She's also not the only Republican to raise red flags about the cancellation of TPS protections for some immigrants, with Miami's members of Congress also urging the Trump administration to continue the protections for Venezuelans and Haitians. The Alaska Republican first criticized the decision on TPS shortly after it was announced by the Department of Homeland Security, calling it 'concerning' in light of promises from Noem to address a backlog of asylum applications — which could dramatically increase as former TPS holders look for avenues to stay in the U.S. But eliminating TPS has been one of Trump's key campaign promises from the start, after calling the program corrupt and saying the legal status had been extended for too long. The battle over TPS has made its way to the courts. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to revoke TPS protections for roughly 350,000 Venezuelans. Murkowski has previously called out the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, which happened under the Biden administration, saying the 'botched' operation endangered many who then came to the U.S. — and that ending protections would only exacerbate the problem. 'This administration should not compound that misstep by forcing them to return to the Taliban's brutal regime,' Murkowski wrote on X earlier this month.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Menendez lashes out at Obama over Iran deal, ‘weaponization' of DOJ
Former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) lashed out Friday at former President Obama, adding on to his past claims of 'weaponization' at the Justice Department (DOJ) politically targeting him. Menendez alleged in a post on X that Democrats started the weaponization of the DOJ against him in 2015 when he was indicted in his first corruption trial, which ultimately ended in a hung jury, as he opposed Obama's Iran nuclear deal. He was subsequently charged and convicted in a separate bribery case last year based on different allegations against him, leading to his 11-year prison sentence earlier this year that he is set to begin next month. 'People talk about the Trump DOJ, but it was the Democrats who started weaponizing the Justice Dept,' Menendez alleged. 'When, as the Chairman of the [Senate Foreign Relations Committee], I didn't go along with Obama's Iran deal, I was indicted, and the next day after being stripped of my position, Obama announced the Iran deal.' 'Obama told me that he could not have the Democratic Chairman of the SFRC be against him. By having me removed as the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama removed my major opposition to his Iran deal,' he continued. But Menendez's claims have a few factual issues. Menendez was serving as the ranking member, not the chair, of the committee when he was indicted in April 2015. He had been serving as the chair until Democrats lost their majority in the Senate following the 2014 midterms. He also voluntarily stepped down from that position following his indictment, saying that stepping aside is 'in the best interests of the Committee, my colleagues, and the Senate' despite no rule requiring him to do so. While Menendez is correct that he was indicted the day before a framework agreement was made on what eventually became the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, he had been under investigation for a couple years before that. After he stepped down, Menendez's successor as ranking member of the committee was then-Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who also opposed the deal. Menendez previously made claims arguing that he was politically prosecuted, saying after his sentencing that President Trump 'was right' about the weaponization of the DOJ. Trump regularly derided the DOJ over the multiple indictments issued against him as politically motivated during the 2024 election. But the Trump administration has also come under criticism over allegations that it is pursuing political prosecutions against political opponents, like former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver (D). Menendez was found guilty on all charges he faced, based on allegations that he accepted bribes in exchange for favors from wealthy businessmen and served as an agent for Egypt. He resigned from the Senate shortly after. Some observers have speculated whether Trump may weigh in to grant Menendez a pardon as he has granted for others who have alleged politically motivated prosecutions, but Trump hasn't commented on the case and Menendez hasn't publicly asked him for one. Trump said at a press conference at the White House on Friday in response to a question about pardoning Sean Combs that he would consider pardons based on if someone was 'mistreated' and not 'whether they like me or don't like me.'
