I am in the camp that thinks this Supreme Court is way out of line. A lawyer is standing up and with a straight face saying that it could be an official presidential duty to install fake electors, murder opponents etc., and the court decides it is going to treat this as a normal matter to be discussed with a civil back and forth dialog. Throw the case out and the bum of a lawyer with it. This is ridiculous.
There is no mention of "presidential immunity" in the Constitution. There was no obligation for the Extreme Court to ever have heard this case. They could have simply said, "Sorry this is not a discussion we need to have at this level. The Appeals Court has spoken."
This is an obvious effort by the Federalist, Opus Dei, Christian Dominionist Oligarchs to assign royal powers to the president of the US. It is the antithesis of what the founders wanted - a democracy where all are subject to the rule of law - not a MONARCHY.
However, if the remand is to require a sorting of "personal" acts vs "official" acts, that shouldn't be hard to figure out. What is so upsetting is the delay after delay, of course. Which is really the name of the whole game for this team of fascists.
But let's not forget that while all of this is "unjust" and very upsetting, Al Capone was imprisoned for tax law violations - not the murders. The Orange Menace may be jailed for violating gag orders and ultimately fraudulent bookkeeping to interfere in an election. Jail is jail. In a sense, the sleepy old blob with funny hair is in jail all week long already. Not campaigning. Not golfing. Just sitting and listening to his prosecution with a jailer looking down on him who has the power to say "shut up" and can enforce it.
And then there is a big trial on November 5th. What will the jury of peers say then? I predict justice will prevail. I predict that the Dobbs decision and all its ripple effects will be the tool of our victory. Beware the woman scorned. Also, have you noticed Joe Biden has gone on the offense - and quite effectively?
Good question Stephen. When, too, will Democrats push back much harder as a party, double down and stop letting Republican seats go uncontested. It is time to put a full fledged response to the outrage of Republicans content to destroy democracy with the aid of Leonard Leo and the wealthy donors who support The Federalist Society.
John, the more I learn about the many grassroots groups that are advocating for and supporting up and down ballot Democrats all over the country, the more I feel reassured that we are finally getting how important it is. I hold on to the victory of Liberal judge Janet Protasiewicz, who won a seat on Wisconsin's state Supreme Court, flipping the body's ideological majority...after rich GOP's poured millions into the race. It's happening! Here's my home group which keeps me informed and shows me opportunities to do what I can.
I agree Chaplain. In fact, I had mentioned yesterday that I participated in a Zoom call with Partners for Democracy wherein we heard from Wisconsin and Michigan activists. There are certainly challenges but these folks have worked hard to actively counter the Republican efforts to suppress voting. It was an encouraging conversation.
Moved to WI from IL 9 yrs ago, and the difference is stark, but if positive change can happen here, there's hope. There's also Ben Wikler who is instrumental for the start of this turn around.
I suspect there are a lot of law abiding, busy citizens out there who have never heard of Leonard Leo or the Federalist Society. There has been a great deal of dark money and the dark actors that generate it that is hidden. These folks thrive on secrecy.
I agree with John Cooper. It is a good question. It's hard to counter a movement that began decades ago, mostly below the radar screen, by neocons and corporate interests who loathed the idea of a fully participatory democracy. It's almost diabolical how the architects of this system cobbled together an unlikely coalition of televangelists, political conservatives, and Christian nationalists all dedicated to dismantling the New Deal and rolling back civil rights and equal justice and opportunity for all.
I've heard it described as a modern version of the pre-civil war 'Mudsill' Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudsill_theory?wprov=sfti1#). I am grateful to Professor Heather Cox Richardson for introducing me to the term. As I understand it, it's an arrogant, reprehensible and undemocratic excuse that wealthy elites use when in reality their primary goal is to maintain power at all costs. Truly Machiavellian, brilliant, and impressive - if one can let go of the sheer horror and unAmerican, dystopian future envisioned by the movement's leaders.
The one thing on the side of those who oppose the Federalist Society's plan is that, even with the unholy coalition they've cobbled together, they are in a minority. Perhaps our best chance for thwarting them is to call them out and work to publicly denounce their plans as antithetical to the principles upon which the United States was founded. However, they are well funded and organized. They have an army of loyal drones who have been brainwashed into believing that the movement is a religious war. They've also had decades to lay the foundation for their takeover and hone a well scripted propaganda/doublespeak campaign in which to control the media and journalism in this country.
