America Has Survived Worse Than Donald Trump

The United States of America was founded in the midst of a bloody revolution, fighting a war against the most powerful nation on Earth. Thirty years later, that same enemy was boarding American ships, bombarding a major port city, and burning the nation’s capital to the ground. And fifty years after that, over half a million people died in a brutal civil war, the political and economic effects of which continued to haunt America for decades.

The point is that the United States has faced many struggles in its two centuries of existence, from wars the likes of which the planet had never seen before, to economic collapse, the threat of nuclear war, and a succession of power-hungry politicians. Through it all, the country has made it through battered but alive, and ultimately stronger than before. When compared with these seismic historical events, the election of Donald Trump as President can hardly be deemed a mortal threat to the survival of the country, even if you disagree with his every policy proposal and despise the man personally.

The rhetoric of many on the Left has become increasingly hysterical, and it is no longer uncommon for them to suggest that the end of the United States as we know it is at hand (see, for instance, the many liberal reviews of The Handmaid’s Tale). But it is ridiculous. Is Trump a different sort of president from what we’ve seen before? Absolutely. But to suggest that he and the Russians are engaged in some sort of secret plot to bring about Russian world domination is at least as stupid as suggesting that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11.

There are many valid criticisms of this White House. It has lurched from one crisis to the next with no sense of greater purpose. Trump himself has routinely shot himself in the foot, threatening to derail the entire Republican agenda, and if he can’t get a handle on these (avoidable) crises soon, my past suggestion stands—though the hurricane of bad news that was the past couple weeks seems to have subsided somewhat, at least for now. But the available evidence suggests less a nefarious plot to destroy the country than simple incompetence.

Of course, a full investigation could lead to a different conclusion, which is why such an investigation, led by a special prosecutor, is necessary. But at present, deranged talk of treason and the impending end of civilization does nothing to further the very serious conversations about classified information and the firing of James Comey.

Memorial Day

Today we celebrate the sacrifice of those Americans who have given their lives to protect their country and their fellow citizens. For more than two centuries, Americans have been dying in service to the ideals of liberty and freedom, the founding ideals of this country. The enemy of the moment may change, from British invaders to the armies of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, to the modern-day fight against Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, but the reason for fighting has never changed.

Today is the unofficial start of the summer season. We should enjoy it, but also take a moment to remember those who died so that we could enjoy our cookouts and days at the beach. By living our lives to the fullest, we celebrate those who sacrificed their own lives for their fellow Americans.

Happy Memorial Day.

I Just Donated to Cruz for Senate

As I’ve said previously, the election for the United States Senate in Texas could easily be the most important election of the 2018 midterms. Liberals and moderate Republicans alike will be gunning for Ted Cruz, one of the few people in Congress today unafraid to stand for conservative principles. Democrats will do all they can to expand the map and take down a sitting Republican senator, particularly one as high-profile as Cruz. Republican leadership may not actively work against Cruz’s reelection bid, but neither are they likely to campaign hard on his behalf, or shed more than crocodile tears should he lose. And the president, of course, is not likely to forget Cruz’s epic stand against him at the RNC last summer, regardless of the fact that Cruz eventually gave him his endorsement toward the end of the campaign.

All of this means that the Cruz campaign will be depending on the support of grassroots voters even more than an ordinary Senate campaign.

I don’t make many political donations, but I just gave to the Cruz for Senate campaign. I hope you’ll consider doing the same.

Immigration Reform: What Comes Next?

Somewhat surprisingly, given the intense focus on immigration enforcement during the campaign, border security has received less attention in recent weeks, so caught up has the administration been in controversies surrounding the firing of James Comey and investigations into Russian collusion, as well as attempting to get the Obamacare replacement bill through Congress. Attempted border crossings are down, while deportations are up since Trump took office, but between Russia, health care, and the search for a new FBI director those announcements have largely come in under the radar.

Which is fine, as far as I’m concerned. The important thing is that results are being delivered, and fewer illegal immigrants are entering and staying in the country. It would be in Trump’s political interest for the average voter to be more aware of those facts, but at least behind the endless self-inflicted controversies of this White House, things are still being accomplished.

