Bishop's Pastoral Statement on Immigration Procedures
My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
The Gospel of Matthew emphasizes the values of faith, mercy and justice, and how they relate to Judeo-Christian tradition. We recall the words of our Lord in the Gospel of Matthew, “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me” (25:35-6). Jesus taught us that this is the standard by which we will be judged on the last day. It is important to keep this message at the forefront of our daily living and always strive to fulfill our commission to love and serve others.
We believe that every person is created in the image of God and must be treated with dignity and care as his son or daughter. We will continue to ensure that our churches, schools and missions remain places of worship, education, hospitality and grace for those who live in our midst.
Our shared faith calls us to walk alongside and accompany the most vulnerable, and we remain committed to serving every member in our communities with the love and understanding that Christ modeled for us. Pope Francis, in his letter for World Day of Migrants and Refugees, said that “God not only walks with his people, but also within them … he identifies himself with men and women on their journey through history, particularly with the least, the poor and the marginalized.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Catholic teaching does not support an open border policy in this modern world; however, the Catechismdoes emphasize a commonsense approach where the duty to care for the stranger is practiced in harmony with the duty to care for the nation.
As your bishop and pastor, I offer my gratitude for all those immigrants in the Diocese of Charleston who, through their goodness and faithfulness, contribute so much to our Church and to our country. Over several generations, immigrants have settled within the diocese from many foreign nations. Catholics from different continents have enriched our diocese with their great faith and devotion to our Lord, with their families and service to Christ’s Church across South Carolina. Their presence is a gift to us all, and we are grateful to God for them. We pray for their faithfulness, resilience and perseverance now in the face of many uncertainties.
As a Church, we will be always concerned with the dignity of the human person and basic human rights. The Church recognizes that there are persons residing in this nation without legal documentation, and we do not excuse this violation of our country’s laws. Every country has the right to protect and maintain its borders.
Pope Francis encourages us to participate in Christian charity through welcoming, protecting and accompanying. We can see firsthand the contributions of our brothers and sisters from many nations to our communities and to this state. We will continue to accompany them along the faithful way, as Christ accompanies us on our journey through this life. Though Catholics all over the world differ in our expressions of faith and our perspectives, we are united by the Great Commission to stand as one Church, loving God and our neighbor.
May we, as one Body in Christ, unite in faith and understanding as we move forward. May the Lord grant us the wisdom and courage to act with justice and mercy. And may the Holy Spirit guide us to promote a culture of peace, respect for life and the dignity of every human person.
In Christ’s love,
Most Rev. Jacques Fabre-Jeune, CS
Bishop of Charleston
The Gospel of Matthew emphasizes the values of faith, mercy and justice, and how they relate to Judeo-Christian tradition. We recall the words of our Lord in the Gospel of Matthew, “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me” (25:35-6). Jesus taught us that this is the standard by which we will be judged on the last day. It is important to keep this message at the forefront of our daily living and always strive to fulfill our commission to love and serve others.
We believe that every person is created in the image of God and must be treated with dignity and care as his son or daughter. We will continue to ensure that our churches, schools and missions remain places of worship, education, hospitality and grace for those who live in our midst.
Our shared faith calls us to walk alongside and accompany the most vulnerable, and we remain committed to serving every member in our communities with the love and understanding that Christ modeled for us. Pope Francis, in his letter for World Day of Migrants and Refugees, said that “God not only walks with his people, but also within them … he identifies himself with men and women on their journey through history, particularly with the least, the poor and the marginalized.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Catholic teaching does not support an open border policy in this modern world; however, the Catechismdoes emphasize a commonsense approach where the duty to care for the stranger is practiced in harmony with the duty to care for the nation.
As your bishop and pastor, I offer my gratitude for all those immigrants in the Diocese of Charleston who, through their goodness and faithfulness, contribute so much to our Church and to our country. Over several generations, immigrants have settled within the diocese from many foreign nations. Catholics from different continents have enriched our diocese with their great faith and devotion to our Lord, with their families and service to Christ’s Church across South Carolina. Their presence is a gift to us all, and we are grateful to God for them. We pray for their faithfulness, resilience and perseverance now in the face of many uncertainties.
As a Church, we will be always concerned with the dignity of the human person and basic human rights. The Church recognizes that there are persons residing in this nation without legal documentation, and we do not excuse this violation of our country’s laws. Every country has the right to protect and maintain its borders.
Pope Francis encourages us to participate in Christian charity through welcoming, protecting and accompanying. We can see firsthand the contributions of our brothers and sisters from many nations to our communities and to this state. We will continue to accompany them along the faithful way, as Christ accompanies us on our journey through this life. Though Catholics all over the world differ in our expressions of faith and our perspectives, we are united by the Great Commission to stand as one Church, loving God and our neighbor.
