Top 9 Quotes & Sayings by David B. Rivkin

Explore popular quotes and sayings by an American attorney David B. Rivkin.
Last updated on December 21, 2024.
David B. Rivkin

David Boris Rivkin, Jr. is an American attorney, political writer, and conservative media commentator on matters of constitutional and international law, as well as foreign and defense policy. Rivkin has gained national recognition as a representative of conservative viewpoints, frequently testifying before congressional committees, and appearing as an analyst and commentator on a variety of television and radio stations. He is a visiting fellow at the Center for the National Interest, and a recipient of the U.S. Naval Proceedings Annual Alfred Thayer Mahan Award for the best maritime affairs article. He is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and is a former member of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

The fact that some former national security officials challenge the policy wisdom of the order, while other national security officials - most notably those of this [Donald Trump's] administration - support it, merely demonstrates that these are policy disputes that the judiciary is both ill-equipped and constitutionally barred from arbitrating.
Well-established Supreme Court precedents indicate that states - like the states of Washington and Minnesota - have no equal-protection rights of their own, nor can they vindicate equal-protection rights of their citizens. The same is true about being able to challenge alleged religious discrimination. This limitation on the states' authority to champion such claims is fundamental to our separation-of-powers architecture.
My argument is focused on the fact that a relatively small percentage of the world's Muslim countries are impacted by this order. Stated differently, this executive order is a singularly ineffective - in legal parlance, it would be called under-inclusive - form of a Muslim ban.
In our constitutional system, the extent of political controversies, including the protests, surrounding a given issue is utterly unrelated to the analysis of legality and should have no effect on any court.
I believe that the 9th Circuit will not let Robart's decision stand. I say this fully appreciating the fact that the 9th Circuit is the most idiosyncratic in the country and the one most often overruled by the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, it is not a Muslim ban at all, but a suspension of entrants from seven countries with conditions on the ground that both promote terrorism and make effective vetting impossible.
By contrast, poll taxes were very effective in excluding blacks, as well as impacting many poor whites; in legal parlance, they were overly inclusive but nevertheless served their intended discriminatory purpose. This [Muslim ban] is fundamentally not the case here.
Yoo's theory promotes frank discussion of the national interest and makes it harder for politicians to parade policy conflicts as constitutional crises. Most important, Yoo's approach offers a way to renew our political system's democratic vigor.
There are a few instances that arise in the unique context of domestic equal-protection challenges to governmental actions that are facially neutral but produce substantial discriminatory impacts on groups of people, based on such suspect classifications as race, nationality, ethnic origin, etc. This doctrine has never been used in foreign affairs.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!