What members of Congress should be doing is watching the reports of greater border enforcement, with an eye toward how it will affect future attempts at large-scale immigration reform. The popular conservative mantra has long been to enforce current laws first, before tackling any kind of comprehensive reform—for good reason, as immigration law has for years been implemented laxly. But this argument also had the effect of passing the buck to the executive branch, which constitutionally is the agency in charge of enforcing laws duly passed by Congress. Conservatives thus had little reason to debate immigration reform beyond the border-security components until the country again elected a president willing to execute the law as written.

Time now seems to be running out on that particular excuse. The current U.S. immigration system urgently needs reform, beyond simply an increase in border security and deportations—reform that can only be achieved by an act of Congress. Such reform need not equate to amnesty, the automatic assumption of many on both the Left and Right. But, one way or another, some solution must be found for illegal immigrants currently in the United States, in addition to deportation, because it is simply impossible for the federal government to find and deport every single one of the over 10 million people here without permission. And the system for admitting newcomers into the country legally must also be overhauled and modernized.

The excuse for waiting for border security before acting on these other pressing issues has almost expired. Congressional Republicans would do well to begin formulating plans for what to do when the ball is back in their court.

Thanks To Trump, 2018 Is Now Anyone's Guess

On paper, 2018 should be a banner year for Republicans. Following the solid Democratic years of 2006 and 2012, Senate Democrats are overextended in red states, to a point rarely seen in modern partisan politics. Democrats in Indiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and Missouri are all up for reelection—all states that went for Donald Trump in 2016 by double digit margins. Winning seats in just those five states (while successfully defending the eight seats they hold that are up for reelection) should put Republicans within reach of a filibuster-proof majority. Winning elections in those states, plus in even a few of the swing states that Trump won by single-digit margins, would give the GOP its first legislative supermajority in the Senate in nearly a century.

The gubernatorial map is more difficult, mainly because whereas the Senate class up for reelection next year comes off two successive elections that solidly favored Democrats, the governors up for reelection were elected and reelected in the Republican waves of 2010 and 2014. Additionally, many more governors than senators will be leaving office next year, leading to more open seats that will make it easier for the opposition party to post victories. Still, it should not be impossible for Republican governors nationally to hold their own in terms of total numbers.

But all this, of course, ignores the Trump effect. Maps and data were next to useless in 2016, and their effectiveness will not likely improve with President Trump in office. Despite the convention wisdom about midterm elections being uniformly bad for the party in power, that outcome is not foreordained. Republicans made gains in Congress in 2002, and Democrats broke even in 1998. If Republicans are successful at leading a unified government, voters will reward them.

So far, of course, they haven’t been, due again to the Trump effect. The administration currently lurches from one crisis to the next, with no clear plan for enacting any sort of ambitious reform agenda. The government elected in 2016 has certainly not been a status quo government, but neither has it been one to deliver many meaningful results.

We are now faced with a reversal in hopes from the 2016 election. Republicans now hope that the maps and data are correct, and count on the “Great Red Wall” of the South and West. Democrats, meanwhile, hope for grassroots anger to defy the odds and retake Congress. Whichever party ends up being right, the outcome of 2018 largely depends on the President and his administration getting their act together.

If This Keeps Up, Maybe Trump Should Resign

Every day seems to bring a new chapter in the unfolding drama of fired FBI chiefs, Russian investigations, and seeming administration turmoil. And concurrently, every day seems to bring us another step further from passing into law a meaningful conservative reform agenda. Paul Ryan’s “Better Way” legislative package, which for a short time after Trump’s inauguration seemed poised to become reality, now seems to fade further into the background by the day. Apart from repealing some regulations and confirming Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (to be sure, no small accomplishments), nothing much has permanently changed in Washington after the first few months of unified Republican control.

Talk of impeachment is still incredibly premature, so much so that it is hardly even worth discussing. But resignation, on the other hand, is not an idea that should be rejected out of hand. Trump himself has said that he was happier in his old life, on the outside, than actually dealing with the business of being president.