May we, as one Body in Christ, unite in faith and understanding as we move forward. May the Lord grant us the wisdom and courage to act with justice and mercy. And may the Holy Spirit guide us to promote a culture of peace, respect for life and the dignity of every human person.
In Christ’s love,
Most Rev. Jacques Fabre-Jeune, CS
Bishop of Charleston
43 comments:
Father McDonald:
Thank you for continuing to keep us informed about the various statements on this matter issued by the Bishops of the Province of Atlanta.
Mark J.
I see Catholic Charities is shrinking their staff because their grift is ending. Maybe instead they should focus their efforts on helping the mentally ill:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/02/06/michigan-democrat-opted-voluntary-sterilization-trump-presidency/
TJM - Oh, DO sign up for that help. I will be the FIRST in line to endorse your application. Hell, I'll even PAY for some of it!
Being a bit cynical about the Church these days in terms of its "leadership" I wonder if hundreds of millions flowing into Catholic Charities from the US Government has purchased the USCCB's silence on fake Catholic politicians like Pelosi and Biden? Perhaps Bishop Strickland was over the target!
K,
More classic projection from you. You obviously did not read the article. It was about a young, Democratic woman legislator in Michigan who went through sterilization because she does not want children because President Trump was re-elected. If that is not a mentally disturbed person I do not know who is, other than people who vote for abortion as "healthcare." You are going to have a rough 4 years. You are like a French aristocrat on the eve of the French Revolution desperate to maintain the Ancien Regime (think DC corrupt bureaucracy)
Instead of watching the usual national propaganda news sites, the USCCB should read this which shows Black Chicago residents are sick of Blob Pritzker and Chicago's Mayor:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/frustrated-chicagoans-back-ice-deportations-applaud-doj-lawsuit-targeting-sanctuary-policies
Well K, maybe there is hope for the American Catholic Church!
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/02/08/u-s-bishops-applaud-donald-trumps-elimination-men-womens-sports/
TJM - No, I did not read the article. I do not read any of the articles you post because your sources are corrupt and unreliable. FAUX, {notvery}Brightbart, PajamasMedia - they re worthless in terms of news.
K of course you won’t read them - they were right on the Hunter Biden fiasco and the Russian Collusion lies. Of course Deep State News (the Slimes and Compost support your twisted world of abortion is healthcare and feed into your TDS)
Hey, K, I think longtime Dem operative is talking about you!
"Prominent mainstream media journalist and author Joe Klein savaged the Democratic Party, claiming that its recent Democratic National Committee meeting proves the party’s "intellectual corrosion is comprehensive."
In a new article for his "Sanity Clause" Substack series, Klein pointed out the various gender rules that the DNC rolled out during its meeting last week as proof that the party may be damaged beyond anything he’s ever seen.
"Yes, friends, still crazy after all these years…and the encroaching dementia is not benign. Can this party be saved? I have my doubts," Klein wrote after quoting multiple articles detailing the complex gender rules established at the meeting."
Father McDonald, thank you for this thread. Most Rev. Jacques Fabre-Jeune, CS has presented Church teaching in regard to the immigration issue. It falls to each Catholic to open his/her heart and mind to the holy teachings that the good bishop has delineated.
The bishop twice referenced Pope Francis' teachings related to the immigration issue. In turn, Pope Francis has taught in continuity with his holy predecessors.
In regard to the immigration issue: Jesus Christ has spoken to us via the holy Magisterium. We are compelled as Catholics to embrace said teachings.
May each Catholic stand with Pope Francis, as well as our bishops who have taught in communion with our august Vicar of Christ.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
In regard to the immigration: Rev. Jacques Fabre-Jeune, CS, noted:
"The Gospel of Matthew emphasizes the values of faith, mercy and justice, and how they relate to Judeo-Christian tradition. We recall the words of our Lord in the Gospel of Matthew, “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.”
"Jesus taught us that this is the standard by which we will be judged on the last day."
=======
In light of that, it is unfortunate that certain Catholics have trashed various Church teachings related to the immigration issue. Among said folks are those who have attempted to justify their disobedience via the following disgraceful remarks:
"Pope Francis is a phony in regard to immigration as he lives behind walls. Let the Pope open his wallet to immigrants. Let each bleeding heart open his/her home and wallet to immigrants."
In regard to immigrants, migrants, refugees:
May said folks open their hearts and minds to our Lord Jesus Christ, who has spoken through Pope Francis, as well as bishops who have taught in communion with His Holiness.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
You and some bishops are willfully ignorant. These are not “immigrants” we are talking about but illegal aliens who would be jailed and then deported for unlawfully entering the US just as they are in any other country, including the Vatican.
