Adam Smith has a thought-provoking piece at The Dispatch on Trump v. CASA, the case before the Supreme Court on whether district courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions:

To understand the Supreme Court’s oral arguments last week in Trump v. CASA, on whether lower courts have the power to issue “nationwide injunctions” blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, it is useful to start with a seemingly mundane case decided almost exactly a decade ago, one that exemplified—and accelerated—the modern era of anti-administration lawsuits.

In Michigan v. EPA, a number of states and industry groups challenged the Obama administration’s regulations mandating stricter air-quality standards for coal-fired power plants. On its face, it was a garden-variety technical dispute over the Environmental Protection Agency’s rulemaking process, the kind of stuff that can easily put law students and young lawyers to sleep. (As an occasional law professor, I know this all too well.) The EPA issued its rules in early 2012 and lawsuits were filed immediately, but the lower court needed two years of briefing, oral argument, and further deliberations before ruling in favor of the EPA. Then the challengers went to the Supreme Court; eventually, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA.

Mr. Smith provides several interesting strategies for addressing the matter. Read the whole thing.

IMO the slug of the piece, “Do federal judges have too much power—or do presidents?”, presents a false dichotomy. My answer to the question would be that both federal judges and the president have too much power and fault resides in the same place: the Congress. Before you leap to your feet declaiming that the people are at fault, consider the most recent Gallup polling on the matter: only 48% of Americans approve of their own representatives. Where I come from 48% is not a majority.

The real solution to these problems is term limits. Short ones—just a couple of terms. I would also eliminate pensions for Congressional representatives and senators and, if that does not reduce the propensity to serve until you die in office, cut their salaries, too.

The short term solution, of course, is that district judges should not be empowered to issue nationwide injunctions, only injunctions within their own districts. That would reduce venue-shopping.

The judicial branch is the least democratic of the three branches. The Founders envisioned the judiciary as neutral arbiters of disputes and defenders of the Constitution. Sort of like Plato’s “guardian class”. If that has ever been the case, it hasn’t been the case for the last 50 years or more. After all Mr. Dooley, more than a century ago, observed that even the Supreme Court judges read the election returns. The judiciary is the tool our so-called representatives have used to enact policy without leaving their fingerprints on it and threatening their re-election changes. Venue-shopping and nationwide injunctions are just the latest strategies in that practice, Republicans getting their cases heard in Texas and Democrats in Washington.

The only way rule by the judiciary is democracy is when judges adhere strictly to the text of the written law, precedent, and the common law (another way of saying precedent). What we have now is not democracy. I don’t know what you’d call it.

Today Jack (now Ch.Vanderbilt’s Lucky Day) won a five point major towards his Grand Championship. I’ll post pictures when I get them.

For four generations my family (direct line) have not served in the military and I suspect that will be true of the fifth generation as well who are little children now. The last to serve were three of my great-great-grandfathers who were in the American Civil War fighting for the Union. I believe only one saw action and he was in some of the fiercest battles, serving from 1862 to 1865. He entered as a private and mustered out as a captain.

None of the services would take my dad during World War II and both of my grandfathers were too old to serve in World War I.

Of my extended family only my great-uncle Ed Schneider served and he was one of the relatively few unfortunate enough to serve in World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. He was a steamfitter and that was a vital trade in the Navy of yesteryear. He lived to tell the tale.

Consequently, I have little to say about those who’ve died in our wars other than that I’m sincerely grateful for their sacrifice.

I’m also, apparently, one of the few who thinks that the best way of honoring those sacrifices is in avoiding getting into wars unless the United States is actually threatened. We haven’t actually been threatened by war for more than 80 years.

There have been quite a few articles published lately speculating that former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is running to be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2028. Rather than linking to any of them I’ll just offer my own opinion.

First, I would have preferred Mr. Emmanuel as the presidential candidate over anybody who actually ran in 2016, 2020, and 2024. And, as I believe I said back when he first ran as mayor, I believe he (mistakenly) saw being mayor of Chicago as a stepping stone to the presidency. Mayor do get elected to the presidency but it’s rare. More generals have been elected than mayors.

And I think he’s a smart, competent guy. My personal connection to him is limited to having shared an elevator and chatted with him once in the Thompson Center.

