The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States: Bring in the Shakher-Makhers

In order to mandate progress in the name of law, especially in the name of constitutional law, it is necessary to deceive. Where the law is backward, it must be made to seem progressive. Where the law is uncertain or permissive, it must be made to seem definite and mandatory. Where arguments are limited and honestly debatable, they must be made to seem comprehensive and inescapable. Where opponents refuse to yield, their positions must be distorted or they themselves must be belittled and insulted.   Prudence is the opposite of ideological moralism.  It is what the decay inherent in liberal idealism consumes.  Robert F. Nagel, The Implosion of American Federalism, and Unrestrained: Judicial Excess and the Mind of the American Lawyer

A culture that is at once moralistic, self-righteous, alienated and in a minority will constantly be tempted to break the rules of political discourse—indeed to conduct its struggles in ways that preclude the use of the word “discourse” —and to gain its ends by deception or outright falsehood.  Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law

In the early 1990’s when I worked in the Former Soviet Union for a large multi-national corporation looking at doing “deals” in the suddenly open communist country—a massive advanced industrial empire that was quickly destabilized by the economic theory of “shock therapy” which was advanced by Columbia University advisor Jeffrey Sachs and University of Chicago Nobel economist Milton Friedman—we were often told by native Russians to “watch out for the shakher-makhers.”  This old slang, heard in Russian, German, and often in Yiddish on the streets of New York, means “wheeler-dealer.”  It implies an underhanded street hustler; a “conman”  and in early twentieth-century America, implied gangster affiliation—especially the country’s largest criminal enterprises composed of Jewish immigrants or second generation inductees into organized crime.

As the disastrous Russian privatization program—notionally advertised as a means of distributing shares in state-owned enterprises to the larger public—spun rapidly out of control, it became clear who was actually getting all the stock and control of the old Soviet industrial corporations: a small, tightly knit group of “shakher-makhers,” almost all Jewish.  In the end some went to prison, or fled, after the incompetent Boris Yeltsin was replaced by the cool hand of Vladimir Putin; others made off to Switzerland, and a few more ingratiated themselves with the new leader (and still do).

Fast forward to 2021 and it is not hard to discern a consistency in this general observation made over many decades, if not centuries, by the competing gangs, law enforcement, or the victims of their criminal operations.  As I discussed in the Summer 2020 issue of The Occidental Quarterly, this current cultural phenomenon, a “Neo-Bolshevism,” finds a consistent traction in our nation’s law schools. In that article, titled, “The New Bolshevism in the Legal Profession: The Effect of Activist Law Faculty on Standards of Jurisprudence, Professional Conduct, and University Pedagogy,” I noted:

There is an especially visible commonality in the current U.S. political economy that is defined by an ethno-religious and state special interest that is advanced largely through the re-casting and re-purposing of law. The modern university law school sits in its organizational center, acting as an asserted professional authority on legal interpretation; as an activism network node; and as an ideological pedagogic institution among students in captive degree programs.

The recently announced White House “Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States,” exhibits many of these features, and in a very visible manner.  While the Commission is a putative presidential authority, it should be clear that the current U.S. president is merely a proxy for the agenda of a special interest syndication, led in several important ways by the former president, Barack Obama, and the members of his Foundation.

The Obama Foundation: “The seemingly independent factions are in actuality part of a larger ‘family’ or ‘gang’ of wealthy and radical individuals and organizations. With former President Barack H. Obama’s Foundation at the top, they operate similar to an organized crime family—on the periphery of civil society.”

As a graduate of Harvard Law School and in the capacity of a “professor” at the University of Chicago Law School where he taught a course on “race and law,” Obama turned to his old colleagues—including some of his former White House advisors—to head up the Commission, whose ostensible purpose is to provide “window dressing” and a gloss of objective analysis before a final push is made to add at least four new liberal justices to the SCOTUS bench, and establish an effective permanent Left majority on a court effectively converted into a legislative body.  From TOQ:

I refer to a dominant, highly organized, efficient and resource-rich political party coalesced around Israeli interests. Those interests include strictly economic ones (including organized crime); religious and ethnic enthusiasms, and geopolitical ambitions (the pan-Israel construct).  Although criticism of Israel—such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt discuss in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy—can be seen in a simple mono-directional manner (i.e., aid and finance flowing from the U.S. to Israel), Israel also serves as an “incubator” for U.S. domestic security policy, law enforcement, and related State projects.  Israel is effectively America’s “third political party.”