You never have answered these two questions. 1) how many illegal aliens are you financially supporting, and 2) should the US absorb the population of the entire world or are there any limits and who determines that? I am a bit shocked anyone would want to come to the US since the MSM assures us we are a racist, mysogynistic and homophobic nation.
Mark Thomas, please note the Vatican and North Korea are neck and neck as to which country is hardest to immigrate to:
The Hardest Countries to Immigrate To
Here are some of the most challenging countries to immigrate to:
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Bhutan
China
Japan
Switzerland
Denmark
Liechtenstein
Vatican City
North Korea
Kinda ruins the Pope's virtue signaling campaign against the US!!!!
TJM:
I must correct you on this point. Mark Thomas and the bishops correctly refer to “illegal aliens” as “immigrants.” Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §1101) is the definitions section of the INA. And section 101(a)(15) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(15)) is the technical reason why referring to illegal aliens/undocumented immigrants as “immigrants” is correct. Its opening language provides as follows:
“(15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens—"
See also section INA 214(b) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §1184(b)), which addresses the presumption of immigrant intent, providing in relevant part:
“Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title, and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 1101(a)(15)(H)(i) of this title except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 1101(a)(15) of this title.”
Consequently, there are documented immigrants (lawful permanent residents) and undocumented immigrants.
Mark J.
So wonderful that a non-abortion drooler president like President Trump was at the Superbowl tonight representing a renewed US! K and many false bishops and priests, are despondent!
Hey K, one of your abortion loving buddies speaks! Will you enjoy Hell?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/ithaca-college-teaches-feminism-how-resist-abortion-bans/
Mark J,
I am not an immigration law expert but have a question. I always understood the statutory term for someone inside the US improperly is "illegal alien." Did that change under one of our recent "progressive" presidencies? An undocumented immigrant sounds like a euphemism for illegal alien, of course, I generally refer to them as "undocumented Democrats."
In my lifetime the Democratic Party went from being hardline on illegal aliens (I suppose because it upset the Party's union base at the time) to being in favor of a free for all, open borders approach even during the Pandemic. Here is what Senator Chuck Schumer used to say:
"People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enters the U.S. legally," Schumer said during a 2009 speech.
"Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced that we will stop future flows of illegal immigration we will make no progress on dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who are here now," Schumer said. "When we use phrases like undocumented workers we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration which the American people overwhelmingly oppose. If you don’t think it’s illegal you’re not going to say it. I think it is illegal and wrong."
I suspect the Democrats thought changing to open borders would buy them the Hispanic vote. That failed miserably in the last election as President Trump garnered the largest percentage of Hispanic vote of any Republican presidential candidate. If you ever heard the term "bigotry of low expectations" that would sum up the modern Democratic Party today. My fear is the USCCB is falling into the same trap.
Fyi, I was a Democratic Party official at one time but left when the Party barred Governor Casey from delivering a pro-life message at the Democratic Party Convention in 1992 because it would upset the rabid, abortion wing of the Party. My father, who had a very significant role, in RFK's presidential campaign in 1968, left as well. He could not accept the Party's extremist abortion position and neither could I.
Mark J,
I think you will find this interesting because it demonstrates where your get your news directly affects what you think of President Trump. Today's Britain has the lowest opinion, but hey, look what is happening to England!
https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/21-days-of-trump-chapter-2-how-is?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=247761&post_id=156832113&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=9bg2k&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Here is the latest. A pastor advocates violence against Elon Musk while buying into DNC lies. Now it is a "threat to democracy" to investigate fraud and waste! I think the real problem is Musk is breaking the Left's "rice bowls" and they are upset!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/alert-fbi-pastor-tennessee-issues-sick-call-violence/
This is actually funny - talk about the Dems no longer being able to think rationally:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/dems-threaten-to-shut-down-govt-to-stop-trump-from-cutting-govt-programs
TJM:
Thank you for your post and question.
You are correct that the Biden Administration mandated replacing the term “illegal alien” with “undocumented noncitizen.”
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/19/988789487/immigration-agencies-ordered-not-to-use-term-illegal-alien-under-new-biden-polic
But the debate about the appropriate language long predates Biden (I believe the Carter Administration mandated the term “undocumented immigrant,” for example).
