What Obama Could Learn from the EU

What do the Greek crisis and the arms negotiations in Iran have in common? We keep extending the deadline and talking further in deference to the crazy people causing the problem. Only in the case of Greece, the EU has finally reached a point of “No” and meaning it, stopping the socialist centrifuge reducing the Greek economy to its constitutent parts.

But the Obama foreign policy titans continue to extend the deadline for a deal with Iran, while its nuclear centrifuges keep spinning furiously. Obama needs to learn to say “No” to the Iranians and walk away. The Iranians correctly sense that Obama can’t or won’t do this, and as such enjoy maximum negotiating leverage. I’m sure by now they’re offering to throw in a nice rug for John Kerry’s yacht.

It’s an amazing day when the European Union shows more resolve and spine than the U.S. government, but by now we should expect it from Obama.  Of course, the EU is dealing with someone who appears to be certifiably crazy (or angling for a cabinet appointment in a Bernie Sanders Administration), as this Reuters report makes clear:

A defiant Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras urged Greeks on Wednesday to reject an international bailout deal, wrecking any prospect of repairing broken relations with EU partners before a referendum on Sunday that may decide Greece’s future in Europe.

Less than 24 hours after he wrote a conciliatory letter to creditors asking for a new bailout that would accept many of their terms, Tsipras abruptly switched back into combative mode in a television address.

Greece was being “blackmailed”, he said, quashing talk that he might delay the vote, call it off or urge Greeks to vote yes.

The remarks added to the frantic and at times surreal atmosphere of recent days in which acrimonious messages from the leftist government have alternated with late-night offers of concessions to restart negotiations.

“Surreal atmosphere”? That would go double for the U.S.—Iran talks, too.

Men not at work

The new unemployment rate announced this morning was 5.3 percent, down from 5.5 percent last month. The AP story is here; the Bloomberg story is here. The economy is said to have added 223,000 jobs last month, but the decline in the unemployment rate is, as usual deceiving. The decline in the unemployment rate reflects the continuing decline in the labor participation rate: “The participation rate, which indicates the share of the working-age people in the labor force, [fell] to 62.6 percent, the lowest since October 1977, from 62.9 percent” (Bloomberg). “The result is that the proportion of Americans working or looking for work fell to a 38-year low” (AP). Thirty-eight years takes us back to 1977, the unhappy dawn of the Age of Carter.

Via Geoffrey Norman/Weekly Standard.

The Sharpton angle

Suppose they put together an MSNBC panel to comment on the political scene and Al Sharpton didn’t come? I’m guessing that the panel’s average IQ wouldn’t be affected, but the entertainment value would decline precipitously. On the Morning Joe panel featuring Sharpton this morning (video below), Bernie Sanders was the topic of discussion. Sharpton noted Sanders’s “popularism.” And he wasn’t even trying to read off a Teleprompter!

I can mock him all I want — the mockery would never be enough; he is an utterly contemptible figure — but after a brief audio interruption, Sharpton likens Sanders to Gene McCarthy, precisely as I did this morning. I’m filing this under “Laughter Is the Best Medicine” and trying to shake it off.

Via David Rutz/Washington Free Beacon.

New books, dead authors

Pending the arrival of Ammo Grrrll tomorrow, I need laugh now more than ever, and I do not think I’m alone. In the run-up to July 4, moreover, we have the time for it. Joe Queenan provides the opportunity for more than one laugh in his Wall Street Journal Review column “New books, dead authors” (accessible here via Google) of this past weekend. Queenan observes that Tom Clancy and other megaselling authors continue their careers posthumously with a little help from their publisher’s friends. Queenan cranks up as follows:

Tom Clancy is back with a new thriller, officially titled “Tom Clancy Under Fire.” This is a remarkable achievement, given that he died almost two years ago. Actually, as the cover of the book indicates, in print about one-quarter the size of the words “TOM CLANCY,” Tom Clancy’s “Tom Clancy Under Fire” was written by Grant Blackwood.

Queenan’s creative juices begin to flow:

What puzzles me, though, is why the perpetuation of a powerful literary franchise should only apply to writers who died relatively recently. And why does it only apply to beach reading? Why can’t publishers be a bit more imaginative and delve into the annals of history to produce new books that appear under the names of titans who have gone to meet their maker? Who wouldn’t welcome an offering such as this:


By Grant Blackwood

You can imagine the crowds lining up to buy:


By Andrew Neiderman

And why not combine franchises?


By Eric Van Lustbader

Great books revolve around great characters, not great prose, so any reasonably competent hired gun can be brought in to produce a competent work by a titan of the past:


Moreover, in an effort to spur interest in the classics, publishers might consider these offerings:



TOM CLANCY’S THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD by Grant Blackwood and Mark Greaney.

“After that,” of course, “the boys can tackle Shakespeare.”

