Posted on 11/18/2019 4:21:28 PM PST by DeweyCA
The author provides the following from Bill Barr's excellent recent speech to The Federalist Society.
Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government…
One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law. When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.
Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of Executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.
The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.
From there, Barr argued that the left has an advantage over the right because it approaches politics as a kind of substitute religion:
In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.
Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?
For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.
Skip
Let me guess they plan to impeach him ,LOL
“He not only understands the root problem, he is willing to verbalize it. “
Actions. Saying the right things to a receptive audience is not doing something.
Why is it an ‘attack’ to tell the truth about ‘the resistance’?
Of course, I know that the truth is always attacks against any and all liberal ways of thinking.
Bravo, Mr. Barr.
Judge Nappy just criticized Barr for the speech, saying he fundamentally disagreed with him.
You take the most flak over the target.
The Dems have threatened that already.
“Judge Nappy just criticized Barr for the speech, saying he fundamentally disagreed with him.”
Which is reason number 997 why Nappy ain’t the AG.
L
He is certainly, so far, very different from what Jeff Sessions was.
Other than he eats 30 more cheeseburgers a day, there ain’t a dam dimes difference. Make speeches while your country burn with corruption you are supposed to do something about. Barr and Whore-a-wits are a disgrace to justice.
They don’t seem to disagree with his characterization, but object to him saying it out loud.
Any predawn raids at the coup leaders houses with a platoon of assault rifle armed agents? Charges filed? I miss that?
LOL
Stop watching Judge Nappy. When he is on Fox, change the channel. If you have a cable box or satellite tv box, Fox will know that the ratings are down when Nappy is on the air. If enough of us ignore him, he will go away.
Nappy, the garden gnome, is a tiresome defender of the Left. He is one of the reasons we no longer are devoted FOX News viewers.
The first step in tackling a problem is to identify it. Unlike Neil gorsuch, who claims,the opposition also loves this country, Barr understands the deep seeded destructive nature of the Collectivists,
Envy is its most powerful force
p
*where’s the “HA-HA” guy*...
I wonder why Nappy isn’t a judge anymore. Do you suppose it has anything to do with his poor judgement?
If every Bolshie ends up a felon in prison, it won’t be enough.
Eddie Munster is a jack@ss, is wrong 98% of the time, and is still mad because Trump wouldn’t nominate him for SCOTUS.
He’s a very petty and bitter man, ZERO credibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.