The term “illegal alien” nowhere appears in the INA, although it does appear in some other statutes and has even been used by the U.S. Supreme Court, so there is a partial technical case to be made for using it. Why do I say “partial”? There are two types of reasons for doing so, the first being technical, the second technical and humanitarian:
Here is the partial technical case for using the term “illegal alien”:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/may/09/steve-mccraw/illegal-alien-legal-term-federal-law/
And here is the technical and humanitarian case for using a term such as “undocumented immigrant” (the term preferred by the author, an immigration lawyer, who quotes Eli Wiesel on the point):
https://bordercrossinglaw.com/nohumanbeingisillegal/
Words matter because they can have great rhetorical effect. Personally, I prefer the term “undocumented immigrant” or “undocumented noncitizen,” although sometimes I use a cumbersome combination term such as “illegal alien/undocumented immigrant.”
Mark J.
We have not been back to the United Kingdom since 2007, my mother having died in 2006 (before that, we returned twelve times between 2000 and 2006 when my mother was so frail after my father died in 2001), so I do not have any recent first-hand observations or experience in the U.K., although contact with friends and cousins does help a bit. We hope to go back again within the next year or so (perhaps for the final time given my age).
In any event, it is very sad to witness the apparent social and political decline in the U.K. (for example, the NHS, once a shining example to the world, seems to be in dire straits today). You will likely disagree with me on the point, but I think Brexit was a HUGE mistake, propelled by a very bad calculation by Conservative P. M. David Cameron to call the 2016 referendum as well as lies and misrepresentations by the likes of the opportunist (and dreadful) Boris Johnson—I know his type very well, having gone to University with the type—and Nigel Farage. (By the way, it is said that Johnson always resented Cameron for earning an Oxford First when Johnson got an Upper Second, although Johnson WAS president of the Oxford Union, an unpleasant milieu for the politically ambitious that Cameron avoided becoming involved with, as did I, except to attend debates). But Johnson got his comeuppance and just desserts in the end after lying to Parliament! If only we had such ethical standards and sanctions over here!
To those attacking the European Union (EU), I would say: Remember your history. Being born in 1953 of a German mother (who was a teenager and young woman in Hitler’s Germany) and an English father (who remained in Germany as part of the British Army of Occupation after taking part in the invasion of Normandy, meeting and marrying my mother who was employed by his unit) and growing up in England constantly hearing tales of their respective wartime experiences, it is a history I can never forget. The EU, then, isn’t just about economics. Its ultimate rationale, which we forget at our peril, is far deeper and more profound than that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAGLRG7V8HA\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxl4KVBFviE
Far better, then, for the U.K. to have remained in the E.U. and worked to reform it from within and resist/restrain its more inappropriate excesses, as Margaret Thatcher did, than to simply abandon ship—and for what?
If your comment is alluding, at least in part, to the despicable grooming scandal and Musk’s criticism of Sir Keir Starmer, the following article should help put the record straight (Musk is way off base, but that’s hardly unusual, is it?):
https://theweek.com/crime/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-explained
Mark J.
Mark J,
You would not recognize London today. We do not tarry there but go to the countryside where things are safer and better. Like you, my parents are both gone now. I miss them.
I think the EU is corrupt and very undemocratic. That is why people of several countries are now fighting back. To allow a bunch of unvetted, third world savages who would like to impose Sharia Law on a formerly Christian continent is not a wise strategy. If the EU had limited itself to trade and a common currency that would likely have worked well. As a traveler there, it is much easier to deal with Euros than francs, deutschmarks, lira, etc. But Brussels cannot help themselves like most lefty bureaucracies. Thank God the President is finally dealing with the Perpetuals in DC, pampered, spoiled and arrogant. I never held a job in my life where I could not be terminated, and the DC bureaucracy should be held to the same standard as ordinary citizens. I you read what USAID was actually funding it is a wonder that pitchforks and mobs are not driving them out of DC. Instead, we have corrupt, leftwing judges who are attempting to usurp President Trump's Article II powers. That will not end well for them. He is doing what he said he would do, and the majority of the American people voted for which has the bubble press and their Dem minions screeching, which is quite amusing. We will shut the government down to preserve waste and fraud! Not a wise campaign strategy. The American people have common sense and recall, elections do have consequences, so saith Obama.
Here is one amusing post of a tweet that did not age well:
https://x.com/Sassafrass_84/status/1889085821958959128
As one wise law professor writes, "if the Democrats did not have double standards, they would not have any standards at all."
Mark J.
Thanks for confirming what I suspected.
TJM:
After spending three very pleasant years on the Continent, first studying in West Germany and then practicing as a legal consultant on European Community Law in Belgium (Brussels), I lived in London for two years in my mid-20s during the late 1970s (qualifying at the Bar of England and Wales and doing pupillage under a leading EC Law barrister). However, I did not particularly enjoy London even then because it was far too crowded and busy and only relatively pleasant at the weekends as I lived in the suburbs and getting into the city was much easier at the weekends. (In contrast, during my boyhood I spent several vacations with a Jewish family—the father had been my own father’s closest friend in the Army—and their son and I would explore all over London, the museums and various historical sites, using our “rover” passes on London Transport, especially the Tube.)
