On Covid and Texas, Biden Courts a Constitutional Crisis

 

When Donald Trump was president, we heard a lot about Norms® and Standards. Trump was accused of violating this vague collection of unwritten rules, a convenient tactic when they couldn’t prove actual crimes. The good news was that Biden’s election would restore this Beltway-approved system of etiquette. How refreshing.

Eight months into his administration, Biden has folded, spindled, and mutilated our Norms® and Standards, even those mandated by the Constitution. Trump was erratic but Biden is openly courting a constitutional crisis.

Pressured by far-left backbencher Cori Bush in August, the White House reinstated an eviction ban already declared illegal by the Supreme Court. Biden knew it was a violation but said: “by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time.”

As expected, SCOTUS immediately crushed it stating, “if a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it.” Just as it says in the Constitution.

On Thursday, Biden made two more obviously unconstitutional moves. First, he ordered hapless Attorney General Merrick Garland to sue the state of Texas over its new abortion law. The administration was furious that the Supreme Court actually followed the law and refused to issue an emergency stay. The DOJ bizarrely claimed that a state exercising its rights will “nullify the Constitution of the United States.”

Later in the day, the President announced a six-point plan to tackle Covid. Called “Path out of the Pandemic,” his executive orders require millions of Americans to get vaccinated or lose their jobs. The groups include federal employees, employees of contractors that do business with the federal government, and workers in hospitals, home health care facilities, and other medical facilities.

Biden also ordered all private employers with 100 employees or more to require weekly Covid testing, and they are required to give employees paid time off to get vaccinated.

“This is not about freedom or personal choice,” Biden said in a national address. “We’ve been patient but our patience is wearing thin and your refusal has cost all of us.” After attacking Americans, the President took on the states. “If these governors won’t help,” Biden said, “I will use my powers as president and get them out of the way.”

Back in December, Biden promised that he would not make vaccines mandatory. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki repeated this in July. But Biden’s promises are irrelevant, as Americans and allies still stranded in Afghanistan have learned. Wanting voters to forget the crisis overseas, he is creating new ones on the homefront.

The White House has no authority to do any of this, of course. The White House knows they have no authority to do any of this. Biden is doing it anyway.

Norms®? Standards? Not for Biden. He has chosen constitutional crisis.

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 163 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Also, I am not Editor In Chief and my posts do get to be placed automatically on the Main Feed.

    . . . with the prerogative of pinning your post to the top of the Main Feed for days.

    • #91
  2. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Also, I am not Editor In Chief and my posts do get to be placed automatically on the Main Feed.

    . . . with the prerogative of pinning your post to the top of the Main Feed for days.

    Bingo 

    • #92
  3. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    So what’s the solution here, guys?  Blue Yeti, Rob Long, and Peter Robinson are not going to fire Jon because of that post.  Peter and Rob are not going to fire Blue Yeti. Being that Rob is a founder of the business, he’s not going to be fired.  I don’t think Jon is going to set himself on fire as an apology for having a negative opinion about a politician you revere.  Are you going to keep carping and sniping about it forever? 

    You can either accept that there are people in high places on this site who have very different views than you or you can go somewhere else where everyone thinks alike.

    • #93
  4. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Jon will never admit his post on the 6th was out of line because he still believes it. Otherwise he would have recanted.

    I bet that you have written a post or two that people have found objectionable, Bryan. What would you think of someone who went into post after post after post of yours to chide you in the comments for that previous post?

    I am happy to defend what I have said in the past, or to admit I was wrong if I was.

    If someone has a post I have written that you don’t like, then by all means, please call me on it, and, unlike some people, I expect I will be more than happy to either defend or disavow it.

    What I won’t do, I can promise you, is ignore it as if it never happened, nor will I be snarky because it was brought it up.

    I am fairly libertarian for a Republican and you have written very insulting things about libertarians.  OK.  So What?  We disagree.  If I showed up in the comments on post after post after post of yours to bring up some old argument, maybe you would be happy to keep rehashing an old argument but it would bore the hell out of everyone else.

    • #94
  5. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    So what’s the solution here, guys? Blue Yeti, Rob Long, and Peter Robinson are not going to fire Jon because of that post. Peter and Rob are not going to fire Blue Yeti. Being that Rob is a founder of the business, he’s not going to be fired. I don’t think Jon is going to set himself on fire as an apology for having a negative opinion about a politician you revere. Are you going to keep carping and sniping about it forever?

    You can either accept that there are people in high places on this site who have very different views than you or you can go somewhere else where everyone thinks alike.

