'Perfidious lust for unbridled power:' Federal judges who are upholding the Constitution against Trump's authoritarian impulses

Hello, friends. Today’s essay is an appreciation for those federal judges who are acting as a bulwark against some of Trump’s worst impulses usual authoritarian impulses on issues ranging from immigration policy to executive power.

First, some housekeeping:

1. If Fast Forward keeps landing in your Spam folder, be sure to click the “Not Spam” link to let your email provider know to stop funneling it there.

2. Add Fast Forward to your Contact list and use the email address fastforward2016@substack.com.

3. You can always find recent Fast Forwards on the FF homepage at fastforward2016.substack.com.

Don’t forget about our reader challenge. We’ve received some great entries, so I’m extending the deadline by a week. More below.

⚖️ Making America Fair Again

There’s much to despair these days with all of the tyranny raining down on our heads from D.C. But there are a bunch of federal judges who are holding the line, enforcing the Constitution, and trying to save our democracy. They deserve our attention.

US District Judge Fred Biery of San Antonio

Using words like “lust” and “cruelty,” Judge Biery ordered the release of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father Adrian from immigration detention in Dilley, Texas, last month. And in so doing, issued a blistering criticism of the Trump and his foot soldiers. (Boldface is mine.)

The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children.

Apparent also is the government's ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence. Thirty-three-year-old Thomas Jefferson enumerated grievances against a would-be authoritarian king over our nascent nation. Among others were:
1. "He has sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People."
2. "He has excited domestic Insurrection among us.”
3. "For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us."
4. "He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies without the consent
of our Legislatures."

"We the people" are hearing echos of that history.

And then there is that pesky inconvenience called the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized.

Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. That is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.

Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency. And the rule of law be damned.

And Biery ended:

With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike, it is so ORDERED.

US District Judge Cynthia Rufe of Philadelphia

Rufe is the judge who ordered the feds to restore exhibits about George Washington’s slaves that had been removed from the President’s House in Philadelphia, his first official residence, last month. He ruled that the feds were supposed to consult with the city before making any changes.

Even though Washington’s slaves should have been freed under Pennsylvania’s gradual abolition law, he exploited a loophole: A slaver had to free his slaves within 6 months of their arrival. So Washington just rotated his slaves, sending them back to Mount Vernon before the six months was up and getting a new group sent to him in Philly. What a standup guy.

The Interior and Park Service officials who took down the exhibits said they were simply following Trump’s orders not to display anything that could “inappropriately disparage” dead or living Americans. (I think ol’ George did a pretty good job of that himself.)

Judge Rufe was having none of it (boldface is mine):

As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto “Ignorance is Strength,” this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not.

The President’s House displays recognized [slave] Oney Judge and focused on how her struggle for freedom represented this country’s progress away from the horrors of slavery and into an era where the founding ideals of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” could be embodied for every American.

And yet, in its argument, the government claims it alone has the power to erase, alter, remove and hide historical accounts on taxpayer and local government-funded monuments within its control.

The government here likewise asserts truth is no longer self-evident, but rather the property of the elected chief magistrate and his appointees and delegees, at his whim to be scraped clean, hidden, or overwritten. And why? Solely because, as Defendants state, it has the power.

An agency, whether the Department of the Interior, NPS, or any other agency, cannot arbitrarily decide what is true, based on its own whims or the whims of the new leadership, regardless of the evidence before it.

The removed displays were not mere decorations to be taken down and redisplayed; rather, they were a memorial to “men, women, and children of African descent who lived, worked, and died as enslaved people in the United States of America,” a tribute to their struggle for freedom, and an enduring reminder of the inherent contradictions emanating from this country’s founding. Each person who visits the President’s House and does not learn of the realities of founding-era slavery receives a false account of this country’s history.

US District Judge Sara L. Ellis of Chicago

Last fall, a coalition of journalists and civil rights groups in Chicago, including the Chicago Headline Club, Block Club Chicago, and the Chicago Newspaper Guild, filed a lawsuit in federal court over the aggressive tactics being used by ICE and Border Patrol agents against protesters, journalists, and clergy.

Judge Ellis agreed, and reined in federal agents. She ordered them to limit their interactions with journalists, stop using riot control measures such as tear gas, pepper spray, and chokeholds unless there is an immediate threat, identify themselves, and activate their body cameras.

Her oral and written opinions reflected her disbelief as she reviewed videos, photos, depositions, and other documents, and caught Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino lying under oath. Some of her words (boldface is mine):

Defendants would have people believe … that the Chicagoland area is in a vise hold of violence, ransacked by rioters, and attacked by agitators — which justifies the unprecedented swath of indiscriminate uses of force unleashed on journalists, peaceful protestors, and religious practitioners. That narrative simply is untrue.

After reviewing all the evidence submitted to the Court and listening to the testimony elicited at the preliminary injunction hearing, during depositions, and in other court proceedings, the Court finds Defendants’ evidence simply not credible.

At some point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything that Defendants represent.

Overall, after reviewing all the evidence, the Court finds that Defendants’ widespread misrepresentations call into question everything that Defendants say they are doing.