Supreme Court Turns Minor Case Into a Potential Constitutional Conflict

 

shutterstock_141934102At first glance, yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry — holding that Congress couldn’t force the executive branch to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel on a passport — seems destined to end up as but a footnote in most constitutional law books. It only decides whether the president or Congress controls the content of U.S. passports. But because Zivotofsky involves the treatment of Jerusalem, it adds to the president’s foreign affairs arsenal and could affect the struggle over U.S. Middle East policy, such as an Iranian nuclear deal.

Zivotofsky upholds the executive’s right to control passports. According to the Court’s decision, the State Department, rather than Congress, decides whether to record the birthplace of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem as “Jerusalem,” rather than “Israel.” All of the justices agree that the president holds a monopoly on the recognition of foreign governments, which stems from his exclusive constitutional authority to “receive Ambassadors” and has existed since President Washington’s 1793 proclamation of neutrality during the French Revolution. Congress, on the other hand, has the authority to control immigration, the borders, and international travel. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on behalf of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, used an ill-conceived and undefined balancing test to conclude that Congress could not use these powers to contradict the president’s position on Israel’s territorial boundaries. A law using passports to contradict the president’s decision to recognize Israel “would not only prevent the Nation from speaking with one voice but also prevent the Executive itself from doing so in conducting foreign relations.”

It is refreshing to see Democratic-appointed Justices, some of whom criticized President Bush’s right to manage the War on Terror, take a stand in favor of the executive’s authority in foreign affairs (though don’t hold your breath for their embrace of a President Walker’s use of executive power). Their majority opinion, however, skims over the most critical point by mistaking the power over passports as belonging to Congress, rather than the executive. But even if Congress enjoys this power, Justice Kennedy fails to explain why it undermines the executive’s recognition of Israel. His reason — that Congress cannot force the Secretary of State to contradict the president — makes little sense. Regardless of the passport’s listing of birthplace, U.S. recognition of Israel remains unchanged. President Obama can still maintain his frosty relations with Benjamin Netanyahu and even threaten to support Arab and European persecution of Israel at the United Nations, all the while claiming to be Israel’s best friend before domestic audiences. Although Congress’s passport law may reveal that the Republican legislature is far more supportive of Israel than the president, this will only come as news to those who missed Netanyahu’s March address before Congress.

Kennedy’s mushy reasoning provoked an acerbic dissent from Justice Scalia (on behalf of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito), which, unfortunately, runs counter to a career defending presidential power. In Morrison v. Olson (1988), Justice Scalia authored a foundational dissent against the constitutionality of the independent counsel law. Echoing Alexander Hamilton’s defense of the Neutrality Proclamation, Scalia maintained that all of the executive power of the federal government was vested in the president, minus only the clear exceptions made in the Constitution (as with treaties and appointments, which are shared with the Senate). Congress could not interfere with core functions such as law enforcement by shielding prosecutors from presidential removal. Building on Scalia’s logic, Chief Justice Roberts recently struck down an independent agency regulating the accounting profession for shielding federal officers from presidential supervision. It is difficult to blame them for attacking a majority opinion that, in the usual Kennedy style, effectively arrogates to the judiciary the power to decide another fundamentally political issue — how to resolve foreign policy disputes — that the Constitution leaves up to the political process.

Nevertheless, in his Zivotofsky dissent, Scalia forgets his Hamiltonian logic where it most clearly applies — foreign affairs — to discern a non-textual, congressional authority over passports. As Justice Thomas argues in his concurrence (the best opinion in the case), management of foreign affairs was widely understood at the time of the Framing to be an executive function. Alexander Hamilton, for example, declared in Federalist 72 that “the actual conduct of foreign negotiations,” “the arrangement of the army and navy,” and “the directions of the operations of war” should fall “peculiarly within the province of the executive department.” Only Thomas’s opinion properly solves the conflict in Zivotofsky by finding that the Framers understood the Constitution to grant the power over passports to the president — no mushy Kennedy balancing tests needed.