    I don’t think  anybody was asking for Jon Gabriel or anyone else to be fired.  They were asking for him to defend his views in  light of what has happened since the election.  This may be somewhat unpleasant in a mostly-friendly group discussion, but I think it is part of a healthy debate as long as people act respectfully and honor the Ricochet code of conduct.  I’ve seen a lot more disparaging remarks than this directed at our stubborn friend with the Ronald Reagan avatar.

    • #95
  6. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Jon will never admit his post on the 6th was out of line because he still believes it. Otherwise he would have recanted.

    I bet that you have written a post or two that people have found objectionable, Bryan. What would you think of someone who went into post after post after post of yours to chide you in the comments for that previous post?

    I am happy to defend what I have said in the past, or to admit I was wrong if I was.

    If someone has a post I have written that you don’t like, then by all means, please call me on it, and, unlike some people, I expect I will be more than happy to either defend or disavow it.

    What I won’t do, I can promise you, is ignore it as if it never happened, nor will I be snarky because it was brought it up.

    I am fairly libertarian for a Republican and you have written very insulting things about libertarians. OK. So What? We disagree. If I showed up in the comments on post after post after post of yours to bring up some old argument, maybe you would be happy to keep rehashing an old argument but it would bore the hell out of everyone else.

    It would probably annoy me too if one person challenged my previous views multiple times.  However, Jon Gabriel is in the unique position of being the Grand Pooh Bah of this website, and therefore is exposed to criticism/praise more than any other member in the discussions.  Just like being President of the United States, the job comes along with much more responsibility and scrutiny than the job of men’s room attendant.  And it is not just one person who is criticizing the infamous post about the January 6th riot and his encouragement to impeach Donald Trump.  I haven’t taken a poll but this matter is a fairly widespread concern among Ricochetti.

    • #96
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    So what’s the solution here, guys? Blue Yeti, Rob Long, and Peter Robinson are not going to fire Jon because of that post. Peter and Rob are not going to fire Blue Yeti. Being that Rob is a founder of the business, he’s not going to be fired. I don’t think Jon is going to set himself on fire as an apology for having a negative opinion about a politician you revere. Are you going to keep carping and sniping about it forever?

    You can either accept that there are people in high places on this site who have very different views than you or you can go somewhere else where everyone thinks alike.

    I don’t think anybody was asking for Jon Gabriel or anyone else to be fired. They were asking for him to defend his views in light of what has happened since the election. This may be somewhat unpleasant in a mostly-friendly group discussion, but I think it is part of a healthy debate as long as people act respectfully and honor the Ricochet code of conduct. I’ve seen a lot more disparaging remarks than this directed at our stubborn friend with the Ronald Reagan avatar.

    I actually think it’s kinda funny – poetic justice or something – to use “Jon’s Creation” in part to refute and debunk and discredit Jon’s views expressed on that same “Creation.”  And especially the… “tenor”… with which he sometimes expresses them.

    • #97
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    BRT

    • #98
  9. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Percival (View Comment):

    BRT

    What is BRT?

    • #99
  10. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    BRT

    What is BRT?

    Boring, repetitive, and tense.

    • #100
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    I didn’t agree with Jon’s Post of Infamy, but I didn’t need my fainting couch after reading it, either. Neither did I wet my pants when the MAGA Shaman marched through the hallowed halls of Congress. If I can stomach the idea of Dick Durbin holding a position in the US Senate that doesn’t involve ladling out bean soup, I can deal with all that.

    • #101
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    I didn’t agree with Jon’s Post of Infamy, but I didn’t need my fainting couch after reading it, either. Neither did I wet my pants when the MAGA Shaman marched through the hallowed halls of Congress. If I can stomach the idea of Dick Durbin holding a position in the US Senate that doesn’t involve ladling out bean soup, I can deal with all that.

    I don’t know that anyone here needed a “fainting couch” after Jon’s screed, but we’re not libs/Dims.

    Well, not most of us, anyway.

    • #102
  13. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    The 1905 case – Jacobson vs. Massachusetts in 1905 – upheld the constitutionality of a state law mandating vaccination.

    It would seem that presidential authority does not extend to a vaccination mandate. What is your take Jerry on a federal law mandating vaccinations? Would that be upheld? To uphold a federal law it would seem that SCOTUS would need to stretch the commerce clause once again well beyond the breaking point. But who knows?

    I question the will of congress to pass such legislation in the first place.

    What are your thoughts?

