In prior commentaries, I drew a parallel between the role of 16th century Italian mercenary captains despised for their corruption by Niccolo Machiavelli, and Donald Trump’s ascent in American politics to president.
Because the governing experience of mercenary captains was limited to the practice of war, Machiavelli regarded them ill-equipped to rule the populace of a city state during times of peace.
As a consequence of their limitations and once ascendant to ruling a city state, mercenary princes routinely sowed “disordini” or disorder, turmoil, and unrest across the political spectrum as their preferred method of governance. The results were disastrous.
We now live in similar times in America.
Neither the mercenary princes of Machiavelli’s era nor Trump have the skill set, temperament or character to govern in any other fashion.
This commentary examines aspects of Trump’s relationship with the judiciary which he regards — just as mercenary princes did in 16th century Italy — as competitors for political power.
—————
Trump’s war with the judiciary
There is no need to recite Trump’s personal attacks on sitting judges for the readership of The Legal News. Nor is there any question his incendiary remarks can encourage violence. He knows it and we know it.
Trump does not care because as he observed on January 6, his violent followers “are not after me.”
Judges know that slanders and insults directed at them are often designed to bait a court into saying something or taking action that may serve to question a judge’s impartiality and lead to an otherwise unjustified motion to disqualify.
While judges can take steps to preserve the impartiality of a jury from such abuse, they cannot take effective steps to counter these attacks personal against them when the author is the President of the United States. Under Supreme Court authority, Trump enjoys immunity for criminal acts within the purview of his official duties.
For Trump, abusing judges and other public officials, no matter where it might lead, is an official act. As a consequence, judges and their families have to accept the risks to their safety posed by the his abusive conduct.
Trump knows that, but he does not care.
For Trump, the risks associated with a jurist’s refusal to fall in step with his agenda extends to their families.
—————
Sidelining the courts
The Trump administration recently asserted that the Secretary of State has exclusive authority to remove foreign nationals from the country without judicial oversight based on the secretary’s “personal” determination that an individual poses a threat to U.S. foreign policy.
There are many, many flaws with this argument, but there are also historical precedents for similar procedures. The precedent is not in 16th century Italy, but resides in 20th century Germany.
—————
“Police Justice” in Nazi Germany
In his 2001 book “Backing Hitler,” scholar Robert Gellately describes the system of Nazi “Police Justice” that sidestepped German courts to provide expedited procedures for the police to process certain criminal elements. The procedures were first instituted in 1933.
Once established, police justice expanded over time along with its brutality.
The rationale for police justice was simple. There was a need for expedited action based on the threat numerous individuals and groups posed to German society. Courts would be overburdened and delay this needed justice that the country’s leader had promised to deliver to the electorate on an expedited basis. Hence, the police must be unleashed to act as they see fit.
The German public was assured by the Nazis “that while courts worked well when hard evidence could be found, the police had to act when there was insufficient evidence. They knew how to recognize guilt.”
—————
Police justice in America
“The judicial process is for Americans. Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. If you break into someone’s house you don’t get to spend months or years debating your presence. Trespassers must go. And they must go now.” Stephen Miller, April 12 post.
“I am doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our Country, but the courts don’t seem to want me to do that … If we don’t get these criminals out of our Country, we are not going to have a Country any longer. We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years …. Such a thing is not possible to do.” Donald Trump, post April 21.
At a minimum “thousands, maybe tens of thousands” of immigrants [are] waging war with the U.S. and “when you take their extended family, their networks” into account those numbers range into the millions. J. D. Vance interview aboard Air Force Two at Leonardo da Vinci Airport, reported May 21.
On NBC’s April 27 “Meet the Press,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the deportation of undocumented mothers along with their children — U.S. citizens by birth ages 2, 4 and 7 — saying: “Their mothers, who were illegally in this country were deported. The children went with the mothers.”
—————
Family punishment in America
Given the reference to extended families as being within the catchment of deportable Americans even when they are citizens, Vance and Rubio might consider adding Robert Loeffel’s 2012 book, “Family Punishment in Nazi Germany” to their summer reading list. It contains the blueprint of “sippenhaft” or “collective family punishment” as practiced by the Nazi’s on German citizens.
Like the implementation of Police Justice, sippenhaft began small but grew larger over time and more brutal.
U.S. citizen children are now subject to the risks posed to their safety by deportation. The families of American jurists who refuse to fall in step with Trump’s agenda are similarly subject to risks to their safety posed by Trump’s violent followers.
Where an unchecked government plays a role in the act, it is irrelevant to a victim of collective family punishment just who actually wields the club of intimidation or coercion that harms them.