So - what do opponents of "Project 2025" have going for them? Good question. I would start by (as my military training taught me long ago) to look at what our 'force multipliers' are:
-First, we have a majority of the country opposed to Fed Society goals. That's a start.
-Second - for the time being anyway - we have a noble and principled president who believes in democracy, the rule of law, and is governing more effectively than any president in my lifetime. Democrats control the Senate by a slim majority, and although they are not yet in control of the House, their unity is allowing them to lead from behind.
- Third, the Federalist Society has engendered outrage as Americans wake up to the fact that these theocratic fascists have been plotting this coup for a long time.
- Fourth, the frustration that many of us feel is creating a powerful sense of unity and urgency to come together to fight the existential threat to our nation - in much the same way we've witnessed the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people as they come together to save their country and their own lives.
This will take time, effort, determination, cooperation and will. If we can inspire others and be willing to work together in unity, we can create a better future that more fully embodies the aspirational values and principles upon which our nation was founded. I, for one, am willing to do my part. Let's all roll up our sleeves and work together. For children, our grandchildren, and for those to come.
Kate agree with our comments but I believe we really don’t fully comprehend the depth of their influence and power. They at a certain level own a major portion of the judiciary and are training and recruiting an army of lawyers to backfill the courts. No one has actually really investigated or exposed them which I believe is because of their money and power. They need to be exposed. The frustration is very few voters know who they are and what they do because of where they get their “ news”. We need to hang in there
Well Stephen, I took heart after listening to a BigTentUSA Zoom conversation recommended by Robert Hubbell. BigTentUSA is very aware of the right’s plans to challenge “en masse” voters. They, too, have lawyers at the ready to counter this. Plus, they have been training election workers and volunteers to be prepared for people challenging votes to support voters.
John thanks for sharing. The Biden Administration has developed an infrastructure and has paid staff in most of the swing states whereas the other guy does not. There is a wing of the Republican Party who are dedicated to challenging elections and perceived fraud. Republicans cannot win honestly.
Susan, more articles like the Time Magazine piece are a start. Just watched "Bad Faith". We can start by familiarizing ourselves and others with their overall goals and strategy (see Project 2025, or any of the unhinged coalition group's' manifestos (NCP, Heritage Foundation, etc.). I'm joining my local Democratic Party group, and volunteering. In the end, the more energy, hard work, passion , organization, commitment, and unity we can bring to this the better.
Hell hath no fury like an awakened and outraged citizenry.... (My apologies to William Congreve). Right winger "Christians" will do well to remember this..!
Stephen- I agree. Federalist Society power is indeed daunting.
Our best strategy is 'the disinfectant effect of exposure'. As you wrote, their hold over media keeps them insulated from full attention and accountability. Still, we have to find a way to address this untenable situation. Talking about it is a start, such as in venues like this. Joining causes like Media and Democracy and others that Hubbel and others suggest is also a good idea. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." If the Federalist Society succeeded under this concept, then we can too.
It's hard to not get demoralized by unequal power dynamics. I fight it daily. Reading posts like yours helps me. Thank you
Kate thank you but sometimes I wonder if the readers of this substack and others are in a bubble and the rest of the country just doesn’t give damn like us.
Your fear is not unjustified. The one thing that I find encouraging is how many people I know have stopped watching television news and reading their news instead. but again, this may still be a minority.
I agree Stephen, in increasingly frequent dark moments.
Two things I believe we have going for us, though, is the outrage over removal of rights that have been in place for a long time; they underestimated this.
The other is, despite long term planning, is that they've screwed themselves over championing trump. His increasingly detestable character, plus his remora wannabes, are becoming more of a liability daily.
And this week their cruelty became a badge of honor amongst them, and total dominance is their goal.
I don’t disagree there is outrage but I am not convinced the outrage is as all encompassing as it should be. The students protesting what is happening in Gaza are all upset about what they perceive is happening but where are all the students protesting the outrage of an crooked authoritarian running for President who wants to take freedoms away from them who ignored the pandemic and tried to overthrow, the government.