On the other hand he set the stage for Chicago’s present problems in that he first aggravated and alienated the Chicago Teachers Union, fomenting the first teachers strike in decades, and then knuckled under to the CTU. Who was it who said when you strike a king, you must kill him? Ralph Waldo Emerson? Now we have a city government that is, basically, a wholly owned subsidiary of the CTU.

Also, he’s a Baby Boomer which may be a weakness in a Democratic Party engaging in a generational change. IMO I think the ire against the Baby Boomers is misplace: neither Nancy Pelosi nor Joe Biden are Baby Boomers—they’re both Silent Generation and it’s the Silent Generation that has thrown sand into the party’s gears.

But Rahm Emmanuel has another weakness other than his mixed track record in Chicago and his age. Not only is he Jewish but he’s pro-Israel. For the Democratic Party that appears to be emerging those are fatal flaws.

IMO he’d be better off running for Dick Durbin’s seat as Illinois Senator. That would be a good test of his strength in running for president. I don’t think he’d be elected which would tell you all you need to know: the Clinton technocratic Democratic Party has lost influence.

Today is Jack’s third birthday. Sometimes it seems like we’ve had him a lot longer. He’s a good friend and one of the most affectionate Samoyeds we’ve ever had.

Jack picked a very unusual way of celebrating his birthday: he became a conformation champion. I won’t burden you with the details of what’s required for that.

As we did with Tally, our previous champion, we sent him to a professional handler. They know what they’re doing and they definitely earn their fees.

Our main objective in having Jack shown in conformation is to allow people see what a Samoyed with the proper conformation should look like. There are a lot of not-that-great Samoyeds being shown these days, particularly in the Midwest.

I had hoped to have some pictures before writing this post. Hopefully, we will in the next day or so.

I want to call your attention to Ben Krauss’s very interesting post on Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson at Matt Yglesias’s Substack. Its key point is that Mr. Johnson is not just failing at being Chicago’s mayor which is bad enough but as the “least popular politician in the country” he’s a burden to progressives and the whole Democratic Party as well. Here’s a snippet:

The story of the teacher union organizer turned failed big-city mayor is easy headline fodder for a right-wing publication like the National Review. But the progressive outlets that once enthusiastically applauded Johnson’s rise have been conspicuously silent on the factors that have led to his downfall. What’s missing is a more rigorous assessment of Johnson’s tenure — one that doesn’t end with the conservative conclusion that all Democratic mayors are doomed to fail, or ignore the fact that Brandon Johnson’s brand of urban governance has clearly not resonated with the people of Chicago.

Here’s the question at the heart of this story: Does Johnson’s shockingly low approval rating stem from a combination of incompetence and problems beyond his control, or does it point to a larger problem within the political coalition that brought him to power? Chicago has seen progressive mayors before, but never one so directly shaped by the powerful Chicago Teachers’ Union and the constellation of organizations that dominate the city’s left-wing politics.

As I’ve tried to make clear here I think that Mr. Johnson’s low popularity is due to a combination of just plain ineptness and his espousing policies that cannot possibly be good for Chicago. Mr. Krauss hits some of the high spots but he ignores some important points.

First, given Chicago’s poor fiscal situation I see no way that the aspirations of the Chicago Teacher’s Union can be met. Under that contract the average CPS teacher’s pay will rise from $86,000 to $114,000 without improvement in outcomes, performance evaluations, or increased oversight. The median will rise to nearly $100,000. That puts many Chicago teachers in the top quintile of earners in Chicago. Simply put Chicago cannot afford that.

Worse still I have no idea how any of those who voted for Brandon Johnson could have expected him to do anything else.

It was reasonable to expect Mr. Johnson’s predecessor to reform the Chicago Police Department. She didn’t. That should not have come as a surprise but it was. That Brandon Johnson should continue to be a CTU organizer and activist even after being elected mayor should not be a surprise, either, but I guess it has been.

Other surprises include Mr. Johnson’s emphasis on providing aid to illegal immigrants, hiring along racial lines, and being proud of it.

I do not see how one can write about Chicago politics without mentioning political corruption but Mr. Krauss manages it. Either he’s unaware of just how corrupt politics is in Chicago or he doesn’t consider it relevant. Featherbedding and “pay to play” are always relevant.

I look forward to how progressives and the Democratic Party at large response to the points made by Mr. Krauss. I suspect I’ll be waiting a long time since they’re a broadside on the progressive agenda.