Why should a passport’s record of a birthplace spark such drama on the Supreme Court? No one seems to have raised a ruckus at the Supreme Court when the State Department started recording Taiwanese birthplaces as “China” in the 1970s. Having just returned after two weeks in Israel, I have a better sense of the local significance of these nuances. Jews, Christians, and Muslims struggle over every square foot of Jerusalem, where sites holy to each religion sit atop one other. Using “Israel” would conflict with longstanding U.S. foreign policy, which does not accept sole Israeli sovereignty over the holy city. When Congress passed the law at stake in Zivotofsky in 2002, George W. Bush declared that Congress would be “impermissibly interfere[ing] with the president’s constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the nation in international affairs, and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states.” (By the way, who wants to bet that this is one signing statement that the New York Times and the American Bar Association won’t claim has destroyed the constitutional order?).

Because the case involved Jerusalem, it could not help but provide a window into the struggle over U.S. policy in the Middle East. It also comes at a time when the sitting commander-in-chief seems more interested in domestic invocations of executive power to bully states or ignore Congress’s immigration, drug, and education laws than taking the initiative abroad. Zivotofsky’s defense of presidential power in foreign affairs no doubt will bolster President Obama’s claim to lead the nation on the Israel–Palestinian conflict and policy toward Iran. Obama will now have a freer constitutional hand to play if he ends America’s traditional defense of Israel at the United Nations or reduces U.S. military support and aid. He will argue against any new congressional efforts to increase sanctions on Iran or Syria or reduce support for the Palestinians because they interfere, à la Zivotofsky, with executive foreign policy in the Middle East.

But the true crucible will come when President Obama reaches his misguided agreement on the Iranian nuclear weapons program this summer. The White House has agreed to submit the deal to Congress within 60 days of signing it. Under the new accommodation, opponents must pass a law to reject the agreement, and, if such a rejection is vetoed (as it likely would be), garner two-thirds majorities of both houses to kill the agreement. This upends the constitutional order, in which the Senate must approve treaties by a two-thirds vote, not reject them.

Zivotofsky offers President Obama an end run around the Constitution’s treaty clause, already diluted by Congress’s law for reviewing the deal. Suppose President Obama promises non-aggression by the United States in exchange for a halt to Tehran’s nuclear programs. As John Bolton and I argued in National Review last December, such a significant commitment of U.S. sovereignty must undergo the Constitution’s treaty process to constitute a legally binding agreement. But President Obama could argue that he is making no deal at all; he is only setting executive foreign policy to remain friendly toward Iran as long as it remains a non-nuclear power. Any written text would only establish a “framework” for cooperation. He could thus refuse to send a deal with Iran to Congress because he had made no legal agreement that rose to the level of a treaty.

Republicans would respond by ramping up sanctions on the Iranian economy. Suppose they overcome a White House veto to do so. The Supreme Court’s decision suddenly could raise its ugly head. In the last year of his term, President Obama might refuse to obey the sanctions. He could repeat his refusal to enforce the laws and, as he did with immigration, claim that he is selectively prosecuting cases in the national interest, even if he chooses zero cases to bring. But Zivotofsky could give the White House an added dimension of authority. The Administration could argue that sanctions, even though passed pursuant to Congress’s sole control over foreign commerce, force executive-branch officers to contradict the president’s foreign policy toward Iran. While the dissenters in Zivotofsky thought the notion ridiculous, three years ago most would have found equally ridiculous that President Obama would systematically refuse to enforce the immigration laws in millions of cases.

This is why Justice Thomas’s opinion charted the true course for the Court. His finding that the executive power in foreign affairs encompassed passports does not undermine Congress’s control over international commerce. By mistaking the source of the power, both the majority and dissent transformed a rather minor case into a constitutional conflict between the executive and legislative branches. The majority’s outcome foisted on the Constitution an unwarranted and unpredictable balancing test that could support an evasion of the treaty power. The main conservative dissent accepted the conflict, lost, and in so doing turned its back on a once consistent defense of an energetic executive. Perhaps all of the justices could not help but decide this case with the coming constitutional conflict over Iran on the horizon. The majority’s decision, unfortunately, pretends that such matters are open to resolution in the courts, rather than in the political process where they belong.