Sadly most law-abiding citizens don’t know what or who the Federalist Society is, or what their philosophy is. Like you, I am frustrated, beyond belief, with this so called Supreme Court. It is a joke.
Like you, I hope most woman are as angry as I am. I have three granddaughters, what country are they going to grow up in?
I am a volunteer to help with the election in the fall. I beginning to wonder why.
The Republicans want us to give up and get disgusted and frustrated and if that happens they win and we lose. Keeping Democracy and the rule of law is a tough job. We can only make it better if we all work hard and gain the majority because we have the right candidate in Joe Biden we can trust and has the experience to make it all work out. Hang in there.
I agree that the Supreme Court absolutely had to hear this case, the highest court in the land ruling on an unprecedented situation. But, I have trouble following the reasoning on the "official" vs "private" acts part of the case. In the former, whether you're George Bush, Donald Trump, or Joe Biden...."official acts" are those undertaken on the advice of the President's Cabinet and/or Security Council in the furtherance of the Country's goals or safety. In the latter, with Trump as the only example, "private acts" are clearly those taken despite the advice of cabinet or counsel (excepting those separately indicted), in furtherance of private goals....namely re-election. The fact that these "private" campaign-related actions were taken despite having lost 60+ court cases, only magnifies the "individual/private" determination to persevere. The Court needs to rule on the facts of the case.
Maybe I missed something, but it’s my impression that this Supreme Court case was about Trump’s misdeeds. Trump’s lawyer and the reactionary ‘justices’ changed the subject; the liberal justices were suckered into the changed subject. And now the Court’s reactionary majority is poised to legislate from the bench.
Well apparently their opinion is going to be that if Trump did it during his presidency it was official. No matter what it was. I strongly suspect their opinion would also be that if Biden did something in the gray zone between official and private act, it would always be a private act.
For the strict constructionists on the Court, the specific omission of "presidential immunity" should have been a disqualifier, but apparently it was not.
I'm of a mind that the Supreme Court legitimately needed to weigh in on this, although the way they weighed in is way beyond the pale. The Quadefendant and his very able defense attorneys are doing everything they can to slow this down and gum up the works. Their indefensible "absolute immunity" position is absurd and a risky ploy on their part, but I think they banked on the Supremes wanting to take it up.
I don't like the fact that the Quadefendant and his attorneys are able to pull this kind of stuff, but that's the way our system works; in an effort to assure fairness for all, it allows some to game the system and act in bad faith. In some cases, it's the cost of justice, and in others, where the claims are frivolous or worse, it can cost the attorneys or the defendant. In my view, the claim of "absolute immunity" is at least frivolous, but alas, the Supremes seem to think it's not.
Perhaps the real conundrum here is that the Quadefendant and his attorneys have taken the "absolute immunity" position, and the prosecution has taken the "no immunity" position. Even though Jack Smith suggested in his brief that there might be a middle ground, maybe the justices just want him to go there and stop swinging for the fences.
At this point, I think the best outcome is for the charges to be separated between those that might be official acts, and those which are clearly personal acts. I think it's pretty clear that the personal stuff is fair game, and pursuing it as such might be the only way to ensure that there's a trial about any of it.
I'm wondering if the prosecution could amend the indictment or prepare a superseding one that removes the charges that could possibly be official acts (or on the “outer perimeter,” as they say), and then add them back later or charge them under a new indictment if the Court rules that even as "official acts," willfully illegal actions do not deserve immunity. It seems to me that such a move might break the logjam. If it would create a double jeopardy situation though, it would have to be evaluated in that light. But 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
As Robert and others have advised, we cannot expect or wait for the Supreme Court or any court to hold the Quadefendant accountable. That's up to the voters. We can hope that justice will be served, but we shouldn’t expect that it will happen quickly. So we should blow off our steam and then move on.
Clearly the SC is all in for normalizing fascist takeover. It may be a bumpy ride but…the antidote to anxiety is taking positive action to turn out the blue vote. 🕊🌊
You are more than welcome. It's too easy nowadays to....just freak the heck out. And a little bit of that is inevitable. But we must always regroup and turn our attention to finding a way to support all the good candidates across the nation. Blue wave IS very possible. My mentor in "hope with a plan" is the wonderful Simon Rosenberg of Hopium Chronicles (and also, now Mr. Hubbell). TOGETHER WE CAN.