    Thats the Eugenics law right?  The one that was basically used to do a whole bunch of terrible things, included forced sterilizations.  

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/

     

    No. It was a state law mandating smallpox vaccination, a truly necessary vaccination against a truly deadly disease, far beyond even the Spanish Flu. Smallpox was driven out of the world by a truly worldwide military style operation to immunize every single person, ending in the same Pakistani mountains that have more recently harbored Islamic terrorist groups.

    And, the Supreme Court said it was not really forced vaccination because all the law did was allow up to a single $5 fine (about $100 today). So, nothing contemplated by the lab coat left node of the authoritarian blob is supported by that old case. It was the evil, lawless 1927 ruling in Buck v Bell that upheld eugenics via forced sterilization. Holmes falsely cited Jacobson v Massachusetts as authority for imposing forced sterilization on people.

    It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 1125 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

    • #103
  14. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):
    I don’t think Jon is going to set himself on fire as an apology for having a negative opinion about a politician you revere.

    Now see? This is unfair. I do not “revere” Donald Trump. I don’t set him up as some kind of idol. I am not a Trump cultist!! And I don’t believe anyone else on Ricochet is either. We see the man with his flaws. We see the compromises built-in to our electoral system. We’re not idiots. And, as it turns out, we got pretty lucky with the Trump interregnum. I was skeptical, but until COVID (interesting timing), Trump was nudging this ship of state in the right direction. His administration was a pause between the radicalism of Barack Obama and the collapse Joe Biden is accelerating.

    But, Jon and other NTers can’t write a single stinking post about the looming disaster of Democrat rule in this country without taking a dig at Trump. I’m just asking for one example of what he means about Trump being “erratic” in this context. Just one!

    /now I am getting angry, and I wasn’t before

    • #104
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    One could, and I would argue should, have been able to discern between a bumptious, accidentally blasphemous, frequently outrageous, generally caustic man capable of getting things done, and a potted plant.

    • #105
  16. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    But, Jon and other NTers can’t write a single stinking post about the looming disaster of Democrat rule in this country without taking a dig at Trump. I’m just asking for one example of what he means about Trump being “erratic” in this context. Just one!

    And, btw, I’m totally open to the possibility that there is an example. Maybe more than one. I’m asking Jon to think about it and come up with one, which might cause me to think about it — and even agree with him!

    I thought this was how conversation was supposed to work. We share thoughts, sift them out, and decide which we can hold onto and which we can discard. I thought Ricochet was a conversation site expressly designed for this purpose. Prove me right, Jon.

    • #106
  17. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Percival (View Comment):

    One could, and I would argue should, have been able to discern between a bumptious, accidentally blasphemous, frequently outrageous, generally caustic man capable of getting things done, and a potted plant.

    Yes, but I don’t intend to relitigate the Trump-Never Trump positions again. See comments above. I’m actually trying to stay within the context of Jon’s post. 

    • #107
  18. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    One could, and I would argue should, have been able to discern between a bumptious, accidentally blasphemous, frequently outrageous, generally caustic man capable of getting things done, and a potted plant.

    Yes, but I don’t intend to relitigate the Trump-Never Trump positions again. See comments above. I’m actually trying to stay within the context of Jon’s post.

    I was referring back to the post from January. Sorry I drifted there.

    • #108
  19. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Jon will never admit his post on the 6th was out of line because he still believes it. Otherwise he would have recanted.

    I bet that you have written a post or two that people have found objectionable, Bryan. What would you think of someone who went into post after post after post of yours to chide you in the comments for that previous post?

    I am happy to defend what I have said in the past, or to admit I was wrong if I was.

    If someone has a post I have written that you don’t like, then by all means, please call me on it, and, unlike some people, I expect I will be more than happy to either defend or disavow it.

    What I won’t do, I can promise you, is ignore it as if it never happened, nor will I be snarky because it was brought it up.

    I am fairly libertarian for a Republican and you have written very insulting things about libertarians. OK. So What? We disagree. If I showed up in the comments on post after post after post of yours to bring up some old argument, maybe you would be happy to keep rehashing an old argument but it would bore the hell out of everyone else.

    You asked how I felt about it and you got a straight answer. 

     

    • #109
  20. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):
    I don’t think Jon is going to set himself on fire as an apology for having a negative opinion about a politician you revere.

    Now see? This is unfair. I do not “revere” Donald Trump. I don’t set him up as some kind of idol. I am not a Trump cultist!! And I don’t believe anyone else on Ricochet is either. We see the man with his flaws.