 

Crossposted at National Review

 

There are 18 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    John Yoo: All of the justices agree that the president holds a monopoly on the recognition of foreign governments, which stems from his exclusive constitutional authority to “receive Ambassadors” and has existed since President Washington’s 1793 proclamation of neutrality during the French Revolution.

    No. See p. 2 of the Roberts dissent:

    In this case, the President claims the exclusive and preclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns. The Court devotes much of its analysis to accepting the Executive’s contention. Ante, at 6–26. I have serious doubts about that position. The majority places great weight on the Reception Clause, which directs that the Executive“shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”Art. II, §3. But that provision, framed as an obligation rather than an authorization, appears alongside the duties imposed on the President by Article II, Section 3, not the powers granted to him by Article II, Section 2….

    See p. 14 of the Scalia dissent:

    …Today’s holding puts the implied power to recognize territorial claims (which the Court infers from the power to recognize states, which it infers from the responsibility to receive ambassadors) on a higher footing than the express power to make treaties…

    Even Thomas does not go that far. His hypertechnical concentration on the residual power regarding passports does not imply exclusive recognition powers.

    How does your assignment of  “exclusive Constitutional authority” reconcile with the Treaty Clauses?

    • #1
  2. user_82762 Thatcher
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    John,

    I don’t see how this decision effects the Iran deal at all. The constitution expressly lays out the power and procedure of treaty ratification for Congress. The administration can do what it likes and call it what it likes. However, if the Iranians insist that they are signing a binding agreement with the U.S.A. and that they assume it to be enforceable beyond this administration’s tenure then we have a constitutional crisis no matter how the passport case has been decided.

    I think Tom Cotton’s letter will be rewritten at some point. I think Corker’s bill is unconstitutional.

    I think 2 + 2 = 4

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #2
  3. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    John Yoo: Only Thomas’s opinion properly solves the conflict in Zivotofsky by finding that the Framers understood the Constitution to grant the power over passports to the president — no mushy Kennedy balancing tests needed.

    Here, I’m getting a bit more speculative.

    I read Thomas’s opinion as limiting Congress’s power to bigger things than passports. Thomas would allow Congress to make the same political statements about Jerusalem in other contexts that were more closely tied to express Constitutional grants of Congressional power. See p. 28 of Thomas’s opinion:

    Because regulation of the consular report of birth abroad is justified as an exercise of Congress’ powers under the Naturalization and Necessary and Proper Clauses and does not fall within the President’s foreign affairs powers, §214(d)’s treatment of that document is constitutional.

    However, even Thomas’s opinion leaves a question as to the dividing line. Scalia makes much of this.

    • #3
  4. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Let’s hope and pray that this is the last time this term that we see  a majority opinion by Kennedy, based on “mushy reasoning,” and joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

    • #4
  5. user_199279 Coolidge
    user_199279
    @ChrisCampion

    So why would the Supreme Court take up the case of something that’s so relatively trivial, other than as a vehicle to further influence the actions of the other two bodies (Congress and the office of the President), outside of the Court’s own mandate?

    It’s like they’re casually re-defining the relationships, again, and using the case as a means to do so.  This is a political issue.

    • #5
  6. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    John, What are your thoughts on the procedural aspects of note 2 of Thomas’s opinion:

    2 The majority asserts that Zivotofsky “waived any argument that his consular report of birth abroad should be treated differently than his passport” in the court below and in this Court because he “fail[ed] to differentiate between the two documents.” Ante, at 5. But at every stage of the proceedings, Zivotofsky has pressed his claim that he is entitled to have his place of birth listed as “Israel” on both his passport and his consular report of birth abroad, and the consular report issue is fairly included in the question presented. Parties cannot waive the correct interpretation of the law simply by failing to invoke it. See, e.g., EEOC v. FLRA, 476 U. S. 19, 23 (1986) (per curiam). That the parties have argued the case as if the same analysis should apply to both documents does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to interpret the law correctly.

    • #6
  7. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    I agree with the outcome of the decision and consider it further proof that Tom Cotton is the Republicans’ Dixie Chick.

