Streetwise Professor

Last night Joe Biden mumbled a speech that allegedly explained his decision not to seek the Democratic Party nomination for president. He explained nothing. Indeed, it was farcically nonsensical.

He claimed that (a) he is one of the greatest presidents ever, with remarkable accomplishments, and (b) “the best way forward” for the nation was for him not to run–and thereby not continue his great leadership.

There was no explanation of how he got from (a) to (b). It was like the speech was written by the Underpants Gnomes of South Park: 1. Be a great president. 2. ???? 3. Don’t run for a second term.

The speech really sounded like him making the case for a second term that should have been met with cries of “Four More Years!” But no: he’s outta here.

Square that circle for me.

For her part, Stupide Jean-Pierre asserted that Biden’s decision had nothing–NOTHING–to do with his health. He’s hale and hearty and fit to be president not just for a half year, but four and a half years.

So what is it then? Inquiring minds want to know. (That would necessarily exclude the media, of course).

We therefore have a Schrödinger’s presidency. He is too dead to stand for a second term, but too alive to leave office before the end of his first.

That quantum uncertainty is extremely convenient for the Democratic Party, which engineered this entire fiasco: indeed it is their creation. Biden’s obvious decrepitude means that they had to get rid of him as a candidate, but having him leave office now would create extreme political difficulties.

Going the 25th Amendment route would lead to Congressional hearings–which would result in awkward questions regarding how long he has been non compos mentis and who knew it when and the machinations behind his defenestration. Resignation would put Kamala Harris in the presidency, and require the naming of a vice president–which would also entail Congressional hearings. Not having a VP would also mean that Kamala could not break ties in any legislation that the Democrats try to ram through before a possible, and indeed likely, defeat in November.

It is beyond obvious that the real reason for Biden’s involuntary exit is that the Democratic Party “elite” (most prominently Barack Obama) and its donors deemed Biden unelectable. Meaning that they decided to disenfranchise its primary electorate, and indeed, to rubbish the entire primary system to return to the pre-1968 party boss system.

In the name of “our” democracy, dontcha know. (Just who this “our” encompasses is an interesting question. Democrats always utter the phrase in a very proprietary way).

Well, truth be told they had already rubbished the primary system in 2020 and especially in 2024, when the Party rigged the system so that Biden would face no real primary opposition. (Recall that several states actually canceled their Democratic primaries).

But Biden’s increasingly impossible to conceal mental incapacity blew that clever scheme to smithereens. So the same consiglieri (and especially the capo di tutti capi, Obama) who brought upon themselves-and the nation-that fiasco have again decided to smother even the possibility of competition for the nomination and install their preferred candidate-Kamala.

Selection, Not Election: The Sequel. (Could actually be Part IV. The nomination process was rigged in 2016 and 2020 (just ask Bernie), and obviously twice in 2024. There hasn’t been a truly competitive, election-driven nominating process in the Democratic Party since 2008).

Perhaps there is reason for optimism. Since their Plan A was an epic failure, why should their Plan B (which is just a variant of A) work any better?

One of my interlocutors on X said that this all reminded him of The Death of Stalin. There are some parallels, but it reminds me more of the ouster of Khrushchev: a coup mounted by the party to remove its leader who had become inconvenient.

Either way, it’s all very, very Soviet.

And by the way: does a coup count as insurrection, or nah?

And speaking of Soviet, the airbrushing of Kamala’s past and the rewriting of history that began the second she was anointed would make a 1930s Soviet propagandist blush. The sick part is that one could argue that the Soviet apparatchik knew that the consequences of not doing so were the gulag or death: the U.S. media is doing it because they want to. They are again using Orwell as a playbook not a warning: “He who controls the past controls the future.”

The past few weeks have been the most shameful in American history. But I believe that the weeks to come will put them in the shade.

To commemorate the 160th anniversary of what I consider to be the most remarkable feat of arms in the Civil War I am reposting my 2010 post on the battle. I also wrote an extended and heavily illustrated thread on X:

160 years ago today was fought one of the most fascinating battles of the Civil War. It is known by many names. The Battle of Atlanta. The Battle of July 22nd. Hood's Second Sortie. An extended thread follows. Extended because the complexity of the battled requires it.