It would be a terrible mistake to throw out the government's case. A lot of bad and stupid things were said in court yesterday by Trump's attorney, but Trump is entitled to choose an attorney who says bad and stupid things and under absolute no circumstances should the case against Trump be thrown out. That is exactly what Trump wants. In all the vitriol have we lost our minds?
Thank you, Peter. I've had the same reaction when reading comments about the Supreme Court's immunity hearing both here and on other Substacks: "In all the vitriol have we lost our minds?"
There's plenty of reason to be angry about the Supreme Court, but let's take a beat here.
Thursday's hearing was not a ruling; no decision has been made. Outrage that the Justices would grant total immunity to a President who assassinates his rival, or otherwise commits a criminal act, is misplaced. Willingness to engage in a discussion of novel legal theories is not at all the same as endorsing those theories.
But the issue of a president being subject to criminal liability for official acts performed during his tenure is both serious and timely. That's not just because Donald Trump is charged with criminal acts. It's also because if Donald Trump becomes president again, his Justice Dept. would almost certainly charge Joe Biden with having committed criminal acts while president.
In other words, there is some urgency to the need for establishing a reasonable (emphasis on reasonable) level of protection from criminal liability for a president's official acts. Better that should be done sooner rather than later.
Conceptually you may have a point BUT since the beginning of time we never ever had to address the issue of criminal liability with any President. Just because Trump is a criminal doesn’t mean all Presidents or even a few have to be protected from criminal liability. If it was such an issue it would have surfaced years ago and the issue of criminal liability is separate from total immunity. Deny total immunity and deal with criminal liability as a separate issue later if required.
SCOTUS should never have taken the case. Clarence Thomas should have recused himself or been strongly encouraged to recuse. The legitimacy of any decision of this court as currently composed is lessened. I agree that we can't "throw out" the case now. I also agree that outrage against the court considering outrageous hypotheticals would be misplaced, but I don't hear the outrage (generally) phrased as being about posing the hypothetical instances, but about the responses to them. One way to make a point is to pose extreme examples which by their sheer absurdity show the weakness of a stance. When the response to such a hypothetical is a blase agreement with the absurd, then outrage is appropriate. The justices know the public is watching every nuance and the messages they are sending are not entirely unintended.
I understand the urge to protect Biden from illegal retribution, but no amount of immunity given Trump now would be enough to protect Biden if Trump became President. There is too much subjectivity involved in determining what is official vs private, and the plan apparently is to defang the legitimate justice department anyway. Anyone who thinks protections for Republicans will protect Democrats needs to consider, for example, how evenly McConnell applied his rule on SCOTUS nominations. They are too slippery for us to protect now in hopes of being protected in return later.
Only if Trump is kept out of office and the rule of law strengthened can we expect protection for Biden. He already weathered an attempt at impeachment on no grounds at all exactly because neither Biden nor any other president nor any other citizen can be tried and convicted for any crime there is no evidence with regard to so long as the justice department does it's job correctly. And that was without immunity!
This sounds very sensible Yehawes, but haven’t we trusted our rational side since the day we woke up the find Donald J. Trump as president? At this moment with the justices having spent two hours casting about with “ideas/theories” and “what if” yet never addressing the issue before them - the reprehensible and criminal offenses of a president who did not accept defeat - can we not be allowed a bit of anger.
The Supreme Court on Thursday either made fools of themselves or they made fools of us. I’ve had enough of being made a fool and dreaming of a better day with Republicans and this extremist Federalist Society Court.
Oh, please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm not furious! I'm livid.
I responded to someone (above? below?) who counseled waiting to hear their decision before engaging in outcry over the hearing. My response was to say that after we hear their decision it is too late. Our system gives us no recourse to a higher court, no send-it-to-the-voter, no viable recall the judge... and our enforcement agents will enforce the SCOTUS decisions regardless of how tainted.
If there is a great enough ruckus over the next few days however, it is just possible the court, politically motivated as they are, might modify their final decision. We have had so many examples (the leaked "draft", the abortion decision) that they simply ignore the voice and even the welfare of the people, but they won't entirely ignore their own welfare. If the outcry is loud enough they just may hear and, to some small extent, fear, a lessening of their power.