    • #7
  8. user_82762 Thatcher
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Tommy De Seno:I agree with the outcome of the decision and consider it further proof that Tom Cotton is the Republicans’ Dixie Chick.

    T,

    Does the word Treaty mean a Treaty? Is is is?

    McConnell & Boehner Brain Trust or Brain Rust? The Trade Bill another giant blank check handed to Obama. He’s hidden a little extra immigration in it too. Rick Perry just got nauseous and isn’t going to swallow this giant lox.

    Make jokes about Cotton all you want but Corker has the I.Q. of a hamster and you are going to need to read Dante’s Inferno to find out where he’ll be retiring to. Tom Cotton will be going up not down.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #8
  9. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    James Gawron:

    Tommy De Seno:I agree with the outcome of the decision and consider it further proof that Tom Cotton is the Republicans’ Dixie Chick.

    T,

    Does the word Treaty mean a Treaty? Is is is?

    McConnell & Boehner Brain Trust or Brain Rust? The Trade Bill another giant blank check handed to Obama. He’s hidden a little extra immigration in it too. Rick Perry just got nauseous and isn’t going to swallow this giant lox.

    Make jokes about Cotton all you want but Corker has the I.Q. of a hamster and you are going to need to read Dante’s Inferno to find out where he’ll be retiring to. Tom Cotton will be going up not down.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I’d prefer Tom Cotton follow the rules while preaching the rules.

    I support his insistence on approval of treaties.

    I reject his insistence on being at the negotiating table with a foreign power.

    His own chamber in a prior report found such behavior made America less safe.

    I agree.

    • #9
  10. user_82762 Thatcher
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Tommy De Seno:

    James Gawron:

    Tommy De Seno:I agree with the outcome of the decision and consider it further proof that Tom Cotton is the Republicans’ Dixie Chick.

    T,

    Does the word Treaty mean a Treaty? Is is is?

    McConnell & Boehner Brain Trust or Brain Rust? The Trade Bill another giant blank check handed to Obama. He’s hidden a little extra immigration in it too. Rick Perry just got nauseous and isn’t going to swallow this giant lox.

    Make jokes about Cotton all you want but Corker has the I.Q. of a hamster and you are going to need to read Dante’s Inferno to find out where he’ll be retiring to. Tom Cotton will be going up not down.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I’d prefer Tom Cotton follow the rules while preaching the rules.

    I support his insistence on approval of treaties.

    I reject his insistence on being at the negotiating table with a foreign power.

    His own chamber in a prior report found such behavior made America less safe.

    I agree.

    Tommy,

    I’m so sorry but I disagree. The Iranian Foreign Minister himself has told you that he is signing a binding treaty. He has told you that none of what BHO has promised in terms of safeguards are acceptable. On a weekly basis mass rallies are held in which the slogan “Death to America” is repeated at every one and has been since the inception of the regime. If you want to buy the Marxist-Leninist hallucination that it’s all our fault be my guest. I personally am tired of looking at the World like a 12 year old. It’s not all our fault, in fact most of it is theirs. Jihad isn’t a legitimate way of looking at the World. I think they know this too. They just can’t get over how easy it is to twist us into a pretzel. Every time I see Zarif looking at Kerry like a pick pocket at a carnival who has the wallet of his mark, I want to throw up.

    In the midst of all this to babble on about Tom Cotton’s “behavior” is perhaps worse than the NYT Rubio “luxury yacht” gimmick. Give us a rest.

    He wrote a letter to make a point. It’s BHO that isn’t following the rules and destroying Congress’s constitutional authority to approve treaties. Why repeat this nonsense about Cotton wanting to be at the negotiating table. Nothing could be more of an exaggeration. Meanwhile Zarif is relentlessly quoted in the NYTimes as he negotiates by propaganda direct to the American people.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #10
  11. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Not only is what Cotton did illegal, it’s not smart.

    From a negotiating point of view, it’s juvenile.

    If Obama can use a misconception by the Iranians about our commitment to the “deal” then good for him.  That’s what he’s supposed to do.