There’s still a way for him to return to that life, on his own terms. He won the general election, proving all the naysayers wrong. At this point in his administration, he has shown that he is either temperamentally unsuited for the presidency, or else requires such a long adjustment period that it will make the achievement of many of his signature policy promises almost impossible. Trump was always going to have a hard time building the wall, but every time he makes another ill-advised comment about the Russian investigation, or treads on the messaging of his own administration his goals become that much more difficult to achieve.

There is a way out for Trump, to further his agenda while returning to his old life. Not that I expect him to take it. But it is something he might consider, particularly if the whirlwind that has been the past few weeks continues into the summer.

Why Can't Trump Treat The Rest of His Presidency Like His Judicial Nominations?

Amid all the turmoil surrounding the Trump White House, there has been one area in which the president has consistently delivered: making solid judicial nominations. The confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court remains the highlight of Trump’s presidency so far, and Trump has recently begun nominating candidates to fill the numerous vacancies on federal circuit courts around the country, as well. All the nominations have so far proceeded with a minimum of fuss and no major missteps.

The reason is simple. Trump, for whatever reason, has never really seemed to care much about judicial nominations (even though the task is one of the greatest legacies any president will leave), and so far has largely left the process of selecting nominees, and promoting those nominees, to his advisers. In the realm of judicial vacancies, he seems poised to remain a remarkably hands-off president.

What this proves is that when Trump listens to his advisers, avoids inflammatory public statements (or really any public statements at all), and otherwise takes a hands-off approach, his agenda has a much greater chance of success. When, on the other hand, he becomes involved, ignores counsel, and sends early-morning tweets about any given subject, his agenda in that area is far more likely to derail.

If Trump could just take his model of the presidency as it pertained to judicial nominations, and expand it to other issues, he might begin to see a much greater rate of success.

President Trump, Get It Together. Now.

People voted for Donald Trump for a multitude of reasons. Some wanted him to build that “big, beautiful wall”. Others were hoping for a couple solid Supreme Court nominations, or to finally have a chance at repealing Obamacare. Still others thought that by withdrawing from free-trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or NAFTA, Trump would bring back American jobs.

But I guarantee that no intelligent person voted for Trump so that we could see a White House in chaos, a legislative agenda in limbo, and endless investigations and speculation of Russian collusion.

The last time Republicans had unified control of the federal government was for four years during George W. Bush’s presidency, from 2003 until early 2007. Before that, it was two years during the Eisenhower administration. This is only the third time the GOP has enjoyed full control of the government since the Great Depression.

And thanks to Trump, we’re wasting precious time, time which could be spent advancing a conservative agenda that has no hope of becoming law during periods of divided government, talking about Russian collusion, administration shakeups, and the firing of the FBI director. These opportunities of unified party control of government don’t come along often, particularly for Republicans, and when they do they are usually short, lasting no more than one or two election cycles. They are an opportunity not to be squandered.

Yes, the Democrats are being dramatic and grandstanding for “The Resistance”, and the media has it out for Trump and any Republican. But much of the current mess is of the President’s own making, and did not have to be as big of a deal as it now is.

Mr. President, get it together. Please. Stop undercutting your own employees, listen to your advisers, and rise above the insults. Make your presidency memorable for more than just scandal and controversy.

Who Should Be Trump's Next Supreme Court Nominee?

Yesterday I offered some speculation about future vacancies on the Supreme Court, and the way Trump’s nominations to fill those vacancies could impact the ideological balance of the Court. Today, I wanted to briefly discuss the specific kind of person Trump should name to the Court.

The obvious example for Trump to follow in choosing a future nominee is now-Justice Neil Gorsuch. The Gorsuch nomination was universally well-received by the Right on its announcement, and Gorsuch satisfied all three of the criteria vital to a successful Trump Supreme Court pick—ideology, age, and placement on the Trump campaign’s list of possible nominees. A potential second pick should fit those three criteria just as well.

The most important qualification will obviously be that of judicial philosophy, and the vetting process should actively seek out every available piece of evidence to determine how each potential nominee feels about past major cases, as well as issues such as federalism, separation of powers, and an expansive versus originalist view of the Constitution. This attention to detail is particularly important in light of the recent history of Republican judicial nominees, and their varying degrees of adherence to the original meaning and text of the Constitution. For every Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch nominated to the Court, there has been an Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, or John Roberts.