Biden’s moment

The postulate that nature abhors a vacuum seems to apply in politics as elsewhere. There is a vacuum in the Democratic field of candidates for president. Like Gene McCarthy in 1968, Bernie Sanders is in the process of demonstrating the existence of the vacuum. Again, like McCarthy in 1968, there his utility ends. Sanders would not be a viable Democratic candidate for president.

The vacuum is the space for a plausible alternative to Madam Hillary. Such a candidate would have to be liberal and able to recite the regnant shibboleths with conviction, of course, but he would also have to be likable and honest in his own way in order to distinguish himself from Madam Hillary. This candidate would instantly slow and have a good chance of interrupting the Clinton death march to the Democratic nomination, which seems to be enacting a variant of what Leo Strauss called the joyless quest for joy. In this case it is the joyless quest for power.

Will Joe Biden fill the space created by Hillary’s candidacy? That is the question that Ed Rogers asks online at the Washington Post. He observes:

In a lot of ways, Biden would be the true anti-Hillary. He is completely uninhibited, he is impossible to script — which makes him seem authentic — and he has a human appeal that everyone can relate to. Clinton, on the other hand, is running a surreal campaign that avoids crowds, media and spontaneity of any kind. She is protecting her lead in the most standard, unimaginative way possible. Compared with Clinton’s robotic, stiff approach, could having a reputation for occasionally saying the wrong thing and hugging too much work to Biden’s advantage in an era where voters want the real thing?

S.A. Miller reports at the Washington Times that “Biden’s team is putting out the word that he is leaning in favor of joining the presidential race next month, according to a prominent Democratic fundraiser.” Miller quotes Jon Cooper, described as a top bundler for Obama’s 2012 campaign who has been testing the waters with fellow bundlers for a Biden run: “They have given increasingly strong signals that Biden is going to throw his hat in the ring[.]” Miller adds this quote from Cooper: “I’m as confident as I can be that he will be entering the race,” he said.

Biden, let it be noted, is 72. ecause Barack Obama ended the careers of so many younger Democrat officeholders only the geriatric contingent like Biden are plausible alternatives to Madam Hillary. We know Biden is possessed by the ambition to be president. He would be a fool not to challenge Madam Hillary. He’s not the brightest bulb in the room, but he’s no fool.

Miller’s Washington Times story is accessible here. Warning: Do not click on the link if you are not prepared for the assault that accessing the Times site invites. Jennifer Rubin offers some helpful thoughts in favor of a Biden candidacy here.

FOOTNOTE: I am struggling with the aftereffects of some medication I had to take yesterday. Thanks to the readers who wrote in this morning with corrections to my proofreading and syntactical errors in this post.

Goodnight Vienna (2)

As we continue the dance of death in Vienna to the new deadline of July 7, Omri Ceren (on Twitter @ceronomri) writes in two emails combined below regarding news of the latest evidence of Iran’s cheating under the current JPOA of November 2013. Omni writes:

Remember how we got here. The interim deal was supposed to “freeze” Iran’s nuclear program, but the Iranians demanded to keep enriching uranium gas, so the Americans came up with a technical quick-fix: yes, the Iranians would get to keep enriching gas, but they would commit to turning all newly enriched gas into an oxide powder temporarily unsuitable for further enrichment. They would have to meet that obligation at the end of every sic-month interim deal period.

When the JPOA was extended last summer Secretary of State Kerry was clear about the commitment: “Iran has committed to take further nuclear-related steps… includ[ing] a continued cap on the amount of 5 percent enriched uranium hexafluoride and a commitment to convert any material over that amount into oxide.”

By last month it had become mathematically impossible for the Iranians to meet their oxidation requirement by the June 30 deadline. The Obama administration responded by aggressively gaslighting reporters and lawmakers: it told them to ignore the math and that administration scientists were confident that the Iranians would meet the deadline. Yesterday the IAEA confirmed that – of course – the Iranians missed the deadline. So the administration responded by declaring that… the violation didn’t count, and that it was OK with the noncompliance.

You can expect Congressional lawmakers, think tankers, and journalists to make the obvious point: the Obama administration is so desperate to preserve negotiations with Iran that they’re already spinning away Iranian cheating. They’re doing so even before a final deal has been inked, when they can still walk away. Once they go all-in on a final deal, the incentive will only rise.

Yesterday the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) published a one-pager on exactly this. The full version is pasted below, and describes what the Iranians probably did instead of meeting their obligation (they probably left the uranium in an intermediary, more-easily-reversible form between gas and the oxide they were supposed to produce). But the final two paragraphs are about what it means for a final deal that the U.S. is already ignoring Iranian violations:

When it became clear that Iran could not meet its commitment to convert the LEU into uranium dioxide, the United States revised its criteria for Iran meeting its obligations… The choosing of a weaker condition that must be met is not a good precedent for interpreting more important provisions in a final deal. This case poses several other potential problems about the enforcement of a final deal with Iran. The United States accepted an unproven technical method for converting the LEU. Is it doing so now in a final deal? Are the technical methods in the final deal reliable?… The U.S. government handling of the case of the newly produced LEU under the JPA leads to legitimate doubts about how well that major endeavor will go.