— streetwiseprof (@streetwiseprof) July 22, 2024

The Battle of Atlanta was the quintessential soldier’s battle. At the end of the X thread I quote Joseph Johnston’s statement that there had been no such army as Sherman’s since Caesar’s. The Army of the Tennessee’s repulse of attacks from front flank and rear does bear some similarities to some of Caesar’s most desperate battles, notably Alesia.

The difference was that (at least by Caesar’s telling) his personal leadership was instrumental in winning: on 22 July 1864 Sherman had nothing to do with it, McPherson was killed at the outset, and with the exception of Black Jack Logan making an inspirational appearance on his black charger and directing some forces to counterattack, generals had little to do with it. It was the colonels, regimental field officers, company officers, and especially the soldiers who responded to the daunting tactical challenges.

The same was true of the Confederates. Leadership above the brigade level exerted no control on the battle.

On both sides, veterans steeled by two-and-one-half years of combat knew how to fight, and on their own hook. They proved it 160 years ago today.

J. D. Vance has been nominated as the Republican candidate for Vice President. I wrote about Vance, and his book Hillbilly Elegy, about 3.5 years ago. The end of the piece talks about the venom directed at Vance and those he wrote about when the movie version of the book came out:

In sum, Hillbilly Elegy is a Rorschach Test. Show it to me, and it evokes the attributes and deep flaws and great struggles of my family–struggles that made it possible for me to have an unbelievable blessed life that has been able to grab the boundless opportunities America offers. Show it to the coastal “elite” and it triggers all they hate about America, and many who live in it.

Streetwiseprofessor.com

That disdain and vituperation has been turned up to 11 since Trump announced him as his VP choice. It’s fair to say that VDS–Vance Derangement Syndrome–has spread faster than the Spanish Flu on the left.

It’s hard to choose the most insane of the criticisms, but I think this gem from some MSNBC lunatic (but I repeat myself) is a heavy favorite:

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner accused Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance of dropping an “easter egg of white nationalism” by mentioning that he hoped to be buried in his family’s plot in Kentucky during his speech at the Republican National Convention Wednesday night:

MSN

It’s easy to understand why Trump chose Vance. Trump wants to be an impactful president. He wants to leave a lasting legacy. A MAGA legacy. Of all national political figures, Vance is most closely aligned with Trump ideologically. He is young. There is no one more fit to make MAGA a historical era, rather than a transient phase tied to a particular personality.

And perhaps it is this that is driving the left even more insane than usual about a decision (choice of a vice president) that is seldom of great and lasting importance.

Trump wisely rejected all of the traditional criteria for choosing a VP, specifically ideological, geographical, and identity balancing. Picking a say Nicky Haley as VP would have ensured that Trump’s impact would be evanescent (except on the mental health of the left). Historically such decision making has worked out badly–G. H. W. Bush being perhaps the best example.

As for Vance, he truly does tick all of the Jacksonian boxes identified by Walter Russell Mead in his famous article of decades ago. Most notable is his belief in the primacy of what Mead called the American “folk community” (something that was a big part of his acceptance speech) as opposed to newcomers and foreigners. This is precisely the thing that the progressive left considers a barbarous atavism, especially considering those whom Vance considers to be the bedrock of the folk community. Hint: they don’t live in Brooklyn, NY. (Some in Brooklyn, MI maybe).

Relatedly, no globalist he. With that comes a foreign policy vision starkly at odds with the Uniparty consensus that harkens back to Republicans of an earlier era, like Henry Cabot Lodge and (fellow Ohioan) Robert Taft, and indeed to George Washington with his aversion to foreign entanglements. He is an anti-Wilsonian–and hence an anti-Bushian and anti-neocon, which is why people likely Lindsey Graham looked so glum when Vance spoke in Milwaukee. And keep Vladamir Zelensky away from sharp objects.

This mission to protect the folk community also leads him to favor trade protectionism, also something of a throwback to historical Republican policy–the Republicans were the protectionist party, and the Democrats the free traders, through the 19th and early 20th centuries. He is also well-disposed to various forms of industrial policy and minimum wages and has said nice things about antitrust loon Lina Khan.

Another Jacksonian trait is his intense hostility to the political establishment, the economic elite (corporations now, the Bank of the US in Jackson’s day), and the federal bureaucracy.