The age factor is perhaps the most underappreciated of the many that go into determining who the next Supreme Court justice might be, but it is also one of the most important, and Trump should nominate someone who is in their 50's or even 40's, and could be expected to serve on the Court for many years to come. Again, Gorsuch should be the model here—at 49, he is by far the youngest Justice currently on the Court, and absent any unforeseen circumstances should still be capable of deciding cases twenty or even thirty years from now.

Finally, Trump should choose a nominee from the list of possible Supreme Court appointments he released during the campaign. That list provided a guarantee that the nominee would be a reliable conservative, and was a key campaign promise. Though it was understood at the time to primarily apply to the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia, Trump also said that he would use the list to choose future nominees as well, should further vacancies arise during his time in office.  The list is replete with individuals who would make fantastic Supreme Court justices, and it would be a mistake for Trump to begin the process of selecting a second nominee by looking anywhere else.

Gaming Out The Future of Supreme Court Vacancies

Since Ronald Reagan, every President of the United States has seen at least two successful nominations to the Supreme Court. Reagan had three; both Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have each filled two vacancies. Donald Trump, only one hundred days into his first term in office, has already had one successful nomination, the only time in recent history that has occurred.

And Trump could soon get another chance to leave his mark on the Supreme Court. Rumors are swirling that Anthony Kennedy, the moderate swing vote on the Court and eighty years old, could retire this summer. If he does, and Trump has the opportunity to make a second nomination, it will be an historic event for a president to fill two seats on the Court so early in his term.

As I’ve said before, this is when the real battle for the future of the Supreme Court will take place. Gorsuch’s nomination merely replaced one conservative—Antonin Scalia—with another. But if Trump replaces Kennedy with another name from his list of potential justices, any of whom would be a solid conservative pick, the current balance of power would shift definitively toward the Right.

And it might not end there. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leader of the current Court’s liberal wing, is 84 years old and has suffered several health issues in recent years, including cancer. She would certainly like to delay retirement until the next liberal president is elected, whether in four or eight years, but if any justice is likely to be forced into retirement due to worsening health problems, it would be her. Stephen Breyer, another veteran liberal, is currently 78 years old, and may well decide to leave the Court before another Democrat is elected, particularly was Trump to win reelection in 2020.

In contrast, with Scalia’s death, Clarence Thomas is now the oldest conservative member of the Court, who at 68 is still fairly young by judicial standards.

With his first Supreme Court nomination, Trump has all but guaranteed the current delicate balance of power between conservatives and liberals. With his next pick, should Kennedy indeed choose retire within the next year or two, Trump has the opportunity to give the Court its first fully conservative majority since the early 1930’s. And, should more vacancies arise after that, he could well solidify a conservative supermajority on the Court that would last for decades to come.

In Defense of Heritage Action

After a week of speculation and rumor, word came last week that the Board of Trustees of the Heritage Foundation had sought and received the resignation of Foundation President Jim DeMint, a former U.S. senator from South Carolina.

I don’t have any affiliation with the Heritage Foundation, or any sources on the inside. I don’t know how much of the stories of mismanagement and internal discontent are true. But I do know one thing, based entirely on my perspective as a conservative looking in at the drama and debate: The arguments from the Wall Street Journal and others that the organization’s foray into political activism—led by DeMint, the affiliated group Heritage Action, and the news outlet The Daily Signal—was a mistake, are just plain wrong.

Put simply, the Heritage Foundation formulates and articulates conservative policy proposals and ideas. That was the primary purpose for its founding in a nutshell, and it is a mission it still excels at. Yet formulating ideas is pointless if those ideas are never used, or fought for. And depending on other organizations, or the media, to pick up on certain ideas and push for them is a big gamble to take. Most ordinary voters will not peruse the latest research from the Heritage Foundation—or any other think tank—find those ideas they like most, and begin a grassroots campaign for their adoption by Congress.

