Marc Thiessen on Trump and Ukraine

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s Marc Thiessen’s opinion on where Trump is currently, in terms of Ukraine and Putin:

When it comes to Ukraine, Trump has been clear about what he would do if Russian President Vladimir Putin did not agree to end the war: Trump promised to impose crippling secondary tariffs on all oil coming out of Russia and give Ukraine more weapons than they’ve ever received from the U.S. Now that Putin has rejected Trump’s peace efforts, I am confident Trump will do exactly what he said.

Already, the president has reversed a Pentagon pause in weapons shipments to Ukraine, declaring, “We’re going to send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves.” But, as Putin defiantly escalates his attacks on Kyiv, and the last of the weapons authorized under President Joe Biden will soon run out, Trump needs a new way forward.

I have noticed lately that Trump seems fed up with Putin, and that he’s talking about being about to further arm Ukraine. But is this a feint, a negotiating tactic? I don’t know. What I do believe is that Putin is unlikely to give in; he’s staked his entire reputation and regime on what he’s doing in Ukraine.

More from Thiessen:

So, what should Trump’s strategy be? The goal can’t be to help Ukraine restore its pre-war borders — something every reasonable person knows is unrealistic at least in the near term. But the answer is also not to revert to Biden’s feckless policy of slow-rolling weapons, arming Ukraine just enough to stop Russia from overrunning the country, with no endgame in sight.

Rather, the goal should be to force Putin to do what Trump has demanded from the very beginning — end the war at the negotiating table — by imposing such heavy economic and military costs on Russia that Putin has no choice but to sue for peace.

Although I think that’s the goal, I don’t see Putin giving in, no matter what. I hope I’m wrong about that.

Thiessen again:

How to do that? Russia is in economic trouble as war spending has unleashed double-digit inflation, soaring interest rates and catastrophic labor shortages. The only things keeping the Russian economy afloat have been oil and gas sales, which skyrocketed under Biden. But under Trump, Russia’s oil and gas revenue has begun to collapse, falling 33.7 percent last month.

Trump should further tighten the screws with a “maximum pressure” campaign designed to drive Russian oil and gas from the global market, much like he did with Iran in his first term. …

As he crushes the Russian economy, Trump should also apply maximum pressure on the battlefield. He has announced that he will provide Ukraine with more defensive systems to protect Ukrainian civilians from Russian attacks. But to force Putin back to the peace table, he will need to provide Ukraine with increased offensive capabilities as well — including weapons that Biden slow-rolled, such High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), long-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), Stinger and Javelin missiles, as well as 155mm artillery rounds.

I think Trump is in a bind in Ukraine. Would he go as far as Thiessen says he should? I don’t know. The original goal, I believe, was to find a way for both Putin and Zelensky to have a face-saving way out. That hasn’t happened, and I don’t feel optimistic about it ever happening. If Trump can pull that off, my appreciation for his deal-making – already high – will rise even higher.

The left uses the class action loophole in CASA, just as Alito predicted

The New Neo Posted on by

What did Alito predict? I wrote about it here:

But district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of “nationwide class relief,” and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.

Give that man a gold star, because here’s what just happened:

Judge Issues New Nationwide Injunction on Birthright Using SCOTUS Guidance

The judge “agreed the plaintiffs could proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president’s policy nationally.”

From USA Today:

“U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, made the ruling July 10 after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by implementation of Trump’s directive.

“Laplante agreed the plaintiffs could proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president’s policy nationally.”

Very predictable. Now what will happen? SCOTUS will almost certainly have to rule again. Banning class action relief in cases such as this might be more difficult to justify, although I’m not sure. Note that Alito mentioned Rule 23; that’s the rule governing class action suits. Please take a look; your eyes may glaze over. Reading it reminds me why I detested my first-year Civil Procedure course.

It seems to me – and this is just winging it on my part – that a suit like this, if it’s on behalf of children of the future who might be born here, may not define a proper class because they don’t exist at present. I assumed that undoing birthright citizenship would not, as far as I know, work retroactively to mean that those born here in the past would lose citizenship. When I looked up Trump’s actual EO on the subject, issued on January 20 of 2025, I found that it said that it applied only to babies meeting the criteria who would be born after thirty days after the issuance of the EO. And so it seems to me that the class action would be limited to babies born from late February till now, and that perhaps that would be a proper class action suit.

I still don’t know for sure whether the current suit meets that criterion, but perhaps it does. Let’s say for the sake of argument that it does. Ultimately, no matter what, SCOTUS will be needing to rule on birthright citizenship itself. And prior to that, SCOTUS will probably need to clarify how a proper class action suit would have to work, and whether this one complies.