If members of the Trump administration take issue with being compared to Nazis, they have a simple solution: stop behaving like Nazis.
Because the governing experience of mercenary captains was limited to the practice of war, Machiavelli regarded them ill-equipped to rule the populace of a city state during times of peace.
As a consequence of their limitations and once ascendant to ruling a city state, mercenary princes routinely sowed “disordini” or disorder, turmoil, and unrest across the political spectrum as their preferred method of governance. The results were disastrous.
We now live in similar times in America.
Neither the mercenary princes of Machiavelli’s era nor Trump have the skill set, temperament or character to govern in any other fashion.
This commentary examines aspects of Trump’s relationship with the judiciary which he regards — just as mercenary princes did in 16th century Italy — as competitors for political power.
—————
Trump’s war with the judiciary
There is no need to recite Trump’s personal attacks on sitting judges for the readership of The Legal News. Nor is there any question his incendiary remarks can encourage violence. He knows it and we know it.
Trump does not care because as he observed on January 6, his violent followers “are not after me.”
Judges know that slanders and insults directed at them are often designed to bait a court into saying something or taking action that may serve to question a judge’s impartiality and lead to an otherwise unjustified motion to disqualify.
While judges can take steps to preserve the impartiality of a jury from such abuse, they cannot take effective steps to counter these attacks personal against them when the author is the President of the United States. Under Supreme Court authority, Trump enjoys immunity for criminal acts within the purview of his official duties.
For Trump, abusing judges and other public officials, no matter where it might lead, is an official act. As a consequence, judges and their families have to accept the risks to their safety posed by the his abusive conduct.
Trump knows that, but he does not care.
For Trump, the risks associated with a jurist’s refusal to fall in step with his agenda extends to their families.
—————
Sidelining the courts
The Trump administration recently asserted that the Secretary of State has exclusive authority to remove foreign nationals from the country without judicial oversight based on the secretary’s “personal” determination that an individual poses a threat to U.S. foreign policy.
There are many, many flaws with this argument, but there are also historical precedents for similar procedures. The precedent is not in 16th century Italy, but resides in 20th century Germany.
—————
“Police Justice” in Nazi Germany
In his 2001 book “Backing Hitler,” scholar Robert Gellately describes the system of Nazi “Police Justice” that sidestepped German courts to provide expedited procedures for the police to process certain criminal elements. The procedures were first instituted in 1933.
Once established, police justice expanded over time along with its brutality.
The rationale for police justice was simple. There was a need for expedited action based on the threat numerous individuals and groups posed to German society. Courts would be overburdened and delay this needed justice that the country’s leader had promised to deliver to the electorate on an expedited basis. Hence, the police must be unleashed to act as they see fit.
The German public was assured by the Nazis “that while courts worked well when hard evidence could be found, the police had to act when there was insufficient evidence. They knew how to recognize guilt.”
—————
Police justice in America
“The judicial process is for Americans. Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. If you break into someone’s house you don’t get to spend months or years debating your presence. Trespassers must go. And they must go now.” Stephen Miller, April 12 post.
“I am doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our Country, but the courts don’t seem to want me to do that … If we don’t get these criminals out of our Country, we are not going to have a Country any longer. We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years …. Such a thing is not possible to do.” Donald Trump, post April 21.
At a minimum “thousands, maybe tens of thousands” of immigrants [are] waging war with the U.S. and “when you take their extended family, their networks” into account those numbers range into the millions. J. D. Vance interview aboard Air Force Two at Leonardo da Vinci Airport, reported May 21.
On NBC’s April 27 “Meet the Press,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the deportation of undocumented mothers along with their children — U.S. citizens by birth ages 2, 4 and 7 — saying: “Their mothers, who were illegally in this country were deported. The children went with the mothers.”
—————
Family punishment in America
Given the reference to extended families as being within the catchment of deportable Americans even when they are citizens, Vance and Rubio might consider adding Robert Loeffel’s 2012 book, “Family Punishment in Nazi Germany” to their summer reading list. It contains the blueprint of “sippenhaft” or “collective family punishment” as practiced by the Nazi’s on German citizens.
Like the implementation of Police Justice, sippenhaft began small but grew larger over time and more brutal.
U.S. citizen children are now subject to the risks posed to their safety by deportation. The families of American jurists who refuse to fall in step with Trump’s agenda are similarly subject to risks to their safety posed by Trump’s violent followers.
Where an unchecked government plays a role in the act, it is irrelevant to a victim of collective family punishment just who actually wields the club of intimidation or coercion that harms them.
If members of the Trump administration take issue with being compared to Nazis, they have a simple solution: stop behaving like Nazis.