Which is where Heritage Action, and The Daily Signal, comes in, as a way for grassroots activists to get fired up about the proposals being put forward by the mainline Heritage Foundation, and as motivators for those ideas to actually be put into action. Heritage Action—and its legislative scorecard, grading members of Congress on their effectiveness—serves to bridge the gap between the ivory-tower nature of the think tank and the political realities of governing, and is a valuable tool in adopting policies developed by scholars and researchers at the Foundation.

The Handling of Comey's Firing Was Worse Than The Act Itself

I have mixed feelings about the surprise firing of FBI director James Comey. On the one hand, Comey always struck me as an honorable man, trying to do what he thought was right—whether that meant deciding not to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton with regard to the email investigation, reopening that investigation days before the general election, or pursuing a separate investigation of Russian election tampering. On the other, however, there is little question that his decision not to indict Clinton was politically motivated, a favor he would not have granted to any person not named Hillary Clinton who had handled classified information in an identical way, and his continued tenure at the FBI only served to deepen the politicization of the department.

That being said, Trump’s true mistake in handling the Comey affair was not the decision he reached—to remove Comey from office—but the way he implemented that decision. When news broke, it apparently caught everyone off guard, even staffers at the FBI and in the White House. Comey himself was speaking at an FBI office in California, and learned about his firing from watching TV. There was no advance notice, or even a hint that this was coming. How would you like to be let go from your job in such a way?

Maybe the firing was deserved; maybe not. I’ll leave that to others to debate, although in personnel matters like this one, I’m inclined to give the president some benefit of the doubt. But the manner in which the decision was executed was stupid, ill-advised, and unnecessary, and Trump will likely pay a political price for it.

Rounding Up The French Election Results

Over the weekend, French voters went to the polls for the country’s presidential runoff election. Emmanuel Macron, the former Socialist who left the party last year in an attempt to distance himself politically from the unpopular current president, won easily over Marine Le Pen, the nationalist and controversial politician who promised a tightening of immigration laws, a crackdown on terrorism, and a referendum on leaving the European Union. Macron won 66% of the vote to Le Pen’s 34%.

I’ve quite frankly grown sick of Macron being referred to as the “centrist” in the race, and Le Pen as the “far-right candidate”. Both are easy, shorthand labels tailored for an American audience that are misleading at best. Macron is “centrist” only in the sense that he is to the right of the current Socialist president, Francois Hollande, and is an internationalist who favors multiculturalism and greater immigration; applauds the United Nations, European Union, and similar international groups; and, in general, seeks to tinker around the edges of France’s massive welfare state. He will be, in short, a status quo president.

Le Pen, meanwhile, favors increased ties with Russia, contemplates pulling out of NATO, and seeks to expand the welfare state even further. In short, there was no good option in this second-round election, and I’m grateful for the fact that I did not have to endure yet another lesser-of-two-evils presidential campaign in person. Little wonder that turnout was historically low for a French general election, and 10% of votes cast were blank.

For now, the status quo has been preserved, both in France domestically and respect to international relations with the United States and other major powers. But the question remains for the people of France, particularly the millions who voted for Le Pen, abstained, or voted only reluctantly for the lesser of two evils: How long can the status quo last?

We Need A Domestic Freedom Agenda

Every week seems to bring another example of assaults upon core American freedoms. Riots on college campuses across the country shut down guest speakers, and silence opposing viewpoints. Christian bakers and florists who believe in a traditional definition of marriage are forced to service gay weddings, or be faced with fines, prison time, and the loss of their businesses and livelihood. In the name of safety and security, the government continually attempts to impose new restrictions on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, and obtain personal data on millions of ordinary Americans.

It is a common refrain that the Constitution and its core tenets and ideals are under assault—so common that it may not seem all that serious. But it is happening, and the number of such assaults has only increased in recent years. Democrats carry much of the blame for many of these incidents, but it would be a mistake to think of the offenses as anything other than bipartisan in nature.

Responses to these attacks have too often been reactionary and disjointed in nature. That must change if conservatives are going to have any lasting success. It is not enough to simply win limited victories each time a new case or issue emerges.