I see also that the suit was filed “on behalf of non-U.S. citizens living in the United States whose babies might be affected.” Does it matter that it’s parents and not the babies themselves? I think it might, because it’s not the parents who would be deprived of citizenship, it’s their babies (including those not yet born?). I’m having trouble finding the relevant facts on this.

In addition, the same article says this:

Under the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s executive order would take effect on July 27.

So does that mean it never took effect as originally intended? That would mean that all babies affected are as yet unborn. Do they have a right to a class action? Do their parents? And having a right to a class action doesn’t mean that you win a class action, of course. For that, there must be a decision on the merits of the EO.

NOTE: Commenter “Ray Van Dune” makes a comment today that I think is relevant, although it doesn’t bear directly on the case at hand:

I have not heard this anywhere, but it seems obvious that the Democrats long to make the Trump administration act “above the law”, since they see that as proven to be resonating with the average American.

Trouble is, appealing a decision is not acting above the law, as it is perfectly lawful behavior! Worse, when Trump succeeds on appeal, it is easily misunderstood as a permanent victory, which it sometimes isn’t. This is driving the Dems crazy… and it’s a short drive!

So this lawfare strategy needs to be understood for what it is, an effort to force Trump to defy the courts, and be seen to do so! That is why there seems to be no limit to the lengths Dems will stretch the law. They know that once they can force Trump to tell a court to go to hell, they can start using their favorite meme again – Trump thinks he is above the law!

Indeed. They use the meme anyway, of course. But it will have more teeth if he actually does defy a court ruling, especially a SCOTUS ruling.

The judge-emperor

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “Barry Meislin.”]

With the growth of the imperial judiciary here as a result of the left’s reaction to Trump’s presidency, it has occurred to me that our judges are starting to resemble the leftist judges of Israel, who have runaway power. Only our Supreme Court stops our leftist judges, and that’s only because SCOTUS currently leans right. All it would take would be a few appointments by a Democrat president to change that.

Here’s an article that deals with such issues, and adds the court system of France to the mix:

From Israel to the United States, via Europe, the judicial coup d’état has become permanent. In the West, it is not the executive that threatens the separation of powers. It is faceless judges lacking democratic legitimacy who legislate on the pretext of judging. Here are four salient examples of this judicial imperialism — which have become a judicial tyranny — and a proposed American solution. …

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Israeli Supreme Court introduced three innovations that revolutionized Israel’s legal and political landscape. First, it abolished the “standing” requirement, allowing anyone to challenge any government decision before the Supreme Court simply because they disagreed with it, even if they were not personally affected by it. This is unique in the Western world. Second, the Court removed the restriction on justiciability, placing all government and administrative actions (including foreign affairs, military actions and the budget) under its control — an extraordinary measure. Third, the Court took on the power to assess the “reasonableness” of government decisions, thus giving itself a political veto over the elected government’s choices.

When you read about how Netanyahu has tried to reform the Israeli court system, remember those points because they are extraordinarily important in understanding the extent of the power the Israeli Supreme Court has seized for itself.

The article goes on to discuss France and the ban on Le Pen:

There is effectively no longer a single “right-wing” measure that can be adopted in any field by Parliament or the government without being struck down by the Constitutional Council or the courts. When the left loses at the ballot box, it is certain to win in the courts. In France, the judge reigns and the people no longer seem to have sovereignty over anything.

That may be an exaggeration, or perhaps not. I’m not as familiar with the French system, but I wrote about the Le Pen ban in this previous post.

On Europe and immigration:

The torrents of universal rules and requirements deriving from articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (e.g. privacy, dignity), and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights are probably the worst modern example of tyrannical judicial imperialism. The anarchy of immigration in Europe is entirely of its making. Since the rulings of the imperial European Court of Human Rights are deemed to be the “official interpretation” of the text of the European Convention on Human Rights, they are imposed on all European states (except Russia, Belarus and Vatican City) as supreme law, which no parliamentary majority can overturn. So much for “democracy.”

In discussing the US, the author cites the recent CASA decision in which SCOTUS largely limited the ability of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This functions as a correction of a national trend in the US towards an imperial judiciary, but much more is needed to solidify the gains.

In summary:

The role of the judges is to enforce the law in the face of the disputes brought before them. Any attempt to legislate in place of democratic bodies is dictatorial, and a negation of national sovereignty, as well as the separation of powers.

