Joseph Sabino Mistick: Trump’s disdain for law & order |
Joseph Sabino Mistick, Columnist

Joseph Sabino Mistick: Trump’s disdain for law & order

Joseph Sabino Mistick
President Donald Trump

“Cruella De Vil” and “The Queen of Mean” are just a couple of the nicknames for Kirstjen Nielsen that have been making the rounds since she was fired as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. At the end of the day, “Cruella” was not cruel enough and the “Queen” was not mean enough for Donald Trump.

Trump wanted someone who would follow orders, even illegal ones, and clamp down on the border with Mexico. And reporters covering the department say that he was frustrated with Nielsen’s refusal to ignore the law. Still, she can never escape her embrace of Trump’s policy that split refugee families and lost track of some children forever.

If nothing else, Trump has been consistent when it comes to ordering others to break the law. CNN’s Jake Tapper reported earlier in the week that Trump “told border agents to not let migrants in. Tell them we don’t have the capacity, he said. If judges give you trouble, say, ‘Sorry, judge, I can’t do it. We don’t have the room.’ ”

Agents who are accustomed to taking orders asked their superiors if they should listen to the president or follow the law. They were told that if they listened to the president, they would be on their own and personally liable for their actions.

A few days later, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told the House Ways and Means Committee that it was out of line for asking the IRS to turn over six years of Trump’s tax returns. And acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said that the committee will “never” get the returns. Never mind that the law provides for exactly that when requested by the committee chair.

We saw this coming. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump encouraged Russia to break the law and hack Hillary Clinton’s email accounts. At a Florida event, he said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

And, at rallies, Trump promised to pay his supporters’ legal fees if they roughed up protesters. He told an Iowa audience, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell … I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise.”

While this is a different kind of presidency in so many ways, Trump’s disdain for law and order and the courts is not without precedent. Coincidentally, we saw it from Trump hero Andrew Jackson, the seventh president.

Jackson had no more respect for the courts than Trump does, and when confronted with a troublesome Supreme Court decision by Justice John Marshall, he challenged the court, saying something like, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”

The population of the United States was less than 13 million then, and we were just getting used to the separation of powers and checks and balances, but Jackson’s arrogance and belligerence could have derailed the American experiment early on. Now, we shall see if our system is as durable and unshakeable as it was designed to be.

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 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.