What we need is an action plan, an agenda. A set of definitive legislative priorities that can be used to proactively combat the rising tide of anti-Constitutionalism in America today. The Bush administration was known for pursuing a “Freedom Agenda” overseas, promoting democracy and human rights in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. This “domestic Freedom Agenda” would restore and strengthen similar ideals here at home.

It cannot be enough to merely focus on the battle of the moment. If conservatives are to win lasting victories, we must focus on the bigger picture.

Is Populism Dead, Or Has It Already Won?

As everyone knows, 2016 was a banner year for populism in the West. Voters in the United Kingdom stunned the politicians, the polls, and the financial markets by voting to leave the European Union. Not six months later, across the Atlantic, American voters elected Donald Trump as the 45^th President, in what has been described as the greatest political upset in U.S. history. In between, nationalist (here I use the terms interchangeably) parties gained strength in many parts of Europe, including Austria, where a populist leader came tantalizingly close to winning the presidency, and Hungary, where voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of a referendum limiting immigration (though low turnout meant that the measure was not adopted).

But 2017 has so far seemed to be a year of setbacks for populist candidates. Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands had a disappointing finish in that country’s parliamentary elections. The main populist party in Germany seems to be struggling, as well. And, though Marine Le Pen made it to the runoff in the French presidential elections, the current polls suggest she will lose in a landslide (though that lead may be dwindling).

I’m not going to make any predictions about whether the polls are right and Le Pen will actually go down in embarrassing defeat. Last year’s presidential polls are still fresh in my mind. But the record already seems to suggest that populism has struggled to gain additional traction since the banner year of 2016.

Has it? Geert Wilders may not be the Dutch prime minister, but he remains a major player in Dutch politics, and his campaign forced the major parties to shift to the right and adopt some of his anti-Islam, anti-immigration arguments. A similar phenomenon has played out in Germany, where Angela Merkel is no longer nearly as pro-open borders and pro-immigration as she once was. And Le Pen is already set to turn in the best performance ever by a National Front politician in the presidential election, and her opponent’s lead, while still in double digits, is closing by the day.

Politicians across the West, even those who have campaigned most strenuously against the rise of populism, have gradually been forced by political reality to adopt a few of the populists’ key demands—greater national sovereignty, stricter immigration controls, and the like. Even the leadership of the European Union is now saying that they may back off some of their most strident calls for greater European integration, made in haste over the past few years. The twin blows of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are still causing shockwaves through the system, shockwaves most noticeable in Europe.

They will recede in time, absent other populist victories, but for now the assorted nationalist movements across the West are gaining policy victories even without major triumphs at the ballot box. They may not have achieved total victory, but the assorted components of the current nationalist-populist movement are far from finished.

Cruz vs. O'Rourke: The Match Is Set

Unofficially, at least. According to media reports, Rep Joaquin Castro will not run for the Texas Senate seat currently held by Ted Cruz, who is up for reelection next year.

This is good news for Cruz. Castro is in general far more well-known and respected in Texas, both within the Democratic Party and among the broader electorate, than Beto O’Rourke, the congressman who has already announced a challenge to Cruz. Castro also has a reputation for being more moderate in style and an independent thinker (not that this should be mistaken for actual political moderation), which would serve him well in a run for statewide office, and is seen as a rising star in the national party, which would have given him greater support from outside the state than O’Rourke can likely expect.

O’Rourke is certainly not a challenger to take lightly, as I wrote previously. But he has established himself as a fairly generic liberal Democrat in Congress, will have to work hard just to increase his name recognition, cannot count on a massive influx of out-of-state donations and support for his bid that Cruz can and Castro likely could have, and—as a white male—will not generate the same sort of enthusiasm from some on the identity politics-obsessed Left.

Ted Cruz will still have to worry about many things between now and next November—O’Rourke’s challenge in the general election, the national political climate, and the potential of a primary challenge from the party establishment chief among them. But with Castro passing on the race, Cruz’s life has been made a little easier.