Apart from those two years in London, whenever accompanying visitors in Britain I was happy to do the one-day bus tour with them but was also always happy to leave and get back to the countryside where I grew up between Winchester and Southampton. (Of course, this made trips to Winchester Cathedral and Salisbury Cathedral, Stonehenge, Silbury Hill, and Avebury mandatory with visitors—I remember the days when there were no tourists at all at Stonehenge, just a wooden fence and stile and we could walk among the standing stones.) My favorite place is the Isle of Wight, which is where we trace my father's family back for some centuries and where all four of my English cousins now live. If you have never been there, please try to go. The motto of the IOW Council emblazoned at the bottom of the IOW Coat of Arms is “All this beauty is of God.” I spent many other happy vacations there as a boy with my grandparents in Cowes. Which part of England are your in-laws from?
The EU institutions have addressed the “democracy deficit” to some extent (direct elections to a now more powerful European Parliament, for example), but I do think the EU unwisely went too far too fast, which is why I welcomed Mrs. Thatcher’s more pragmatic, commonsense approach (although I certainly did not agree with her on several other matters). The idea of the common market made sense for Europe, as it does within the United States, but steps toward further integration should have been taken more slowly, waiting until people were ready.
Similarly, we went too far too fast over here. Although the idea of the GATT and liberalized trade between economies at a similar level of development also made perfect sense to stimulate competition, it made much less sense to include economies at a vastly different level of development. One of the biggest blunders was granting MFN treatment for China, which became most successful and powerful on the backs of workers in the United States and elsewhere in the West. But that’s capitalism for you! My preferred approach would have been that suggested by the former corporate raider and then Member of the European Parliament, Sir James Goldsmith, i.e., investment in regional development among economies at a similar level of development. See, e.g., Goldsmith’s “The Trap”:
https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0504/article_480.shtml [summary book review]
https://www.sirjamesgoldsmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-Trap-Sir-James-Goldsmith.pdf [text of the entire book]
[continued]
Perhaps you are already familiar with this work. If not, I think you will find it prescient and a provocative and stimulating read (on this and many other matters), even though you will probably not agree with all of it. If President Trump and his advisors have not read it, they should! While I do understand the inevitable reaction that Trump has tapped into and capitalized on, I fear that in the current circumstances, his measures (and proposed measures) are too little too late and, in many cases, are immoral (such as his demonization of immigrants) and/or beyond eccentric. We let the genie out of the bottle, and I doubt we can get it back in. Instead, we should have listened to Goldsmith. And so, I write in my own book:
“I still believe in the grand liberal project of achieving peace and prosperity through the activity of international institutions promoting economic integration among nation states. This said, I have also long considered that a certain reductionist and naïve view of human nature and an excess of ideological zeal in pursuing the integrationist vision (and related visions such as that of American neo-conservatism), combined with an undue concern with maximizing corporate profits at the expense of other important interests, has caused the relevant elites to choose unwise means in pursuit of a worthy end. In short, the elites got ahead of themselves and, more consequentially, they got ahead of ordinary people. The rise of reactionary ‘Trumpian populism’ in the United States and analogous movements elsewhere in the Western world should be no great surprise. . . [pages 7-8]
I also consider that among the possible range of ideological positions within the liberal democratic framework, we should strive to cultivate the liberal democratic state as a ‘republic of virtue’ as it were. . . . [R]egrettably I . . . share MacIntyre’s deep skepticism about the potential for the necessary virtuous activity by legislators in the current conditions prevailing in liberal democratic societies. As we will see, MacIntyre’s critique emphasizes especially the deleterious influence of various kinds of exclusionary elites. Indeed, the contemporary rise of ‘Trumpian populism’ in the United States and of analogous movements elsewhere in Western liberal democracies can arguably be understood, at least partly, as a reaction to this disease of the modern body politic. There is serious question, however, whether this reaction offers any reasonable prospect of cultivating a ‘republic of virtue.’ My own preferred strategy for cultivating a ‘republic of virtue,’ then, places more faith in an indirect process in which excellence and virtue are nurtured within the professions and other occupations and spread outward into the rest of society, thereby leading to a gradual virtuous leavening of society. In due course, this leavening may also result in legislation aimed at the promotion of excellence and virtue.” [pages 21-22]
Mark J.