First he disapproved of it. Now he approves of it. What changed? At The Japan Times Francis Tang reports on the now-approved acquisition of U. S. Steel by Nippon Steel:

U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a “partnership” between Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, with press reports indicating that this signals the approval of a takeover of the iconic American company by the Japanese steelmaker.
“I am proud to announce that, after much consideration and negotiation, U.S. Steel will REMAIN in America, and keep its Headquarters in the Great City of Pittsburgh,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Friday.

“This will be a planned partnership between United States Steel and Nippon Steel, which will create at least 70,000 jobs, and add $$14 Billion to the U.S. Economy,” Trump continued, while adding the investment will occur in the next 14 months.

Neither Trump nor the White House elaborated on the structure of the deal. Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel also described the transaction as a partnership. Japan’s Nikkei and other local media reported the deal as an acquisition.

Is the only thing that has changed the cosmetics of the deal?

Bob Tita and Lauren Thomas report at the Wall Street Journal:

Nippon Steel received a conditional green light from President Trump to take control of U.S. Steel under what he described as a partnership.

Key aspects of the deal still need to be ironed out. But Trump’s announcement signaled that the Tokyo-based company could eventually enter the American steel market and make the big investments envisioned when it reached a $14.1 billion deal to take over U.S. Steel.

Trump defined the agreement as a partnership, spurring some confusion at the companies on Friday afternoon, according to people involved in the deal talks. Both Nippon and U.S. Steel were seeking more guidance from the administration about how much ownership Nippon could ultimately gain.

In a post on Truth Social Friday, Trump said the partnership between the two companies would result in at least 70,000 jobs and add $14 billion to the U.S. economy. The bulk of that investment will occur in the next 14 months, the post said.

To my eye this acquisition is an unalloyed good. It means that U. S. Steel’s operations and processes will be modernized, something that was direly needed and for which I saw no prospect were the company to be acquired by a U. S. competitor, and that more of the steel used in the U. S. will be produced in the U. S. I’m still curious about what has changed. The reporters seem to be as puzzled about that as I am.

I’m seeing an astounding number of premature reactions to news stories in the opinion pieces of the last few days. IMO it’s grossly premature to try and make any intelligent observations about the second Trump Administration’s first budget. Assuming that something ultimately passes the Senate and returns to the House for reconciliation, the prospect that bill will be identical to what was passed by the House is nil.

Furthermore, I think there’s a tremendous dearth of alternative proposals. I know they don’t like Trump or the Republicans. What do they think should be done differently?

The U. S. fiscal situation is tremendously different from what it was in 2009 let alone in 2017 or even 2021. The public debt is now over 100% of GDP and, although we no longer believe there a “cliff” at that point, it still is believed that impedes economic growth.

Although it’s not as terrible as it was in 2020 the federal deficit is going down again

and there’s no real prospect for that ending. With all of the Sturm und Drang over DOGE the amount of federal spending it managed to cut was miniscule relative to the need. The message there is clear: the U. S. economy is addicted to spending more than we have.

The only thing that Republicans seem to be able to agree on is cutting taxes while Democrats all seem to agree that more government spending is necessary. I think that only much more narrowly tailored tax cuts are warranted and that we should limit our spending to what is truly necessary in terms of defense spending and welfare spending and I’ve made proposals for both.

You might be interested in these interviews of three Washington, DC rabbis about the murders of two employees of the Israeli embassy by Brian Bennett at Time. Here’s a snippet from one of them:

On the personal level, just like any other Jewish person in DC, in this country, it’s scary to think that we’d be targeted for being in a Jewish space. As a rabbi, I’m showing up in Jewish spaces on a regular basis. I’m publicly identified as Jewish. So that’s scary.

There’s also feelings of anger. This is the natural outgrowth of hateful rhetoric that we’ve been seeing from all kinds of different groups in this country. Jews know from our history that hateful rhetoric leads to hateful action. You see that playing out last night.

As a rabbi, I’ve got this added burden of trying to make meaning of this moment. I’m not sure what meaning there is. It’s pretty senseless. It’s pretty painful. I can say with confidence that violent political action is not going to move us toward peace. It’s not going to heal anything. That’s the one thing I’m clear on. I’m not clear on a lot else, to be honest.

There’s a lot of similarity among the three reactions. All are, obviously, saddened, shocked, and horrified.

But there are other similarities as well. None wants to talk about the situation in Gaza and all question the sincerity of the Trump Administration’s approach to antisemitism.