    Cotton then writes a letter saying, “Don’t trust him, Iran!  Our guy has you where he wants you – don’t believe him!”

    Good grief.  There is no way a President, or anyone, can negotiate with a guy on his own team undercutting him at the table.

    That’s WHY the authority to negotiate the treaty rests in one man.

    You can’t have 535 Presidents.  You can’t have 535 Secretaries of State.

    Cotton turned his back on the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, Federal Law, tradition, his chamber’s advice and “negotiating 101” all in one self-serving letter.

    • #11
  12. user_82762 Thatcher
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Tommy De Seno:Not only is what Cotton did illegal, it’s not smart.

    From a negotiating point of view, it’s juvenile.

    If Obama can use a misconception by the Iranians about our commitment to the “deal” then good for him. That’s what he’s supposed to do.

    Cotton then writes a letter saying, “Don’t trust him, Iran! Our guy has you where he wants you – don’t believe him!”

    Good grief. There is no way a President, or anyone, can negotiate with a guy on his own team undercutting him at the table.

    That’s WHY the authority to negotiate the treaty rests in one man.

    You can’t have 535 Presidents. You can’t have 535 Secretaries of State.

    Cotton turned his back on the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, Federal Law, tradition, his chamber’s advice and “negotiating 101″ all in one self-serving letter.

    Tommy,

    The President has been playing the magic Iran card now for years. This is a reset with the Russians. There was no reset. Putin hasn’t stopped except when there is enough force to stop him.

    There is no Iran deal. Zarif has already told us so. The President won’t be able to successfully negotiate a deal because he doesn’t have a partner that is interested in a deal. That’s an understatement. Neville Chamberlain simply decided that he could write a deal with Hitler and all would be just fine.

    Kerry claimed they had signed a 4 page preliminary agreement. The next day the Iranian version wasn’t the same as the English version and Zarif comes out to the media and calls Kerry a liar.

    What Tom Cotton does or anybody else for that matter doesn’t make any difference because there is no Iran deal period. Whatever piece of paper Kerry gets with whatever signature on it will have all the worth of Chamberlain’s peace in our time.

    You are doing Tom Cotton, a very just, sincere, decent man, a great disservice by mis-characterizing his attempt to draw attention to the absurdity of the administration’s action as something that it is not.

    As far as using an Iranian misconception about our commitment to the deal against them, this is completely absurd and absolutely dangerous. Nothing will blacken our name and destroy our effectiveness in the World more than this kind of fool’s deal.

    Hopefully there will be a country left in January 2017 when the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. vacates the premises.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #12
  13. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    James you keep ignoring the issue.

    The issue is not what the deal is or whether there is one. Both of those are irrelevant.

    What you think of Iran, your President or his policies are of an entirely different subject than the one under consideration.

    The issue is the negotiation process itself.  Only one man gets to be at the table.  If there is no deal, that’s all the more reason for Cotton not to communicate with Iran.

    Only the President having the right to negotiate is not a burdensome rule that we begrudgingly follow. If that were the case we’d rid ourselves of the rule.  But that’s not the case.  It’s the only smart way to have a negotiation.   The Senate chamber declared in it’s own report that America herself will be unsafe if that procedure is not respected. As someone who negotiates every singly day, I have real world experience as to why that rule is the right one and why the Senate chamber was correct when they supported it.

    The Republican Senators who signed that letter to Iran, evidenced by their own chamber’s declaration before Obama was President, made America less safe.

    I hold my side to a high standard.

    When our side has a President again, and every Democrat pulls the same stunt during a negotiation, I’ll be waiting here on Ricochet for everyone who cheered Cotton to cheer them.

    I just doubt that even the Democrats will be as reckless with America’s safety as Tom Cotton and pull such a selfish stunt.

    • #13
  14. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Tommy, Is your objection to Senator Cotton’s actions one of form or substance? Would you have objected if he addressed the letter to the president? Would you have objected to him introducing a sense of the Senate resolution?

    • #14
  15. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Tommy De Seno:Not only is what Cotton did illegal, it’s not smart.

    From a negotiating point of view, it’s juvenile.