We have every right to anger, and it might just be constructive to voice it as loudly and clearly as we are able.
Yehawes, thanks for your considered reply to my comment. Here are a few points in response.
1). "SCOTUS should never have taken the case."
It was Jack Smith himself who asked the Supreme Court to rule on the matter, saying in his petition for certiorari (request for review of a lower court decision) that it is "of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by [the Supreme Court]."
2) "When the response to an extremely absurd hypothetical is a blase agreement with the absurd, then outrage is appropriate."
I heard no Justice agree or disagree with any attorney's argument. The purpose of the hearing is to hear the arguments, not for the Justices to argue with the attorneys. Their role in this setting is to question, not to render opinions.
3). "No amount of immunity given Trump now would be enough to protect Biden if Trump became President."
This gets to the heart of the matter. As was stated explicitly by some Justices, this hearing was only circumstantially about Trump and Biden. The real subject was more abstract and more universal. Specifically, it's about "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office." That question refers to any president, including both the present one and any future one.
_____
The general public listens to these proceedings focused only on how the eventual ruling will affect the next election. We hope to get a hint as to whether Donald Trump will be helped or hurt in his quest to regain the presidency. Consequently, many commenters are outraged that there was no discussion of what the former president actually did. That outrage is misplaced.
Certainly we should be outraged that Donald Trump apparently believes he is above the law, and that as president he should be immune from all criminal liability. But there is nothing outrageous about seriously considering the claim. Nor is it indicative of corruption on the part of the Court for them to do so. Their job is to decide constitutional issues, not to opine on guilt or innocence.
If the Court were to decide that presidents do enjoy total immunity as claimed, I'll be as outraged as anyone else. That is counter to every precedent and norm under which our Republic has been governed since its founding. But I seriously doubt that will be the ruling, and I have yet to see or hear anything to make me believe otherwise.
Judge Chutkan had rejected Trump's immunity claim, it was being appealed, was going to go through two rounds of appeals then the Supreme Court, and Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to speed up the inevitable by jumping over the intermediate steps. He wasn't seeking the SCOTUS' ruling per se - he was seeking to ensure that Trump's claims of immunity be "resolved as expeditiously as possible" - in other words, attempting to have the trial in a timely manner which was not happening only because of appeals to a ruling the Supreme Court could have accepted from a lower court. I am simply saying I believe they should have.
I'm not sure why you assumed I meant the "blase acceptance" of the absurd hypothetical was by a judge. Perhaps I phrased that poorly. Both judges and defense were posing hypothetical instances however, and there is much to be read between the lines in what is proposed. I have stated that absurd hypotheticals are often used to probe for boundaries, so obviously I'm not saying they shouldn't be a part of arguments, but they are also sometimes direct suggestions clearly hinting at an opinion.
As to the question being addressed, and the broader use and near outcome of choices in ways the question is interpreted and answered, oddly even that was being probed. Rather than extensive quotes, it's more useful to simply say the transcript shows how the question itself was being massaged in the final pages: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_l5gm.pdf
I'm sorry - I may not have responded to every point you made. It's late and I have been off, but I think at least I've addressed the majority? It is always useful and interesting to hear other opinions, and can help add nuance to one's own understanding of how events may be viewed.
"Willingness to engage in a discussion of novel legal theories..." What can go wrong if that discussion is triggered and dominated (thank you, Mitch McConnell) by this posse, put in place by the Federalist Society.
I could see some concern about tit-for-tat criminally charging presidents in the future, given the tit-for-tat impeachment proceedings, but I cannot see conservative justices being concerned about what Trump might do to Biden. More likely the argument is a cover.
It is. They tried to impeach Biden and could not. They could not indict him either in the face of a lack of illegal activity or proof... so long as the (lower) courts remain legitimate. So long as Trump fails to take over.
In my mind, there is no way that the Court would rule in such a way that prevents a Tr*mp DOJ from indicting President Biden. If anything they would twist a ruling to be narrowed to a Tr*mp-specific set of facts that would protect him and no one else. But of course it’s all speculative at this point. I’ll bet they’ll delay delay but ultimately find no presidential immunity.
Trump's Justice Dept. would absolutely charge Joe Biden with having committed criminal acts while president.