I share many of Vance’s views, and so I heartily support his candidacy–especially when considering the alternatives. Where I part ways is on economic policy (which is true of Jacksonianism generally). Protectionism for the purpose of supporting domestic industry is highly inefficient: one could have a debate about the merits of substituting tariffs for other forms of taxation that also have distortionary effects (e.g., capital taxation) but the flaws of protecting dying industries are beyond dispute. Minimum wages are another disaster. If the current experience in California’s fast food industry isn’t convincing enough, he’s not capable of being convinced on this.

Various forms of industrial policy, which in the end come down to picking winners and losers, propping up the winners with subsidies and protection and entry barriers, are also disasters in waiting that have no chance of achieving their stated objectives and which inevitably wreak huge collateral damage.

The best way to rejuvenate American industries is to lift the appalling regulatory burden that has been heaped on them for decades–a process that has reached a frenzied level under Biden. Here Vance’s antipathy to the bureaucracy could be the spur to meaningful action.

In brief–slash away at existing policies and regulations: don’t add new ones. That would help the American folk community immensely.

Of course, all policy views are aspirational. Given that Jacksonians are hardly a major presence in Congress, the media, or the bureaucracy, the ability of Trump and Vance to realize their aspirations is doubtful, at best. But at least it will help to have the executive pushing in the right direction and against the DC consensus, rather than pushing it forward with all its might (as with the current administration).

I had been hoping that Trump would choose Vance, and did so fully aware of my areas of disagreement. On the biggest issues–the overawing power of the federal government and its abuse thereof, immigration, and a more restrained, non-globalist, non-Wilsonian foreign policy–Vance is on the right side. Where he’s not, I can live with.

But precisely because of where he stands on those big issues, he has achieved Derangement Syndrome Status faster than perhaps faster than anyone in history. Considering those he has deranged, that’s the biggest endorsement of all. He has all the right enemies. May he destroy them–he has already driven them mad.

I usually rely on Hanlon’s Razor, the proposition that one should never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. And I am usually pretty generous in determining what is plausibly deemed incompetent. But as the facts pile up in the attempted Trump assassination–the failure of which was only plausibly due to the hand of God, and I do not say that lightly or blasphemously, but quite seriously–it is becoming harder and harder to conclude that what transpired on Saturday was within even the most generous possible drawing of the bounds of incompetence. Which leaves malice–and by whom and for what purpose.

Matthew Crooks was about as stealthy as a funny car out of the starting gate or an F-15 taking off. Everybody saw him doing obviously suspicious and threatening things, and being in places where he obviously should not have been and where he obviously posed a threat to Trump. Crucially, the Secret Service and local law enforcement saw him and did nothing until it was too late. Nothing. They all make the Uvalde, TX police look good by comparison.

All of that is incomprehensible. But what makes me conclude that Hanlon’s Razor doesn’t cut it is the series of bullshit excuses emanating from the Secret Service. Each is worse than the next. Some of the most outrageous ones:

• No sniper team was posted on the roof from which Crooks fired because it was too steeply sloped, which would have endangered a countersniper team’s safety. Which it wasn’t. Indeed, it was sloped less than the roof on which the countersniper team that eventually took him out is. And it obviously wasn’t too steeply sloped for Crooks to use as a shooting position. And is Cheatle the head of the Secret Service, or its OSHA manager?
• Trump’s security detail was staffed the way it was because he’s only the former president, and former presidents get less protection. For the love of God, this isn’t G.W. Bush, about whom no one GAF anymore, that we’re talking about here. We are talking about a man who is not just a former president, but a current candidate, and in the most febrile political environment since the 1850s. And one who has been labeled an existential threat, and who has been the subject of both assassination porn and assassination fears for years. Killing GWB or Obama would be horrible–but that would be nothing compared to what would occur to this country if Trump is killed.
• And here’s the best one, from the Secret Service’s loathsome official spokesfuck, Angelo Cangelosi (who is only slightly less loathsome than his boss, Kimberly Cheatle): “With counter snipers, you’re usually so far away, it’s not usually clear whether an individual is an imminent threat. It’s harder to discern. Once they discern whether that person is a threat to life or serious bodily injury, they can take the shot.”
• RUFKM? The countersnipers have optics that would have allowed them to count the hairs in Crooks’ nose from that distance. And for crissakes, U.S. military snipers routinely identify, evaluate, and take out threats from 1000 yards plus, not 100 yards plus. I mean seriously, you fuckwit, watch American Sniper. Or Blackhawk Down. Or watch the old History Channel show on snipers. Read about Carlos Hathcock or Chuck Mawhinney. Read about Marine Scout Snipers and their training. These men are trained to discern threats, at long distance and in seconds, and act without hesitation based on what they observe and what they know.