Indeed, as Israeli activist Ilana Daniel states:

“We are being used as a model for the rest of the world.  Many of us are calling this a new holocaust in our own country.  You could not have created a bigger betrayal.  This has nothing to do with a virus.  It leaves behind the arguments of right and left, pro and anti, even religious designations, and asks of us: what are the most basic common denominators we share?”  (Ilana Rachel Daniel, Israeli political activist on Israel’s current state authoritarian Covid policy and the “purity test”).

The especially poignant irony in her case is that Israel is held out as the only “democracy” in the Middle East—generally politically progressive, socially tolerant, governed by parliamentary system, and with a modern free press and purported strong ties to the US, UK, Germany and France.  Yet its extremism in biosecurity is highly authoritarian and has survived a broad legal challenge brought by protestors in Israel’s Knesset and courts and by a determined radical legal activist syndicate of legal and other professionals.  Its higher education system, coupled—like the US—to industrial and defense interests, is highly active in bio-security research, legal policy, and molecular engineering, while its notorious Mossad intelligence agency is, like the US DHS complex, turned inward on its own citizens. It is indeed a “model” for US special interests that make up its “intelligentsia.”

Who needs the Constitution?  How to bypass voters and get the entire Covid policy panoply pushed into non-objective law without public deliberation, or the hard work of constitutional amendment: Hire the шахер-махер: the Obama SCOTUS Court Packing “Commission,” led by NYU Law’s Bob Bauer, above.  Who is packing whom?

The lead member of the Commission is former Obama White House advisor and radical NYU Law professor Bob Bauer, accompanied by his former professor, Harvard’s notorious Laurence Tribe who believes there is an “invisible constitution” that means whatever you want it to, followed by Chicago Law’s David Strauss, an old colleague of Obama and a loyalist who wrote “The Living Constitution,” which is among a set of academic works arguing for a coercive moral activism from the courts. All three are close personal friends and loyal, ideological allies of the former president and his current political operations.

Laurence Tribe

A Balanced Commission?

There are some on the left who assert that, because the Commission includes some law professors who are considered moderate or generally conservative, such as UChicago Law’s well-regarded and youthful constitutional scholar William Baude, that it will either result in an effective “hung jury” concerning what explicit or implied recommendations it may or may not make, or that it will not be forceful enough to convincingly ratify the Administration’s (and the Obama Foundation’s) court-packing agenda that Progressives are seeking (as one writer notes, “Congressional advocates of court-packing are moving ahead as though the Commission doesn’t exist. They have introduced legislation to add four justices, just enough to give the court a majority of Democratic appointees instead of Republican ones”).  For others, a few moderate commission members make it seem fair and balanced, so that no particular faction could dominate it.  But this rests on a more fundamental flawed assumption: that there is a public mandate for such a “commission” in the first place. In fact, it is an invention of the Left, and merely another political tool that seeks to make—like prior unconstitutional state voting law changes that had such dramatic effects on the 2020 election—the extra-legal appear as if it were perfectly legal, normal and even welcome. In this case, it is accomplished by using traditional institutional processes and forms (like commissions, committees and other symbolism) to mask what is in reality a very different, radical, and even legally violative content.

David Strauss

It is important to appreciate that such commissions are highly susceptible to manipulation by their external sponsors (the Clinton and Obama Foundations), and especially, that once formed, the commission leader (in this case former Obama appointee and radical NYU Law professor Robert Bauer), along with his senior and ideologically aligned colleagues, have significant powers as far as what the final report will include, what is omitted, and how the narrative is presented and “spun”  (the 911 and Warren Commissions are examples). The fully left-progressive Yale Law has more commission members than any other single law school, followed by predominantly left-progressive Harvard and Chicago, and the commission includes former Clinton speech writer and head of the far-left NYU Brennan Center, Michael Waldman).

“Never Trump” commission member, Harvard Law’s Laurence H. Tribe is an especially revered icon among the Left (he even sued President Trump) and is worshiped by all his many former students working as law professors.  Indeed, as former Dean of Stanford Law, Kathleen Sullivan gushes in her fawning law review article on Tribe: “[He] is the greatest living intradisciplinary scholar of constitutional law—and perhaps simply the greatest such scholar ever.”  Tribe carries enormous weight in the Commission hierarchy (not unlike the sociology of a primate group).  He was also a mentor to Barack Obama at Harvard Law, and, during Obama’s tenure as editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review, he published a paper that argues how relativity theory in physics can be used to explain a “relativity” in law, meaning law is fungible, elastic, a morally relative topology, and ultimately unsettled (which some critics in academia have called a “crackpot theory”).