    I believe you but I have seen a few Ricochetti who think that Trump  can do no wrong.  Granted, I think  they are in the minority.  Idolizing one’s political heroes is something way more common on the left.  That’s what makes the recent revolt against Biden in the leftist media so significant.  I think  this is the first time since the Johnson administration that leftists have openly castigated a democrat president.

    • #110
  21. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens
    • #111
  22. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I believe you but I have seen a few Ricochetti who think that Trump can do no wrong. Granted, I think they are in the minority.

    Name names.

    This accusations keep being made.

    I don’t think it is too disrespectful to name people on this, since I am not criticizing them for it, but Max Ledoux and Columbo are the first ones that come to mind.

    • #112
  23. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I believe you but I have seen a few Ricochetti who think that Trump can do no wrong. Granted, I think they are in the minority.

    Name names.

    This accusations keep being made.

    I don’t think it is too disrespectful to name people on this, since I am not criticizing them for it, but Max Ledoux and Columbo are the first ones that come to mind.

    And yet both have been unhappy with Trump.

    • #113
  24. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I believe you but I have seen a few Ricochetti who think that Trump can do no wrong. Granted, I think they are in the minority.

    Name names.

    This accusations keep being made.

    I don’t think it is too disrespectful to name people on this, since I am not criticizing them for it, but Max Ledoux and Columbo are the first ones that come to mind.

    And yet both have been unhappy with Trump.

    Maybe so.  I don’t read enough Ricochet posts to get a real accurate pulse on things, but of the stuff I have read, I never saw these two criticize Trump when it was clearly warranted..

    • #114
  25. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I don’t think  anybody was asking for Jon Gabriel or anyone else to be fired.  They were asking for him to defend his views in  light of what has happened since the election.

    I think in particular what we’ve learned about the events of that day over the last several months.

    I should have thought that after four years of the media pressing their anti-Trump narrative, only to learn a few days later that their narrative was a lie from the start (see Covington Catholic for a great example, although there have been lots more), that “hold your fire” is the best approach when responding to “Breaking News about Trump!”

    And now, after several months, the “INSURRECTON! COUP!” narrative has been revealed to be utter nonsense. Anyone still saying “We almost lost the country that day!” needs to be made to wear a dunce cap and sit in an internet-free corner for about a decade.

    • #115
  26. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Now see? This is unfair. I do not “revere” Donald Trump. I don’t set him up as some kind of idol. I am not a Trump cultist!! And I don’t believe anyone else on Ricochet is either.

    There are as many Trump Cultists in this country as there are QAnon-ers.

    Which is to say “statistically zero, but it’s a handy stick to beat people with.”

     

    • #116
  27. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Now see? This is unfair. I do not “revere” Donald Trump. I don’t set him up as some kind of idol. I am not a Trump cultist!! And I don’t believe anyone else on Ricochet is either.

    There are as many Trump Cultists in this country as there are QAnon-ers.

    Which is to say “statistically zero, but it’s a handy stick to beat people with.”

    Yes, and this is the tactic used to avoid answering the question. “Oh, you’re just a Trump cultist who believes he’s infallible. I don’t have to answer your challenge because you wouldn’t accept any data I provided anyway.” 

    That’s NOT a path toward civil discourse, dear Editor in Chief.

    • #117
  28. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I believe you but I have seen a few Ricochetti who think that Trump can do no wrong. Granted, I think they are in the minority.

    Name names.

    This accusations keep being made.

    I don’t think it is too disrespectful to name people on this, since I am not criticizing them for it, but Max Ledoux and Columbo are the first ones that come to mind.

    I’ll have you know that I revere Columbo — I am a founding member of the cult of Columbo — and I will brook no insult sir!

    • #118
  29. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    BDB (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I believe you but I have seen a few Ricochetti who think that Trump can do no wrong. Granted, I think they are in the minority.

    Name names.

    This accusations keep being made.

    I don’t think it is too disrespectful to name people on this, since I am not criticizing them for it, but Max Ledoux and Columbo are the first ones that come to mind.

    I’ll have you know that I revere Columbo — I am a founding member of the cult of Columbo — and I will brook no insult sir!

    Pardon me sir, there’s just one more thing……………………

    • #119
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    One could, and I would argue should, have been able to discern between a bumptious, accidentally blasphemous, frequently outrageous, generally caustic man capable of getting things done, and a potted plant.

    You realize, I hope, that comparing Joe Biden to a potted plant is an insult to potted plants.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.