And IF they can honestly get a grand jury of 12 peers to indict him, and IF they can get a trial jury of 12 peers to convict him, Biden would have troubles for certain.
Wow ... i would never have thought of that -- but now that you mention it, it's a total "duh". Thanks for helping me feel better about the immunity hearing on Wednesday. I couldn't fathom Alioto's line of questioning (except to see it as BS) ... but now I can see that he was bringing up an important consideration!
Yes, happy birthday, Robert. You picked a great place to start the new year and get away from it all.
As to needing "you around for a looonnnngg time" I do hope that you refer to the time of the second Biden administration with majorities in both the House and the Senate, TCinLA. That's where the heavy lifting starts and Biden indeed will need some nudging – beginning with enlarging SCOTUS and getting rid of filibuster.
Happy Birthday, Robert. No matter what, the road will run on long past November. And we all need to stay strong, inspire the young, and enlist those of us who are older to not give up on the American Dream, which, by the way, is not two cars and a chicken in every pot and a home in the suburbs, but the earlier dream that a free people may govern themselves as equals without corruption from money and power, hatred and fear. It's always been a fragile dream. But your leadership has helped so many of to remember that it is our work to keep it alive. The biggest birthday wish I can offer you is many more years of working your head off for the good of the people who rely on you. Sorry, that's not much, but that's the blessing and curse of true leadership. As ol' Henry David Thoreau used to say, "Only that day dawns to which we are awake." Thank you for helping many of us wake up, not only to the threat, but to our own agency in countering the threat that imperils America.
I certainly hope the Trump immunity case hurts the SCOTUS a helluva lot more than Bush v Gore did. The Framers would be horrified. And every American should be horrified.
We should be hoping that the court quickly comes to a decision that makes sense and allows the trial to move forward quickly, in advance of the election, not that the Court inflicts more damage on itself than it already has.
So it's your birthday? Wow! You couldn't be in a nicer place to celebrate it. Hope it's wonderful.
I am astonished anyone thought anything you said about the Supreme Court was intemperate.
This is a big one, folks. When the SCOTUS decides to yank the rug out from under the rest of the justice system's equal application of the law, one of the three balancing powers governing our country has already declared itself taken over. When SCOTUS makes it blatantly clear they do not care one whit how transparently politically motivated, contradictory, ethically tainted or absurd their proceedings and potentially their decisions are, because there is no one who can gainsay them, then they have become the ruling branch of government. They decide what Congress can do, they decide what the Executive branch can do, and what it can get away with.
No sense of honor, respect for any guidelines such as the Constitution, or precedents, or desire to retain reputation - and only the flimsiest of pretense at explanation - is reining this court in. What they say becomes law and we all dance to it, our lower courts adjust to it, our enforcement agencies enforce it.
This has been a long time coming but it's been like the train in the tunnel. Anyone who looked could see it coming. It was just a matter of how fast and how big.
Yes, we need to expand the court as first among other reforms. We need to tie it to something reasonably related (I suggest the number of federal districts) and not too easily changed, which will answer some of the trepidation in those who believe it's a bad idea to set precedents for later Republicans - as if they need or pay attention to precedents. My only hope is that if (that is very hard to type) Biden wins the Presidency again, along with a House and Senate with a DEM majority, that this time he won't say he doesn't think it's a good idea like he said the first time. I support Biden and value his years of experience, but I'm leery of his tendency to value what has worked for years. Nine justices doesn't work anymore.
I agree with your assessment, and reserve judgment only because the decision hasn't been announced yet. There is a (not much) greater than zero chance that at least 5 members of the Court will make the proper decision and confirm the Appellate Court's decision.
Hear hear. Let the court decide. We have at least a couple of justices who we know are very ill-suited for their robes. But maybe five of them have enough sense to rise to this moment in time to make the right decision in this case. To build a consensus of five it wouldn't have helped for them to impatien with the arguments or each other. There will be a time for us to constructively channel our energies to protest the court. Now is not that time.
I feel like the court is more politically motivated than they should be, but because of that they are not deaf to a public voice indicating there will be much outcry if they decide Trump has complete impunity or far more impunity than the Constitution and history suggest reasonable. After a decision may be the time to constructively protest the court, but now is the time to constructively voice opinions about potential decisions.