Moreover, the three senior members of the Commission who are especially close to Obama, also have significant “academy” power over the younger members such as Baude and legal historian Alison LaCroix, who are also still managing their careers and are dependent on continued favor and acceptance from their law school colleagues (almost all far Left or progressive) and in reality have limited independence.  Their “home” law schools are also institutionally influential, and in Chicago, Harvard and NYU’s case, all are aligned politically with the current left-progressive agenda of the Democratic Party. They may “protest” but it will be done politely, theoretically, academically, and be at best merely a mild “dissenting” view that is used to sell a fair and balanced political act, as the underlying court packing plan is politically contentious.

The Commission also includes David F. Levi, whose father, Edward Levi, was the former Dean of UChicago Law, and past president of the University of Chicago (and namesake of the main administrative building “Levi Hall”).  David’s brother, John Levi, is credited with hiring Barack Obama for his law internship in Chicago, and for also hiring Michelle Obama, providing the opportunity for them to meet, and eventually marry.  One big happy family (and the Levis, all from a family of rabbis).

The Commission is in fact, a very tightly affiliated, private team, led by senior members from the law schools of Harvard, Yale and Chicago, with a traditional hierarchy of “lieutenants” just below them—and importantly, from the same university institutions, which reinforces consensus or obedience. All of these senior members are ideologically aligned and active in political commentary and public relations, including the Dean of Yale Law, Heather Gerkins, liberal Dean of NYU Law Trevor Morrison, and NYU Law’s Rick Pildes who specializes in election law, the eradication of the electoral college, the modification of state voting rules, and is a source of regular left-progressive opinion including as a regular commentator on CNN and an op-ed writer for the New York Times.  Pildes is a political authoritarian and a clever arguer. In his most recent New York Times article, titled “How to Keep Extremists Out of Power,” he argues that voting laws should be modified so that political moderates—he considers Trump supporters to be extreme—would be favored. Yale Law Dean Gerkins is just as radical. She promotes a government construct she calls “nationalist federalism” that is a coy way of acknowledging state and local government, but increasing the consolidation of power in Congress, with effective hegemony over state government (which is what H.R.1—the “For the People Act,” proposes; it’s no surprise that Michael Waldman’s Brennan Center is all for it). Gerkins’ Yale Law colleague, Jack Balkin, previously on the faculty of law at Tel Aviv University, and a well-known Marxist constitutional “deconstruction” activist is also on the Commission. Belkin advances what he refers to as a “memetic, ideology and transcendence” construct of jurisprudence, and he is known for his concepts of “ideological drift,” “nested oppositions,” and legal semiotics.

In all these cases, their radicalized “neo-Bolshevist” and critical legal studies or “CLS” views, are precisely those that would be pursued in a new “packed” Supreme Court. This is why they are on the Commission: it is ideologically unified and institutionally concentrated in the so-called legal reconstruction advocated by Yale’s notorious Bruce Ackerman, and professionally incestuous in numerous shared relationships in employment, politics and government assignments, including in judicial clerkships.

The commission does have some limited constitutional diversity, but they are institutionally isolated, far less in favor, or even recognition, by the Commission sponsors, and are the proverbial “potted plant” as far as actual group power and influence.  Moreover, this is a very traditional East-Coast “elite” law school project of establishment liberals: there are no commission members from the Universities of Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas, Florida, Montana, Iowa, or any solid “red” states. It is far from even symbolically representative of America: This is effectively a private law trust acting as a private commission carrying out a private agenda for private interests.

But even if the Commission were to produce a “balanced” report, or create the impression of bi-partisan judgment, it is, like all such commissions, merely “window dressing” and a public relations gesture of impression management.  All warfare (or lawfare) involves deception, and in the case of Washington, D.C. culture, a document that provides deniability, or points to consideration and a symbol of participative democracy.  The actual make-up of the Commission, however, and its clear mandate from its sponsors (not the public) tells the purpose, motivations, and larger political intent of the group to which it belongs.  If, as some on the Left have criticized, the Commission “will go nowhere,” that is largely what it is supposed to do: it is merely political “chum” or bait to consolidate critics and advocates alike. What matters in the end is what Congress, the White House and the Roberts Court itself does (and what American citizen critics do).  As NYU political science professor Ana Harvey smartly researched with convincing statistical analysis, “The U.S. Supreme Court does not appear to decide constitutional cases independently of elected branch preferences.  They are extraordinarily deferential to those preferences, in particular the preferences of majorities of the House of Representatives.  It is even more evident when we control for selection bias in the Court’s docket.”  That dynamic, combined with removal of the Senate filibuster, and overwhelming external financial and other pressure, is what the actual court packing political weaponry consists of.