K, this will give you the sads! SuperTrump is rounding up the criminals aka Undocumented Dem voters. Maybe the USCCB should wake up and smell the coffee!
https://www.foxnews.com/us/tren-de-aragua-crackdown-8-venezuelan-gang-members-indicted-sex-trafficking
TJM:
Regarding the claim that “we have corrupt, leftwing judges who are attempting to usurp President Trump's Article II powers,” Biden could have made the same claim about rightwing judges. Check out the statistics on the number of federal lawsuits filed against Biden and other presidents:
https://ballotpedia.org/Multistate_lawsuits_against_the_federal_government_during_the_Biden_administration
https://attorneysgeneral.org/multistate-lawsuits-vs-the-federal-government/list-of-lawsuits-1980-present/
Forum shopping is a game both sides play. I am sure J.D. Vance and others had no problem with the lawsuits against the Biden Administration. Why should they complain now that the shoe is (again) on the other foot? If the idea of the rule of law and an independent judiciary means anything, it means that we must respect the system and let the process play out, however imperfect this might be due to conscious or unconscious bias on the part of any given judge. The alternative is simply too frightening to contemplate. With a supine Congress, the judicial branch is the last guard rail we have left. Of course, this does not mean that we should also simply accept judicial bias and politicized judging. Instead, we should exhort the judiciary to be aware of their biases and make every effort to rise above them. Again, I address these matters in the book [see pages 362-67].
Mark J.
Mark J,
Biden was not only a corrupt thief, he was incredibly stupid (his entire career) and arrogant. If I were advising President Trump I would have him follow the Biden precedent, like ignoring the SC when the Court said his student loan forgiveness (vote buying scam) was illegal. JD Vance had it right, judges have no more right to enjoin a president exercising his Article II authority then enjoining a general’s military decisions nor a prosecutor exercising his discretion. The worst judge is the old lady in the DC circuit who gleefully sent grandmas to prison for protesting at abortion clinics. Tell me Mark where is the justice in that when BLM terrorists who burned billions of dollars of property remain at liberty? These judges are engaging in a judicial coup and are the real threat to democracy. They are also election deniers who are bringing further discredit to the judiciary.
K while Biden was busy bringing in dangerous illegal aliens into the US, SuperTrump is bringing American citizens who were hostages home. The freed hostage called President Trump a hero, which will gall you, and cause the NY Slimes staff to clutch their pearls!
Mark J,
I know the Left’s paper of record, the NY Slimes, will never pursue this, but here is an expose of an unhinged activist judge, who is usurping President Trump’s Article II powers. I think you would agree this is not a good look for an alleged, impartial “jurist.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/judge-who-blocks-trumps-spending-freeze-calls-him/
Mark J,
What a charming life! I have never been to the Isle of Wight where Osbourne is but I will add that to the list of places to see when I next visit England. My in-laws are generally concentrated in London and its immediate environs, although my son-in-law's parents were married in Bath which we had the pleasure of visiting the last time we were England, enjoying teatime at a Cotswold Manor House.
I hope things work out for the EU. I always thought it a difficult task to integrate the various European countries politically, given the different languages, laws and customs. In the US, as you know, once the great immigration wave began in the 19th century, the folks who came here from various lands wanted to be "Americans" shedding their former countries' customs and ways of doing things. That did have some unfortunate cultural ramifications.
My wife was born here but here family came over from Germany in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. Her grandparents refused to teach her father German because they wanted him to be fully American. I think we realize now that was an overcompensation. I went to a Catholic high school with a large Polish population. Ironically, my classmates who were born in the US spoke fluent Polish whereas their parents did not because of the grandparents. By the late 1950s, early 1960s that attitude of not teaching the children the language of their family's country of origin had begun to pass, thankfully. Americans too stressed assimilation which helped forge a united Country, more or less. I am uncertain if assimilation is possible in a multi-lingual Europe, but I could be wrong.
In retrospect, Nixon's policy on China has proven disastrous for many. He fancied himself another Bismarck, Realpolitik and all of that. My son-in-law's father was an international lawyer who did a great deal of negotiating in China on business transactions and had lots of stories to tell! They smile at your while lying to your face!
Thanks for the reference for Sir James. I will take a look at that.
Cheers!
TJM:
You will have to excuse the source, but that is where they published their statement—five former Treasury Secretaries disagree and seem to think there is a genuine constitutional legal problem that needs to be addressed:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/opinion/treasure-secretaries-doge-musk.html
“While significant data privacy, cybersecurity and national security threats are gravely concerning, the constitutional issues are perhaps even more alarming. We take the extraordinary step of writing this piece because we are alarmed about the risks of arbitrary and capricious political control of federal payments, which would be unlawful and corrosive to our democracy.