It’s hard to know whether these utterly bullshit excuses that would embarrass a toddler caught being naughty demonstrate their lack of intelligence or their opinion of ours. But the fact that they are unwilling or unable to come up with remotely reasonable explanations leads me to conclude that they have something to hide, and that something is far more sinister than mere incompetence.

The latest regime story makes things worse, not better. You see, Trump’s security had been beefed up because the US had detected an Iranian threat to assassinate Trump.

You people actually think that makes you look better? Mother of God, if that charlie foxtrot was beefed up security, how shambolic was it before?

I also note that when Iraq launched an assassination plot against G. H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton-yes, Bill Clinton-launched missiles at Baghdad. Any missiles headed to Tehran due to this alleged threat? Of course not.

Yes, I agree with el gato malo (whom you should all read regularly) that communications seams between the Secret Service and local LE with security responsibilities over different parts of the venue are a potential point of failure. But the point is that this is a very well known known (to steal from Rumsfeld, who stole it from psychologists Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham) and should therefore be a priority in planning. It’s such an obvious potential problem that it should never be an actual problem.

But the scope of the failure and the utterly farcical excuses offered up for it are such that I don’t believe Hanlon’s Ginsu could cut through it. Which again leaves us with malice.

If Trump had not turned his head this nation would now be in the grips of utter chaos at the very least and likely in outright rebellion. (Which, of course, the regime and its media lackeys would blame on the rebels, not on the regime’s failures or malicious acts that caused it). Trump–and we–literally dodged the most lethal bullet in American history. And yes, that counts those that did to Lincoln and JFK what Matthew Crooks intended to do to Donald Trump.

Chalk another one up for Bismarck: “God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.” If not, I doubt that there would be enough ruin in America to survive it (to paraphrase Adam Smith).

Americans deserve answers. Americans deserve scalps. And we are already 72 hours past the time we should have had them.

Who is going to raise hell to get them?

In Day of the Jackal, the English would-be assassin pulls the trigger and watches with astonishment as his target–Charles DeGaulle–bends over to kiss a la français the veteran he had just decorated in a ceremony in Paris. The bullet whizzes just behind DeGaulle’s head. A kiss spared his life.

Imagine my shock and astonishment at waking up in France to read that a turn of the head may have saved Donald Trump from a would-be assassin. Trump came closer to his doom than the movie DeGaulle–a bullet actually clipped his ear.

Unlike the Jackal, the Trump shooter was clearly no trained killer. Was he trying for a head shot because he thought Trump would be wearing a protective vest? Because a center mass shot was available and would have been a pro’s choice. Or was he just a bad shot? The fact that Matthew Crooks squeezed off 8 rapid shots spray-and-pray fashion suggest that he was. His prayers were not answered. Ours were.

Though clearly not everyone’s. Trump assassination porn has been a thing for some time now. And there are clearly many choking back anger not at the attempt–but at its failure.

On 8 July, 2024 President Joe Biden said that “it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye.”

Will the media and the Democratic Party go after Biden the same way that they went after Sarah Palin for the far more innocuous act of releasing a campaign ad with a picture of a bullseye over Gaby Giffords’ district–not over her picture, or her name?

Yeah, right.

All of those who screeched stridently that Trump is an existential threat created an environment in which a loser–which I am sure Matthew Crooks will turn out to have been–believed he could achieve status and fame by killing the bête noire. They are accessories before the fact, in all their legions.

And the media has managed to achieve even new lows, as astounding as that might be given the Marianas Trench-like depths to which they had already descended. CNN said that Trump was rushed offstage after he “fell.” As if he was Joe Biden on stairs or an Air Force Academy stage. Other mainstream media also went with the “fell” thing, adding details such as he did so after “popping sounds were heard.” As if it was just somebody stepping on bubble rap or cracking their knuckles.