Trump's Right About The Ninth Circuit

On the campaign trail, Trump would sometimes discuss his desire to “break up the Ninth Circuit”, dividing the federal circuit court based in California into two smaller bodies. He recently affirmed this desire in an interview, following a 60 Minutes segment which also touched on the subject.

He’s right, but not for the reason some conservatives are giving.

Yes, the Ninth Circuit is infamous for its liberal bias. And yes, the court is one of the most-reversed appeals court in the nation, with roughly 80% of decisions being reversed by the Supreme Court upon review. But these facts by themselves should not be sufficient grounds for fundamentally reshaping the structure of the nation’s judiciary.

The simple fact is that from a logistical standpoint, the current structure of the Ninth Circuit in relation to the other eleven federal circuit courts is ridiculous. The Ninth Circuit has more than twice the number of active judges as the next largest appeals court, with 29, and the states and territories which make up the circuit’s jurisdiction comprise 20% of the entire U.S. population. For logistical reasons alone, the court should be split in two—a fact recognized by Justices Thomas and Kennedy ten years ago.

The logistical reasons alone for splitting the Ninth Circuit are important enough, and if conservatives hope to have any meaningful chance of actually reforming the judiciary, with bipartisan support, they would do well to focus on the more technical arguments of the issue. Otherwise, should Republicans make the ideological makeup of the court as much a part of the conversation as its unwieldy size, Democrats could well get it in their head to attempt to meddle with the structure of more conservative circuit courts, such as the Third Circuit, in hopes of creating conditions more favorable to judicial activism and concepts of a “living Constitution”. The related yet separate problem of the Ninth Circuit’s judicial overreach is one better answered by prudent use of the President’s nomination power, and the Senate’s review of those nominations.

Evaluating Trump, 100 Days In

I’ve never been a fan of the narrative, espoused by so many in the media, that the “first one hundred days” of a President’s term is in any way meaningful or an accurate reflection on the success of his presidency. Is it fair to judge a President as a failure for not achieving anything of significance in the first hundred days, but instead using that time to negotiate and plan, and set up a great milestone on day 150? The entire concept reeks more of liberal FDR-worship than any meaningful attempt to quantify the success of a presidency.

That being said, Trump has now been in office for just over 100 days, and now’s as good a time as any to check in on his successes and failures—remembering that a lot can still happen in the 3 ½ years left in his term.

Unfortunately for Trump, the two highlights of his first hundred days that first come to mind are the travel ban (suspended by a federal judge on legal grounds) and the Obamacare replacement bill (pulled from the floor due to lack of votes, though negotiations are ongoing). Though many will disagree with me, I had little concern with either the original or revised travel ban orders (though implementation was a different matter entirely), and the suspension is really not Trump’s fault. The Obamacare bill, on the other hand, was terrible from the beginning, and blame for that debacle must rest with the President at least partially, for embracing it so fully, rushing the process, and attempting to bully conservative skeptics into taking his side.

Those have been perhaps the most high-profile events of Trump’s time in office so far, and it would be easy to write a summary of his first hundred days focusing entirely on those two misfires. But to do so would not be fair to Trump or his administration, and ignore several conservative policy successes. Let us not forget that on his first weekend in office, Trump restored the Mexico City Policy, barring federal funding of groups that promote abortions internationally (such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation). He has assumed a tougher posture in dealings with North Korea, Syria, Iran, and (surprisingly) Russia than Barack Obama ever did, and backed up talk with action. And his recently released preliminary budget is everything Obama’s attempts weren’t: namely, fiscally sane and small government-friendly.

When Trump said during the campaign that he would “surround himself with good people”, I and others mocked him and wondered how much he would actually listen to those “good people”. But he has, in fact, surrounded himself with a truly stellar Cabinet and military advisors (I have my differences with a couple, but on the whole a conservative could not hope for a more knowledgeable and principled group of people), and just as surprising seems to actually be listening to them, at least most of the time.

President Trump still has a ways to go, but overall his time in office is off to a promising start. If he keeps the momentum going, signs an Obamacare replacement bill that actually repeals Obamacare, and maybe tones down the tweets just a bit (I say that reluctantly; I’ve come to enjoy reading them), he’ll have the makings of a great first year.