A key component of the rule of law is the executive branch’s commitment to respect Congress’s power of the purse: The legislative branch has the sole authority to pass laws that determine where and how federal dollars should be spent.
The role of the Treasury Department — and of the executive branch more broadly — is not to make determinations about which promises of federal funding made by Congress it will keep, and which it will not. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court previously wrote, ‘Even the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds.’ Chief Justice John Roberts agrees: He wrote that ‘no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse.’”
Mark J.
TJM:
Regarding the whataboutism argument that Biden defied the Supreme Court ruling on student loans, and despite Biden’s characteristic foot in mouth inartful blathering on about it, the situations are distinct. See, e.g.:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-biden-ignore-supreme-court-over-student-loan-forgiveness-1920799
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/11/trump-administration-constitutional-crisis/
Thus, Biden didn’t simply defy the Supreme Court ruling, going ahead with his original plan, but instead tried to achieve a more limited kind of student debt relief in another way. Although also not an exact parallel, perhaps one can draw an analogy with Trump’s “Muslim Ban,” which they finally got right on the third attempt.
Also, Vance’s point about generals and prosecutors is not well taken. In certain circumstances both are subject to judicial review. On that point and on the general question of whether we are headed for, or are already in, a constitutional crisis, consider the following discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpQ4N8cvJbY
Mark J.
TJM:
Thank you for the link. The judge does seem to be incorrect about Trump’s Court of Appeal appointments, unless he means African Americans by persons of color. As for the rest, I really need to think hard about this one. It is difficult. On the one hand, yes, the judge seems to be contradicting the idea of a completely impartial jurist with his empathetic notion of walking in the shoes of the minority defendant. On the other hand, if he doesn’t make some attempt to do that, then he runs the risk of projecting his own pre-existing notions as a privileged white male under the guise of a neutral rule of law. But isn’t the idea of a completely neutral rule of law ultimately chimerical because judges cannot help being influenced by their conscious and unconscious biases, and systemic bias is a real thing? That is why I suggested that the best we can hope for and expect is for judges to become aware of their biases (personal and systemic) and to try to rise above them in the best way they can to do justice in the individual case in the best way they can.
It is interesting and ironic that this judge talks about walking in the defendant’s shoes because it calls to mind Atticus Finch’s line in To Kill a Mockingbird about walking inside another man’s skin, as well as the gross injustice that was visited upon the black defendant Tom Robinson by the all-white male jury—an egregious example of systemic bias, indeed of overt racism, in the segregationist South, based in real world cases of such bias and racism—which is at the opposite extreme of what this judge is advocating. Perhaps the answer lies between the extremes. But then provocatively I ask whether this judge is himself at the other extreme or does he rather stand between the extremes, where the extreme would be always being excessively lenient, which is not what I understand him to be suggesting.
I do try to address these sorts of quandaries in the book too and find helpful Jim White’s treatment of the various “tensions” that exist within lawyers and judges as they practice “the art of law” [see pp. 274-86, 292-94]. For White’s book:
https://www.amazon.com/Keep-Alive-James-Boyd-White/dp/1531015077
Mark J.
Mark J,
Can you give me an example where a judge has enjoined a military operation?
The president is the head of the executive branch and may hire and fire whom he pleases other than for an unlawful reason, i.e. firing someone because they are an African-American.
Thanks for your comments on the unhinged judge's rant. He appears to be a racist, reverse of course, so that is ok in some circles. I certainly would not place my trust in a man with that mindset.
Ah you raise the old impoundment issue. Some believe the 1974 Act is unconstitutional and history and precedent supports that:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4736824-trump-is-right-about-the-impoundment-control-act-its-unconstitutional/
I have a question. Why do you love huge, overbearing government? It is so patently incompetent. I believe the less government we have the better off we are. Let the States handle things and severely limit what the Feds may control, such as the military, disputes between States, etc. I believe in subsidiarity. I wish the current Pope believed that too, instead of micro-managing a parish's Sunday bulletin on which Masses may be advertised.
Lastly, Trump is not a very effective Nazi, if he is one. I do not recall the Nazis being notorious for shrinking government and championing free speech.
Mark J,
Ah you cited two of the least reliable conservative justices on the SC, one whom change his vote on Obamacare. I would ask each of them, if the President knows funds that Congress has appropriated advances an illegal activity or is contrary to federal law, is he obligated to disburse it when it is the Executive Branch that is in charge of disbursing them? Through the DOGE process, that seems to be the case, that the federal bureaucracy, until recently under the utterly corrupt Biden Regime was doing just that.
Mark J,
One last point. Joe Biden's defiance of the SC was shocking because at the heart of this action was his desire to buy votes. President Trump is trying to root out fraud and abuse and SAVE taxpayers money. Morally, they are not the same.
