In the past few months, much has been written and spoken about the importance of our democratic institutions in safeguarding our country from precipitous actions on the part of the new administration in Washington.
Yet, in the little more than three weeks since the inauguration, these institutions have come under relentless attack, leaving many to ask whether they are strong enough to preserve our democracy.
First, came the attack on the media, which was labeled the “opposition party” and disparaged for exposing the many lies, falsehoods, bogus claims, baseless assertions and delusions promoted by the White House as “competing truths,” as though two mutually exclusive facts can exist at the same time.
This attack is ongoing.
Next came the attack on the Department of Justice, with the firing of a career Department of Justice lawyer, the acting attorney general, because she refused to defend an executive order limiting travel and immigration which she did not believe was lawful.
The attorney general represents the country (not the White House) and has the duty to uphold the rule of law.
So far, that Department of Justice lawyer’s belief has been validated by the courts.
Now we have the “demoralizing” and “disheartening” spectacle of the occupant of the Oval Office calling the federal judge who blocked his travel and immigration ban a “so-called judge” whose “ridiculous” ruling would be overturned on appeal (it wasn’t) and lashing out at the appellate judges who were considering the appeal, calling the judicial proceedings “disgraceful” and the courts as “political.”
“Demoralizing” and “disheartening” are not my words, but those of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Judge Gorsuch’s comments were confirmed by aides.
All this before the federal Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the lower court ruling and suggested that the ban did not advance our national security and that the administration had pointed to “no evidence” that anyone from the seven predominantly Muslim countries covered by the executive order had committed any terrorist acts in the United States.
The Court of Appeals ruling rejected the administration’s claim that the courts are powerless to review a president’s national security determinations.
In the words of the appellate court, “It is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.”
But still the attack on the judiciary persists.
“See you in court,” Donald Trump tweeted after being turned back by two federal courts.
Like the anecdotal client whose lawyer tells him that “justice has prevailed,” Donald Trump keeps shouting “appeal.”
“Our legal system is broken,” reads still another tweet, though our judiciary has thus far withstood Donald Trump’s efforts to break the system.
Article III of our Constitution provides for the rule of law by establishing a judiciary independent of the executive and legislative branches, one of the checks and balances against unbridled actions by the other branches in contravention of the Constitution.
Checks and balances means that sometimes the executive branch will be told “no.”
Donald Trump isn’t accustomed to hearing the word “no.”
But, to preserve the rule of law, it is incumbent upon the courts to say “no” to Donald Trump whenever he oversteps constitutional limitations.
The rule of law is what differentiates our country from totalitarian regimes. Without it we are just another banana republic.
My sixth grade granddaughter explained the differences between democracies, autocracies and oligarchies as we watched the inauguration back on January 20. Sadly, what the man who was inaugurated that day needs is some middle school social studies lessons.
Jay N. Feldman
Port Washington