But as the left loses power with the voters it turns to the courts in which leftist judges can advance the left’s agenda. It’s easier to not have to deal with the electorate at all, and the only corrective is the appointment of more judges who are not on the left. Once judicial power becomes entrenched, it’s very difficult to reverse course. Attempts to do so tend to be met with cries from the left of “imperial presidency!” and “dictatorship!” But, as Barrett’s opinion in CASA stated:

“Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett wrote. “No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”

She continued to suggest that Jackson should “heed her own admonition.”

“‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law,’” Barrett wrote, quoting Jackson. “That goes for judges too.”

But not for judge-emperors.

Biden’s doctor pleads the Fifth and doctor-patient privilege

The New Neo Posted on by

Congress wanted to question Biden’s physician, but he has declined to cooperate:

Kevin O’Connor, who served as Joe Biden’s physician while the former president was in office, refused to testify in a closed-door interview as part of the House GOP probe into Biden’s mental acuity and whether his inner circle sought to conceal his limitations from the public.

O’Connor Wednesday morning asserted doctor-patient privilege and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to a statement from his attorneys. He had repeatedly argued his duties as a doctor complicated his ability to testify under oath about his patient, preventing him from sharing some sensitive information.

“On the advice of his legal counsel, Dr. O’Connor refused to answer questions that invaded the well-established legal privilege that protects confidential matters between physicians and their patients,” the statement read. “His assertion of his right under the Fifth Amendment to decline to answer questions, also on the advice of his lawyers, was made necessary by the unique circumstances of this deposition.

Connor could be granted immunity from prosecution, but that would only affect his invoking of the Fifth and not the doctor-patient privilege.

When can doctor-patient confidentiality be breached? If Biden were to give his consent – which is highly unlikely – it could happen. But short of that, it’s hard to say. Most of the information on the subject (such as, for example, this) doesn’t seem to cover the special issue of a president’s health, which is a matter of grave national security. Plus, in this particular case, the doctor has already made public statements on Biden’s health in the past – false assurances – and perhaps that matters.

Antifa terrorists try to murder ICE agents

The New Neo Posted on by

And here they are. Quite a rogue’s gallery. By the way – continuing a recent trend – two members of the gang are trans (second row, lower left):

Andy Ngo @MrAndyNgo
These are the 10 alleged members of a north Texas Antifa terror cell accused of carrying out the attempted murder of federal officers at a shooting terrorist attack on an ICE facility on the Fourth of July in Alvarado, Texas.

One local police officer was shot in the neck, and survived. The group was armed with multiple rifles, pistols, body armor, escape vehicles, radios, and other devices indicating a planned conspiracy.

Multiple members of the cell are confirmed trans.

They’ve been charged federally with attempted murder and also face local charges of terrorism in Johnson County, Texas.

As Ace points out, former FBI director Christopher Wray had sworn that Antifa was “just an idea.”

I imagine I’m not the only person “of a certain age” who remembers the violent revolutionary perps of the 1960s and 1970s, and is reminded of that. Not exactly the same, of course – but it rhymes. This particular group seems to have very much intended to kill multiple ICE agents and/or police. They were apparently not all that competent at their task, fortunately. They are egged on by the MSM and the Democrat Party, who have made ICE agents out to be more or less the Gestapo, preying on poor innocents.

Now it’s Sotomayor who schools Ketanji Brown Jackson on the law

The New Neo Posted on by

Recently Justice Barrett gave Jackson somewhat of a tongue-lashing when Barrett wrote the majority opinion on the national injunction case. I wrote about it in this recent post. That sort of personal dissing is somewhat unusual between or among SCOTUS colleagues. But at least Barrett and Jackson are on different sides of the political spectrum.

Now the task of reprimanding Jackson has fallen to a fellow liberal justice, Sonia Sotomayor. That’s even more newsworthy:

I find it interesting that both of these chidings were issued by other women on the Court.

Incredibly sad: the Texas flood victims

The New Neo Posted on by

We are getting more information on the victims of the Texas flash flood. It’s almost indescribably sad to see their photos and read their stories, including those of so many young girls. Many of the victims at the camp were around eight years old, which leads me to believe that particular cabin was hardest hit. There are also some sisters, including a pair of twins.

See this as well as this. So so sad. And now the governor of Texas is saying that at least 160 people remain missing.

And yet the left is trying to make political hay of such a tragedy. No surprise there; Katrina was the template.

The tragedy stirs up the age-old question of why bad things happen to good people. There are a number of choices. The first is that God exists but is not omnipotent. The second is that God exists but does not micromanage the world and create constant miracles; floods are the consequence of natural forces in nature. The third is to be an atheist. The fourth is the response of the Book of Job, which if I understand it correctly says that God exists but we cannot possibly understand His ways and should trust Him.

RIP.