As I wrote in TOQ:

[This is part] of a complex political network that is intellectually centered in elite law schools that codifies activism and provides a pipeline of ideologues into the government apparatus. It is almost entirely made up of pro-Israel radicals (Henry Kissinger, Laurence Tribe, Louis Kaplow, Cass Sunstein, Bruce Ackerman, Alan Dershowitz, Eric Posner, and others) who provide a “senior authority” symbolism that is reinforced with dozens of second- and third-tier ideological colleagues, including those in foreign and military policy, and financial institutional and media influence roles.  Such ideology is channeled into policy that is then “sold” through the Congressional apparatus and with careful appointee maneuvering in senior advisor and administrative roles in State, the White House, the Pentagon and the intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies. The model rests largely on an elitist intellectual identity which is necessary in order to anchor relatively complex conceptual and linguistic framing that can then flow through an elitist social network.  While this picture has been described before, it rarely puts its finger on the more sensitive, if difficult ethno-religious and cultural content that is the inherent basis of the instincts, motivations, interests and ideology that initiate, manage and distribute the necessary intellectual content through the institutional architecture that converts it operationally. The central operational coding consists of a “Neo-Bolshevism” that projects a social justice philosophy, but is at its core a fascistic, authoritarian ethno-religious [obsession] that manifests in systematic institutional social predation, including most recently, the roll-out of long-incubated plans that seek to dismantle several traditional Western cultural traditions and replace them with a de facto theocracy centered in…key social controls that isolate and de-socialize public interaction while increasing public economic dependence and cognitive infantilism.

The new Presidential Commission is precisely of this character. It is a clear expression of organized ideology that resides consistently throughout America’s university law schools that are functioning, in this case, as unconstitutional, extra-legal political operating arms of special interests. The individuals with the most power have a history of acting as “hired guns” of the DNC party agenda, with consistently little if any regard for the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and especially, the hard work of bi-partisan compromise and separated governance that upholds the founding political philosophy of the United States, a philosophy perhaps most centrally in John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government.”

V.S. Solovyev is a graduate of the University of Chicago.

15 replies
  1. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    The central operational coding consists of a “Neo-Bolshevism” that projects a social justice philosophy, but is at its core a fascistic, authoritarian ethno-religious [obsession] that manifests in systematic institutional social predation, including most recently, the roll-out of long-incubated plans that seek to dismantle several traditional Western cultural traditions and replace them with a de facto theocracy centered in…key social controls that isolate and de-socialize public interaction while increasing public economic dependence and cognitive infantilism.

    “a de-facto theocracy?” Yes, this sounds just about right and biblical to because as Christ stated:

    “I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.”

    By the way you just have to see and read this!!!

    Biden a Doofus?

    Mind-boggling incredible.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      01 Yes, but what more could the regular puppet masters of the tribe hope for ?

      02 We are nauseatingly aware of the myriad of election irregularities, as depicted on dozens of tapes. Yet the most egregious irregularity was THEIR LYING PRE-ELECTION ASSERTION, that Biden was a moderate !

      03 Hopefully, Joe Sixpack will remember in November, 22, that he’s been had and will spread the word at his tail gate parties !

      04 Many writers and commenters here have agreed, that we should not accept their new definitions of old concepts, but should, instead, formulate our own vocabulary to counter them loudly and fearlessly.

      05 CANCEL CULTURE is of course a comprehensive concept. However, in my opinion, it does not cover the deliberately ill-motivated, malicious, culturally-genocidal intended end product sufficiently. I suggest MORGENTHAU PLAN 2.0 !

      06 Excellent article by the way. Seldom does one encounter an article, in which every single word is outfitted with its own gunsights. Apparently the author gathered his disgust when Harvard’s President Larry Summers and his Jewish friend and colleague Andrei Shleifer robbed the Russian people blind for a second time: conveniently so, lacking a prior legal framework for said Privatization of their economy.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Apropos item 03, Charles, I fear that, just this once, optimism might have slightly tainted your analysis.

        Surely one of the main objectives of the Great Election Theft of 2020 was to eliminate the need to have to steal an election ever again. In other words, I gravely doubt that white people will be permitted to win any election that would endanger the hegemony of (((the present incumbents))).

        If I am still alive in eighteen months, nothing would delight me more than to be proved wrong in the preceding opinion.