Then there was the the-real-danger-here-is-the-right-wing-backlash mantra:

On CBS, Margaret Brennan and Samantha Vinograd talk up "retaliatory violence" from right-wingers, and then we hear of January 6. Knew this line was coming…. pic.twitter.com/JO9572UlXn

— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) July 14, 2024

These people are all about the backlash, and totally ignore the first lash. Because that comes from their side.

This is obviously a colossal failure by the Secret Service. An unsecured roof with a sightline to Trump’s podium. Their thumb-up-the-ass running around when people were shouting “he’s got a gun” and pointing at . . . a guy with a gun. The hesitation by the sniper who finally took out Crooks.

Yet another institutional failure.

Will there be accountability? As if. Not unless and until Trump is inaugurated. This regime will run serious cover for Secret Service, DHS (of which it is a part), and the FBI (which is supposed to be ferreting out such threats, but appears to be more interested in Latin Mass Catholics, abortion protesters, senior citizen J6ers, and phantom right wing resistance groups).

Will the head of the Secret Service be fired? The question should really be: why the fuck hasn’t she quit? If this was 1930s Japan the streets of DC would be slick with the guts of law enforcement and national security officials humiliated by their obvious failure. But in 2020s DC it’s cover your ass not spill your guts.

This event is likely to be of historical importance–though not as important as if the 5.56 round had gone an inch to the right. Trump’s immediate response–“Fight! Fight” while shaking his fist–was epic. A real baller. He reminded me of Churchill’s remark: “There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at with no result.” (But this “fight!” response was exactly what triggered the backlash brigade).

The contrast between Trump’s near-TR-like response to being shot to Biden’s frailty and mental incompetence could not be more pronounced. The assassination attempt coming right on the heels of a week when Biden’s mental and physical decline took up all the political oxygen just makes the contrast all the more stark.

Can Biden credibly continue to say he is the only candidate who can beat Trump? As dubious as that proposition was on Friday, it is utterly farcical now. But will the Democrats be able to induce Biden to concede to reality? If so–who among them will not look almost as pathetic as Biden in contrast to a guy who faced down an assassination attempt? And if not–will they engage in backroom chicanery to select such a pathetic figure that will make the situation look worse, not better?

And coming on top of what was increasingly perceived as a politicized persecution of Trump, missing murder by a hair’s breadth will no doubt have many saying that the demonization has gone too far. This must stop. Now.

Which blows to smithereens the Democrat’s one and only campaign pitch: Trump must be stopped, by all means necessary.

Last week the election was clearly tipping towards Trump. A near miss in Pennsylvania will likely turn it into an avalanche.

The recent Supreme Court session was one of the most significant in recent memory. A major thrust of many of the most important rulings was a fundamental shift in the allocation of authority among the branches of government. The decisions made clearer who can drive in what lane.

In the most important decisions, Congress was the winner, although it might not be happy with the prize because it shifts responsibility to the legislative branch, a past master at shirking responsibility.

Loper struck down “Chevron deference,” meaning that administrative agencies cannot expansively assert their authority in the face of statutory ambiguity or lacunae. It requires judges to interpret statutes to determine whether a regulator has the authority to do what it wants. This sharply circumscribes the power of the executive. Although it would be more accurate to say that it sharply circumscribes the power of a de facto separate branch of government operating outside the tripartite structure created under the Constitution: although formally part of the executive, unaccountable bureaucratic agencies are largely outside its control.

The bump stock ruling in Cargill constrains agencies from straying from explicit statutory language and arguing that since X is kinda like what is explicitly defined and outlawed in a statute the agency can outlaw X too even if it does not meet the statutory definition.

Both of these shift responsibility for regulation back to Congress, and puts the onus on the legislature to write laws that clearly delineate agency powers. Like I said above, this probably doesn’t make members of the legislative branch happy because it forces them to work hard, work carefully, and work precisely. So much easier to say “we delegate the formulation of the specifics of the law to three letter agencies.”

In Jarkasy the Court limited the enforcement power of agencies by requiring jury trials in Section 3 courts in lieu of proceedings before in-house administrative law judges.

Thus, these major decisions can be summarized: agencies lose power, Congress and the courts gain power. Or perhaps more accurately, powers that have been usurped by agencies are returned to their proper Constitutional homes.

