The law firm of choice for internationally focused companies

+263 242 744 677

admin@tsazim.com

4 Gunhill Avenue,

Harare, Zimbabwe

ABA Defends Rule Of Law Against Entitled Billionaire And Yale Law Grad Who Didn’t Do His Con Law Readings – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

What
is
the
major
difference
between
a
president
and
a
king?
Presidents
just
come
from
wealth
or
the
right
family,
while
kings
come
from
wealth
and

the
right
family.

Jokes
aside
—
the
main
difference
is
that
presidents
are
subject
to
the
rule
of
law.
The
assumption
since
the
Founding
has
been
that
the
checks
and
balances
of
our
three
branches
coupled
with
the
rule
of
law
would
be
the
two
anchors
that
would
prevent
presidents
from
becoming
the
kings
that
we
fought
a
war’s
worth
of
independence
over.
You
know
what
happens
when
you
make
assumptions;
Trump
gets
elected
for
a
second
time!

During
the
first
Trump
presidency
it
wasn’t
uncommon
to
see
headlines
like
“Trump
Attacks
on
the
Rule
Of
Law
Reach
a
New
Level.”
Not
to
be
outdone
by
himself,
one
of
his
first
acts
under
his
second
term
undermined
the
birthright
citizenship
guaranteed
by
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
And
he
isn’t
the
only
one
undermining
the
two
anchors
—
JD
Vance
took
to
X
to
show
that
he
doesn’t
have
an
even
basic
understanding
of
how
judicial
review
works:

I’ll
take
signs
that
JD
Vance
slept
through
the
war
powers
module
of
Con
Law
for
$400,
Alex!
When
a
person
is

this
loud
and
wrong,
you
can
usually
depend
on
someone
to
step
up
and
call
out
the
stupidity.
Unfortunately,
we
are
living
in
one
of
the
shithole-ier
timelines
and
legally
illiterate
folks
are
coming
out
of
the
woodwork
to
support
Trump
&
Co.

Lawless
here
is
of
course
the
suit-and-tie
version
of
saying
“If
the
judge’s
decision
hurts
my
feefees
it
doesn’t
count.”
It
isn’t
“lawless”
if
the
Supreme
Court
rules
that
an
abuse
of
power
was
abusive.
It
goes
further,
actually
—
the
Judiciary,
after

Marbury
v.
Madison,

has
to
be
the
adjudicator
that
delineates
which
acts
of
Congress
or
the
Executive
aren’t
constitutional
or,
put
positively
—
abusive.
Because
if
they
didn’t,
who
would?
The
branches
themselves?
It
isn’t
a
perfect
solution,
but
knowing
that

quis
custodiet
ipsos
custodes
is
answered
2/3rds
of
the
way
by
judicial
review
is
better
than
having
an
unaccounted
for
triumvirate
Congress,
Executive,
and
Judiciary.

At
a
time
like
this,
we
need
strong
advocates
of
judicial
review
and
the
rule
of
law
to
speak
out
against
the
Executive
soft
launching
their
plans
to
ignore
them.
And
while
Chief
Justice
Roberts
has
been
asleep
at
the
helm,
the
American
Bar
Association
took
the
time
to
set
the
record
straight
on
questions
of
judicial
review.
From
the

ABA:

The
American
Bar
Association
condemns
recent
remarks
of
high-ranking
officials
of
the
administration
that
appear
to
question
the
legitimacy
of
judicial
review
and
demand
impeachment
of
a
judge
merely
because
the
court
did
not
agree
with
the
government’s
position.
These
comments pose
serious
risks
to
our
constitutional
framework
that
separates
power
among
three
co-equal
branches.
…
These
bold
assertions,
designed
to
intimidate
judges
by
threatening
removal
if
they
do
not
rule
the
government’s
way,
cross
the
line.
They
create
a
risk
to
the
physical
security
of
judges
and
have
no
place
in
our
society.
There
have
also
been
suggestions
that
the
executive
branch
should
consider
disobeying
court
orders.
These
statements
threaten
the
very
foundation
of
our
constitutional
system. 

I’m
usually
pretty
big
on
sharing
a
bit
from
the
source
material
and
carrying
on
with
my
own
thoughts,
but
right
now
feels
like
one
of
those
“Damn
it,
we’re
living
through
the
interesting
times
that
gets
put
in
a
history
book”
moments.
Take
a
moment
to
read
the
full
condemnation.
And
also
take
a
moment
to
see
for
yourself
what
the
ABA
is
speaking
out
against.
As
great
as
the
response
is,
the
ABA
is
doing
a
bit
of
sneak
dissing
throughout
the
condemnation.
These
are
trying,
turbulent
times
and
it
is
expected
that
such
a
publication
would
write
carefully
so
as
to
not
upset
their
readers.
We
are
not
one
of
those
publications.
Some
of
the
sneak
dissing
took
shots
at
our
Dunce
in
Chief
Elon
Musk.
We’ve
often
covered

Musk
getting
pissy
over
judges
not
ruling
his
way
or

bankrolling
Texas
because
he
didn’t
like
that
Delaware
held
him
accountable,
but
this
unelected
bureaucrat
muddling
his
way
through
trying
to
explain
that
we
need
to
get
rid
of
unelected
bureaucrats
(presumably
judges)
sets
the
stage
for
why
the
ABA’s
message
is
so
important
to
hear:

Out
of
good
faith,
it
is
worth
mentioning
that
people
have
discussed
the
risk
to
democracy
that
judges
can
pose
—
you
can
find
a
bunch
of
writing
about
what’s
come
to
be
known
as
the
counter-majoritarian
problem.
But
the
push
back
that
the
Trump
administration
has
been
getting
from
judges
—
take
the
judicial
orders
stopping
Trump
from
getting
rid
of
birthright
citizenship
via
executive
order
—
is
not
a
counter-majoritarian
or
a
bureaucracy
issue.
It’s
an
issue
with
not
being
allowed
to
run
rampant.
That’s
why
it
is
important
for
the
ABA,
lawyers,
and
anyone
else
interested
in
the
rule
of
law
to
nip
these
tantrums
in
the
bud
before
they
grow
into
entitlements
to
ignore
the
law.


ABA
Condemns
Remarks
Questioning
Legitimacy
Of
Courts
And
Judicial
Review
[American
Bar]


Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.