ShareThis Page
Joseph Sabino Mistick: Courts keep Trump in check | TribLIVE.com
Joseph Sabino Mistick, Columnist

Joseph Sabino Mistick: Courts keep Trump in check

810247_web1_TrumpBorderRally
President Trump speaks during a rally in El Paso, Texas, Feb. 11.

Since 1803, February has come and gone with hardly any mention of Marbury v. Madison, which was decided by the Supreme Court 216 years ago. The principle of judicial review was established then, and without that, American history and these last two years would have been very different.

The case arose after Thomas Jefferson had beaten incumbent President John Adams in 1800 in one of the dirtiest political campaigns ever — on both sides. And while the details of the underlying legal dispute hardly matter, the holding of the case continues to shape the nation.

That holding established the power of the courts to strike down laws and executive actions that violate the United States Constitution. And it still keeps us from the ills of monarchies, dictatorships and imperial presidencies.

As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote then, “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.”

And while President Donald Trump’s base loves it when he flexes his political muscles, his strongman tendencies would go unchecked without the courts. Sometimes he wins and sometimes he loses, some decisions are final and others only temporary, but the system works.

When a judge stopped Trump from denying asylum consideration for anyone who failed to enter the United States at a port of entry, Trump groused that the decision came from an “Obama judge.” But the Supreme Court refused to change that decision.

And in a rare public rebuke, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

When the Trump administration attempted to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate or bar anti-Trump tweeters from using @RealDonaldTrump or deny federal funds to self-declared sanctuary cities or end DACA, the courts have pumped the brakes.

And Trump’s latest declaration of an emergency on our southern border, a ploy to go around Congress in order to pay for his wall — the wall that he promised us Mexico would pay for — will also be resolved by the courts if Congress fails to stop him.

Politicians and government leaders rise and fall, and the will of the majority changes with the wind. Through it all, this government of laws has survived because there is a final arbiter, a branch of government that keeps us mostly on track while we sort things out.

It may seem that the rancor and divisions of our times will never heal. Adams and Jefferson must have thought that, too, as they battled through the thicket of hateful accusations in the years following Marbury v. Madison.

But, by the time they both died, on July 4, 1826, hours apart and 50 years after the adoption of America’s Declaration of Independence, Adams and Jefferson had become friends again.

Much like soldiers of combating armies who have faced each other from opposite foxholes, Adams and Jefferson spent their later years corresponding about the satisfaction that comes from hard-fought battles over the things that really count.

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer. Reach him at [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.