  2. Karl Haemers
    Karl Haemers says:

    Compelling insights into Jewish Power machinations. No solutions are proposed, but perhaps none are possible.
    The only point I must disagree on is that this Jewish take-over of the Supreme Court is in any way ‘fascistic’. Fascists would never tolerate such Judaic Bolshevism, and Neo-Fascists should not either. Alas, we have too few in America, and those who try to organize are disrupted by Jewish Power in other ways. So I have no solutions to propose either, except more self-protective Fascism.

  3. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    @ Karl

    “Alas, we have too few in America, and those who try to organize are disrupted by Jewish Power in other ways.”

    I’d say “other ways” point to a religious cult made up of “white” people who believe themselves born better than everyone else? If you know about the thumb over the forefinger like in this pic

    one will come to understand that Jewish power I doubt would be anywhere without this one cult called Freemasonry. Most people would point to the Christian Zionists as the cause but it goes back much farther to this one religious cult that goes around masquerading as Christians but is so totally and utterly Judaic in their beliefs. Indeed they have as their great hero the builder of Solomon’s Temple Hiran Abiff and desire above all else a Temple in of all places Jerusalem? I don’t understand why we in the Church put up with them the way we do? Further why do governments allows secret societies to exist. They should be exposed and banned but isn’t that what John Kennedy tried to do?

  4. Roberto Gallo
    Roberto Gallo says:

    What is happening in US is the unrelenting work of the Jewish envision of the World. The same adaptation of the rule of Law to the leftist agenda is ongoing in the Roman-German system of Law as Italy, France, Spain and Germany. A glaring example is the discipline of the immigrants: they don’t follow any rule about the borders, no check about their past, they are all “minor” to get ” immediate “protection”. The status of clandestine doesn’t exist anymore (for them). The Constitutional Court in Italy said that an order of expulsion is not mandatory for the “clandestine” if he doesn’t have the means for respect it (!). As written by Burke, Hobbes, Hume and many others, when the rule of Law is neglected, the Law is the Force. To discuss of Law is only a diversion. The solution? To take the risk, to fight, to open the mouth, to act with “moral imagination”. US is on the brink of the collapse and it will be the ground of the far profound civil war of the Third millennium: the enemy is not what is in the the trench but who is behind. Sun Tzu (As always in the History…)

  5. Eric
    Eric says:

    These people are essentially traitors, terrorists and criminals and should be treated (and talked about) as such.

  6. bruno
    bruno says:

    The author is obviously thanked for his work. Let it be known that the author’s labor is appreciated by many who are unable to reply simply due to obligations, such as employment etc.. Hats off to him.

  7. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    The concept of a “living constitution” is an oxymoron, unless it is viewed from the perspective of all living things die. If tomorrow, the US Government enacts a law that bans the word Constitution, does that mean the US Constitution no longer exists because a law bans the use of a word? A “living constitution” would agree, because the word no longer exists. Living constitutions are an end run on the process of constitutional change. As I read it, the US Constitution makes the Supreme Court the interpreter of laws. There is no jurisdiction to create law, which is something they appear to have been doing the last 50+ years.

  8. guest
    guest says:

    I always wondered how a group of mid-level technocrats from a persecuted minority managed to acquire the capital to buy up much of the Soviet state assets and become the Oligarchs that we know and love so much.

    Can anyone name a definitive book/documentary on this subject? If there isn’t one, there certainly should be one.

    My guess is that the USSR outlived its usefulness and needed a new business model. Could this be the actual plan that Soviet defector Anatoly Golitsyn was trying to describe in “New Lies for Old”?

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Though I assiduously followed the second grand larceny perpetrated on the Russian people since 1917 as it happened, this link to the Institutional Investor is very comprehensive, well written, objective and divulged additional filth. .

        Filthy Harvard, Summers, his friend and H economics Professor Shleifer and wife Zimmerman and many others, stuffing their pockets at the expense of the abused Russian population. Its only lack of surprise lies in the fact that the vast majority of criminal beneficiaries were Jewish. As of old.

        MUST READING !.

      • Guest
        Guest says:

        I read the Institutional Investor article. Confirms what I suspected. Where there are jews, there is corruption and treachery.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          If you were ever to feel your confirmation wavering, you can buttress it by reading the NYC Jewish FORWARD, Tel Aviv’s HAARETZ, Irving’s ACTION REPORT ONLINE, THE UNZ REVIEW, MONDOWEISS, and ca. a dozen other Jewish authors. Straight from the horses’ mouths.

          And of course all of them formally and theologically sentenced to death for contravening halacha, by divulging their sinister methodology and goals to the goyim.

Comments are closed.