TJM:
I cannot give you an example of where a judge has enjoined a military operation. However, your question does raise some intriguing legal issues. Although I claim no expertise in military law (a subject I have never really considered before this evening), I would make a couple of points. First, I assume that a general’s actions could be reviewed in a court martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice—for example, for violating Article 99 of the UCMJ (Misbehavior Before the Enemy), which refers to “any service member.” For the text of Art. 99 see:
https://www.mymilitarylawyers.com/a-hrefhttpsmymilitarylawyerscompractice-areasucmj-articlesucmj-article-99-misbehavior-before-the-enemy
Second, and perhaps more to the point, I wonder whether in principle a general could be not only prosecuted after the fact but enjoined if they had a provable clear intent to commit a war crime contrary to 18 U.S. Code § 2441 when conducting a military operation. For the text, see:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
This said, Vance’s example of generals is a red herring as we are not talking about generals (or even the president’s actions as Commander-in-Chief).
Moreover, Vance’s analogy with the Attorney-General is also misleading. Suppose the Attorney-General authorized a federal prosecutor to engage in prosecutorial misconduct. In addition to other relief, can’t judges in effect “enjoin” the prosecutor (and indirectly the A.G.) for prosecutorial misconduct by dismissing an indictment? See:
https://www.mololamken.com/knowledge-What-Exactly-Is-Prosecutorial-Misconduct
But again, we are not talking about direct challenges to the Attorney-General regarding prosecutorial discretion. The Attorney-General example does suggest, however, that while some of the the challenges to President Trump’s executive orders will be direct, others will be indirect, the direct challenge being made instead to subordinate officials implementing them. See, e.g., the following litigation tracker:
https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/
The appropriate legal analysis one should apply in evaluating the legality of presidential executive orders is murky, and we will have to let the courts sort it out. Perhaps they will consult the following law review article, which tries to dispel some of the murkiness (see especially Part IV of the article):
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/reviewing-presidential-orders
The same applies to the impoundment issue—the courts will have to sort it out. The following overview is helpful, also in responding to the Hill article:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-impoundment-and-how-trump-vows-to-use-it
And there clearly are other scholarly views, arguing in favor of the constitutionality of the 1974 ICA:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/constitutional-crisis-impoundment-control-act-takes-center-stage-washington
I do not love huge overbearing Government with its cumbersome bureaucracy, any more than I love those huge mini governments called corporations and their cumbersome (and often incompetent, and corrupt) bureaucracies. And I am in favor of the principle of subsidiarity, properly applied. Sir James Goldsmith makes some thoughtful observations on these points also.
Finally, judging the motives, and morality, of Biden and Trump in their respective responses to judicial decisions that thwarted their aims seems to me to be a subjective matter of opinion. But assuming Trump’s aims to be as pure and laudable as you suggest, there is still the question of the appropriateness of the means chosen to achieve them, and Musk and his still wet-behind-the ears underlings in DOGE do not inspire me with confidence.
Mark J.
The following piece suggests a possible reason why Vance used the analogy of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Attorney-General:
https://newrepublic.com/post/191552/trump-ag-pam-bondi-corrupt-eric-adams
One must wonder, too, whether all those allegations of the Biden Administration’s weaponization of the Justice Department, even if ill-founded, were calculated to lay the foundation for Trump’s own intended weaponization of a supposedly independent Justice Department.
Mark J.
Mark J,
How would you react if President Trump signed an executive order, either nullifying a judge's decision, or firing his staff, reducing his staff, or otherwise interfering with a judge's office and duties? That is precisely what these leftwing judges are doing. They are in for a very rude awakening. They are interfering with the CEO's prerogatives. Judges are to point out where either the Congress or the President are exceeding their constitutional authority. They do not have veto power over policy or personnel. They are a co-equal branch of our federal government not a super branch of the government.
On an historical note, the American Revolution began, in part, over the imperious British judiciary's treatment of the American colonies. .
Mark J,
This is a well written article exposing the judicial activism that is taking place. It is amazing they want to preserve corruption and spending which is inimical to taxpayers and Americas best interest.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/14/trump-need-not-bend-to-the-19-state-lawfare-coup-trying-to-thwart-his-treasury/
Now this story, if true, provides the reason for the judicial activism of this particular judge. It is not a good look, and if verified, he needs to step aside or face disciplinary action.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/racist-judge-jack-mcconnell-who-halted-president-trumps/
And is there anything more Orwellian than this? Is Brennan vying to be the next Josef Goebbels?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cbs-host-blasted-bonkers-claim-nazi-germany-weaponized-free-speech
Post a Comment