    If Obama can use a misconception by the Iranians about our commitment to the “deal” then good for him. That’s what he’s supposed to do.

    Cotton then writes a letter saying, “Don’t trust him, Iran! Our guy has you where he wants you – don’t believe him!”

    Good grief. There is no way a President, or anyone, can negotiate with a guy on his own team undercutting him at the table.

    That’s WHY the authority to negotiate the treaty rests in one man.

    You can’t have 535 Presidents. You can’t have 535 Secretaries of State.

    Cotton turned his back on the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, Federal Law, tradition, his chamber’s advice and “negotiating 101″ all in one self-serving letter.

    Tommy,

    You are supposing that the president is acting in bad faith relative to Iran and in good faith relative to the American people. Is that something this president has ever done or shown any likelihood of doing?

    Which scenario is more likely:

    1) Obama is working to get our bunker buster supply up to the level needed for an attack on Iran and he wants these negotiations to go on so that Iran does not become worried and disperse the few bombs they already have. Cotton is screwing that up.

    2) Obama wants to  keep these negotiations going while weakening our military so that Iran can break out with a cold war level nuclear capability we can do nothing about.

    • #15
  16. user_82762 Thatcher
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Tommy,

    The Republican Senators who signed that letter to Iran, evidenced by their own chamber’s declaration before Obama was President, made America less safe.

    I hold my side to a high standard.

    When our side has a President again, and every Democrat pulls the same stunt during a negotiation, I’ll be waiting here on Ricochet for everyone who cheered Cotton to cheer them.

    I just doubt that even the Democrats will be as reckless with America’s safety as Tom Cotton and pull such a selfish stunt.

    Isn’t this an exceptionally naive political position. The Democrats have been doing exactly that to Republican Presidents for the last 35 years. They practically tried to represent the Sandinistas at the bargaining table against Ronald Reagan.

    Cotton’s action makes America less safe only by an illusory standard. In the Obama fantasy world we reset with Putin’s Russia, we slaughter Qaddafi for nothing, we undermine every Muslim ally nation with the Arab Spring, and last but far from least we hallucinate an Iranian alliance that will never exist.

    Allowing Obama & Kerry ever more latitude to peddle their lunacy is what’s making America less safe.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #16
  17. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    ctlaw:Tommy, Is your objection to Senator Cotton’s actions one of form or substance? Would you have objected if he addressed the letter to the president? Would you have objected to him introducing a sense of the Senate resolution?

    Form first.  Most certainly form first.

    The Logan Act makes sense.  The Federalist Papers make sense. The Senate Report that said Senators should NOT get involved in active negotiations of the President makes sense.  They all make sense because good negotiation science insists upon it.

    Negotiation is far more than just saying, “Here is our position…what do you think?”  It’s a psychological game that not only has objective tools of application but very subjective ones based upon who the players are.  It requires not identifying what is actually important to you and highlighting something not important that you let the other side take from you, so they feel like they scored a point.  Tone is important.  Timing is important.  Subtle signals from the other side that can only be interpreted during the process are important.

    If the other side has a misconception that works to their disadvantage, you ride that horse right through the finish wire.

    So for a variety of damages to position that someone who is not an active player in the room can cause when he bursts into the room and insists upon being heard, I object to Cotton writing to the other side while my President is in negotiation.

    If you look back at his letter, he actually tells the Iranians that our President is giving them the sleeves off this vest –  that they likely won’t be able to enforce our obligations.

    If that was truly the case, then Obama via Kerry was doing a good job.  This is akin to a catcher telling a batter that his own pitcher is about to throw a curve.

    Our disapproval of our own President has to stop short of alerting the enemy that we have the drop on them.  That’s the worst light I can see Cotton in.

    The best light for him is a Dixie Chick.  He was looking for an applause line at the expense of the President.

    • #17
  18. user_82762 Thatcher
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    The best light for him is a Dixie Chick.  He was looking for an applause line at the expense of the President.

    The President is looking for an applause line at the expense of the American People and Western Civilization.

    If Tom Cotton is a Dixie Chick then Corker is Jennifer Flowers. Just one more Congressional push over.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #18

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.