The imperial judiciary strikes again

The New Neo Posted on by

A Massachusetts district judge has stopped Congress’ defunding of Planned Parenthood, at least for the next two weeks:

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani placed a temporary restraining order on the provision of President Donald Trump’s bill that defunds Planned Parenthood.

It expires in 14 days.

The abortion mill sued the Trump administration because the “big, beautiful bill” banned it from receiving Medicaid payments.

The organization claimed Trump’s administration targeted it “in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds.”

How can the judge do that, in light of the recent SCOTUS limits on nationwide injunctions by district courts? I’m scratching my head on that, but perhaps because it’s not technically an injunction but instead a restraining order, which has basically the same effect? And in addition, this was a piece of duly-passed Congressional legislation, not a mere executive order.

So, on what basis did Judge Talwani make the decision? I searched around, looking at commentary that didn’t explain that, and finally I went to the judge’s order itself. No reason whatsoever is given. I guess Judge Talwani felt she didn’t have to do so.

As you might expect, Judge Talwani has the usual liberal/left bona fides. Radcliffe undergrad, Berkeley law school, Obama appointee. No doubt a heroine to many, but not to me.

Why do people care about the Jewish vote?

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s commenter “Niketas Choniates” on the recent thread about the Jews of NYC not voting for Mamdani:

Probably this is because it’s a primary and only a small percentage of people voted at all.

If anyone is still paying attention at the time, we will learn the true answer after the election for mayor, presuming that someone bothers to poll NYC Jews to find out how they voted.

The votes of Jews, however, except in a few cities, are electorally negligible, there are not many of them to begin with and overwhelmingly concentrated in deep-blue cities. Chasing their votes seems to be to be outdated thinking, as there are other minority blocs that are larger and in places that matter more.

Pew estimated in 2020 about 6 million Jews in the US, 1.5 million of whom say they are not religious. They say a lot more than that of course because of the “who counts” issue.

This website has a different number but breaks down by metro area. New York, Los Angeles, and Miami account for just under half of the total. DC, Philadephia, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit account for another quarter, which leaves something like 2 million more scattered across the country.

Jews in America are comparable in size to Chinese Americans and Indian Americans, each at about 5.5 million. It seems hardly anyone spends as much time talking about what Chinese and Indian Americans are going to think, as they spend talking about what Jews are going to think. Especially with Indians I think this a huge mistake, considering where Indians tend to concentrate in the economy. There are increasingly more Indians in C suites and in national office.

Of course Mexican Americans and Black Americans represent far larger shares of the population, each near 12% of the total population. There’s also a lot of outdated thinking on who Mexican Americans actually are and what is likely to appeal to them, but I bet some party is spending bezillions to try to figure it out, either now or very soon. It would be effort much better spent than worrying about if American Jews want to vote for socialist Democrats or not.

Good points. And yet people do seem to care more about how Jews vote for several reasons. One is Jew-hatred by those who like to blame them. As I said in my post, I often see comments on the right that say something like, “I’ll start caring about Jew-hating when the Jews stop voting for Democrats.” It’s the same with Israel – much of the world cares disproportionately about Israel because a great deal of the world hates Jews.

But it’s certainly not just that. Those who love and/or admire Jews care too, of course – but the point is that feelings about Jews are often hyper-intense, both positive or negative.

In addition, the post I wrote about Jews and Mamdani was about the NYC primary, a city where Jews are a very important voting bloc, about 11% or 12% according to most sites. That’s not as large as the city’s black or Hispanic population, but it’s still a large and influential group.

They are also an important voting bloc in the swing state of Pennsylvania. Also in Florida, which is not a swing state, and where Jews vote more for the GOP than in a state such as NY; see this about the 2024 election:

The AP/Fox News Voter Analysis Exit Poll has updated some of its numbers since yesterday, showing even better results than we quoted in the graphic above:

In Arizona, Trump won 38% of the Jewish vote.

In Nevada, he won 42% of the Jewish vote.

In Florida, he won 44% of the Jewish vote.

In New York he won 46% of the Jewish vote.

In Pennsylvania, where the Honan Group did a specific, state-wide exit poll, President Trump won 41% of the Jewish vote.

*Many polls (including CNN) don’t have a large enough sample of Jewish voters to be reliable. The AP/Fox News Voter Analysis Exit Poll is a national poll with a much larger sample size, making it possible to extrapolate data about some specific states.

It’s challenging to get figures for Jews, because of the sampling problem, but those figures for GOP votes among Jews in 2024 are probably significantly higher than most people imagine.

There’s another thing about Jewish voters: they tend to have high turnout.

And lastly, much of the emphasis on the Jewish vote, or appealing to the Jewish vote, is actually an appeal to Jewish donors.