The kicker at the bottom of this Reuters article is sort of striking: “The IAEA did not have an immediate response to a query about its report.” There’s simply not much to say The IAEA confirmed that the Iranians are in violation of a black-letter requirement in the interim JPOA deal to transform their enriched gas into oxide. The administration is declaring that the cheating doesn’t matter.

This controversy is playing out as if it were intentionally scripted to delegitimize the administration’s credibility on enforcing a deal with Iran:

– analysts warned the Obama administration that Iran was cheating;
– the administration responded by publicly attacking the analysts and defending the Iranians, and for good measure declared on the basis of secret analysis that the Iranians would not cheat;
– the Iranians went ahead and cheated; and
– the administration declared that the cheating was OK.

There’s a more subtle level to this story, which is that the Obama administration is trying to play games with legal distinctions between IAEA assessments and P5+1 compliance. But the debate is unlikely to reach that level because the surface scandal – that the Iranians violated the JPOA and the White House worked to spin the cheating away – is so blatant.

Philip Hamburger: Chevron’s last days?

IsAdLawUnlawful Philip Hamburger is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author, most recently, of Is Administrative Law Unlawful? (Editor’s note: Answer: Yes.) It is easily one of the most important books published in 2014 and certainly one of the most important I have ever read.

Professor Hamburger has graciously taken time out from his vacation to comment at our request on the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this week in Michigan v. EPA. Professor Hamburger writes:

Whatever you think of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, the really seismic constitutional development that is rumbling underneath them is not Obamacare, marriage, or the environment, but a reconsideration of Chevron. What is Chevron? And why does it matter?

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council was a 1984 Supreme Court case that greatly expanded the power of administrative agencies. For three decades, it has required judges, where a statute is ambiguous, to put aside their own judgment of what the statute means and, instead, defer to any reasonable interpretation by an administrative agency that administers the statute. This has been a cornerstone of administrative power, for it allows agencies to legislate under the guise of interpretation. No wonder that so much administrative power these days comes in the form of “interpretation”! And no wonder that administrative power has expanded far beyond any specific congressional intent!

This week’s writing on the wall — or at least what one can read between the lines — does not bode well for Chevron deference. When the Supreme Court upheld the IRS’s interpretation of Obamacare in King v. Burwell, it did not rely on Chevron. The government asked the Court to apply Chevron deference, but the Court exercised its own judgment about what the statute meant, and this already was interesting, for it suggested that the Court was unwilling to uphold so significant an agency interpretation under Chevron. Four days later, when the Court rejected the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act in Michigan v. EPA, it relied on Chevron, but only to reject the agency interpretation.

Topping it off was Justice Thomas’s concurrence. Justice Thomas has repeatedly distinguished himself by speaking honestly about the deep constitutional problems that face the Supreme Court, and his concurrence observed that the EPA’s “request for deference raises serious questions about the constitutionality of our broader practice of deferring to agency interpretations of federal statutes.”

Thomas notes that, under Chevron, agencies could be viewed as lawmakers or as authoritative interpreters, and “[e]ither way, Chevron deference raises serious separation-of-powers questions.” The Constitution vests its legislative powers in Congress and the judicial power in the courts, consisting of judges. And this has consequences. On the one hand, if Chevron allows authoritative agency interpretation, it takes from the judges their constitutional duty to exercise independent judgment, including their duty to interpret — what Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison called the “duty . . . to say what the law is.” On the other hand, if Chevron allows agency lawmaking, it collides with Congress’s legislative power, for it gives the force of law to “agency pronouncements on matters of private conduct as to which Congress did not actually have an intent.”

Thomas concludes that “we seem to be straying further and further from the Constitution without so much as pausing to ask why. We should stop to consider that document before blithely giving the force of law to any other agency ‘interpretations’ of federal statutes.”

Indeed, what really is at stake here is not simply the Constitution, but the very legitimacy of the federal judiciary. Whatever their failings in departing from the Constitution, federal judges generally enjoy the reputation of being unbiased. But what if, in fact, they are systematically biased in favor of the government? Of course, this is not to say they are personally biased, but Chevron forces them to engage in institutional bias. This is the allegation of my essay “Chevron Bias.” It points out that in their Chevron deference, the judges have abandoned their duty of independent judgment. It adds that where the government is a party to a case (as in Michigan v. EPA), Chevron requires the judges to favor one of the parties — the most powerful of parties. This is systematic prejudice, and it delegitimizes the entire judiciary.

This is why Chevron is in play. Many judges, on the Supreme Court and below, are becoming deeply concerned about Chevron, lest it require them to give up their independent judgment and even become systematically biased.

For more about these problems, read my “Chevron Bias” essay by clicking here (and then hitting the download button). Administrative power is utterly corrupting, and because Chevron has institutionally corrupted the judiciary, at least some of the justices are beginning to have buyer’s remorse.