The most controversial but arguably least impactful decision for the long term was the ruling on presidential immunity in Trump. The Court formalized a three part division of presidential acts, granted absolute immunity in one (explicitly Constitutionally recognized powers), strongly (but not completely) presumptive immunity in a second (“official acts”), and no immunity in a third (“unofficial acts”). The Court recognized that drawing the line between what is official and what is unofficial is a fact-intensive exercise and mandates that lower courts undertake this exercise seriously with appropriate fact-finding procedures. It sharply criticized the DC circuit court in Trump for rubber stamping the government claim of no immunity rather than engaging in the necessary fact-finding.

The left is hysterical about this decision, but they have no one to blame but themselves. The issue of the extent of presidential immunity has always been fraught with uncertainty. But by pursuing Trump in two federal cases the Biden administration forced the Supreme Court to open the legal Schrödinger’s box to rule that their beloved cat is dead.

That is why I say this ruling will be among the least impactful in the long term. The Republic operated very well with the uncertainty and widespread acknowledgement that presidential immunity was quite expansive until the Biden administration forced the issue with lawfare against Trump. The ruling will sharply reduce the ability and incentive to engage in such lawfare and thereby return the country to a very workable status quo ante. That is, the impact is almost purely situational and relates to an unprecedented situation created by the current administration.

Another situational impact of the decision may come from Justice Thomas’s concurrence that questioned the legality and constitutionality of special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, Judge Cannon. (And she apparently has taken the hint, scheduling hearings on this issue in the classified documents case in Florida).

As for the other decisions, they will likely have enduring impact, but how much remains to be seen. The demise of Chevron is clearly important–it has already put some major agency rules, such as the FTC’s non-compete rule and the FCC’s net neutrality rule, in jeopardy. But the “major questions” doctrine that was revitalized by earlier Supreme Court decisions already cut back on agency power: the incremental effect of Loper remains to be seen. And no doubt agencies will press their luck in court rather than meekly stay in their lanes, if for no other reason than to learn how far the ruling reaches, or to play the legal lottery. The application of Loper by highly ideologically diverse district and appeals courts means that agency interpretative powers aren’t dead yet and some courts may side with agencies. Ditto goes for Cargill. Jarkasy is more clearcut, but its scope is narrower than the other two decisions.

But overall, the movement is in the right direction. Reining in agency powers is essential. The war is not over by a long shot, but these decisions change the correlation of forces in that war.

The dissents in these cases were embarrassing. They relied on emotional and consequentialist arguments rather than legal and Constitutional ones. For example, in Cargill the argument was that the Las Vegas shooter used a bump stock, so we should ban bump stocks even though Congress (that has had ample opportunity to do so) has not: this is an argument for the courts to usurp legislative powers based on the emotional reaction to one extreme event. In Trump the dissent offered up a parade of horribles, such as the presidency becoming a monarchy or the president unleashing SEAL Team 6 to dispatch political opponents. None of which transpired in the status quo ante that the decision restores.

The most amusing response was from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe who lamented the effect of Loper on all of those sturdy professors and practicing lawyers toiling in the fields of administrative law. Oh! The humanity! And insofar as professors are concerned, this is incumbency bias. Big new decisions create big research opportunities opening up the field to new scholars. Creative destruction, as it were.

The most disappointing decision was in the free speech case, Murthy. Here the Court refused to rule that government suasion of social media companies of the “nice little platform you got here, shame if anything happened to it” variety was an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights. This unleashed a righteous–and right–dissent from Judge Alito.

Here the game is not over. It is possible that when the issue is adjudicated in the lower courts it will return to SCOTUS and be resolved correctly on the lines Alito forcefully argued.

One of the most revealing aspects of the just-completed term is the behavior of Amy Coney Barrett who had her coming out party as the new version of Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O’Connor. What is it with justices with Irish surnames appointed by Republican presidents that makes them wishy-washy “balancers” apparently trying to remain in the good graces of the DC establishment?

On the other hand, Chief Justice Roberts exceeded expectations.

Every Supreme Court term is just a battle in a war that has waged since Marbury v. Madison. This term is no different. But it represents a signal victory for those opposed to the trajectory of government since the New Deal. Yes, there were losses, but that is true of every battle. And maybe it is just the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end, for the administrative state in particular. But that’s not nothing.