As I was processing both the immense absurdity of yesterday’s case and the argument presented earlier this week in the Idaho case - at which the vast chasm between the women and the men became abundantly clear - I found myself wondering just how horrible and painful it must be for Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson.
They are sitting with two justices credibly accused of sexual misconduct and three others whose decisions are completely driven by their religious beliefs. What emerges as a result is truly Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning completely unmoored from the Law.
I would not be surprised if what plays out behind the scenes is a careful walking-on-eggshells dance in which they must be extremely strategic in order to do what little they can to keep from pushing the men to even further extremes.
And none of it has a precedent that I am aware of. One little habit that I think should be abandoned now is the relative silence of the three (women) reasonable justices about the corruption of their fellow jurists. It is long past time for Thomas to be ejected by his peers.
Even giving the appearance of siding with the seditionists makes those justices unfit for office. All of them should be forced to resign. (I know its a lifetime appointment.)
Abe Fortas, whom Lyndon Johnson nominated to the Supreme Court, was forced to resign over what amounted to personal misconduct. Those were different days, in which ethical standards were not as routinely shrugged off.
Happy Birthday Robert! Thanks for your updates. Ruth Ben-Ghiat said today in our Zoom group that Clarence Thomas could no longer be taken seriously. He was a political operative pretending to be a Supreme Court Justice. And Marcy Wheeler says what many have been saying. We can’t control the court, but we can get out the vote. That is our last hope Obi-Wan.
Happy Happy Birthday, Robert and here’s to many more! 🎂🍨🎉
Yesterday was depressing. Today I listened to a little bit of a podcast with George Conway and Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark. George was very calm about what we heard from the justices. He said we should not despair as he feels Thomas & Alito will give Trump immunity while the others will not. He said hearing from Coney-Barrett meant that she was paying attention. Longwell felt like the rest of us…nervous and unsure. Regardless, we march on and forge ahead in giving Biden-Harris four more years!
Happy Birthday Robert! Enjoy your time in Winter Wonderland! I hope you get the water issues sorted.
I honestly can't imagine a scenario where Trump could win the election. That said, that loss won't happen without all our combined efforts. Blessings on the NY prosecutors and Judge Merchan. They are holding the line until we reach November.
And by the way, let's not forget about Michael Dreeben's magnificent vurtuoso argument and demeanor representing the Special Counsel yesterday. How lucky we are to have him in the arena, leading our charge on the front lines of democracy at the Court. An amazing advocate. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Happy birthday, Robert. I’m sure there are some May flowers waiting to pop up and blossom under all that April snow.
I was in a toddler mom’s group once upon a time. There was a girl in the group who was quite the little spitfire and her mother said one day, “I think she may become the first female president “. I replied “ No, she should strive to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That’s where the real power sits.”
30-some years later, boy, was I wrong! The Chief Justice is now impotent and 4 of his justices are the corrupt enablers of a criminal former president. John Marshall is rolling over in his grave.
Bill Maher was great tonight....On a lighter note if the Supreme Court grants immunity to the President. It will Joe Biden that gets to go first....LOL
I am in the camp that thinks this Supreme Court is way out of line. A lawyer is standing up and with a straight face saying that it could be an official presidential duty to install fake electors, murder opponents etc., and the court decides it is going to treat this as a normal matter to be discussed with a civil back and forth dialog. Throw the case out and the bum of a lawyer with it. This is ridiculous.
There is no mention of "presidential immunity" in the Constitution. There was no obligation for the Extreme Court to ever have heard this case. They could have simply said, "Sorry this is not a discussion we need to have at this level. The Appeals Court has spoken."
This is an obvious effort by the Federalist, Opus Dei, Christian Dominionist Oligarchs to assign royal powers to the president of the US. It is the antithesis of what the founders wanted - a democracy where all are subject to the rule of law - not a MONARCHY.
However, if the remand is to require a sorting of "personal" acts vs "official" acts, that shouldn't be hard to figure out. What is so upsetting is the delay after delay, of course. Which is really the name of the whole game for this team of fascists.
But let's not forget that while all of this is "unjust" and very upsetting, Al Capone was imprisoned for tax law violations - not the murders. The Orange Menace may be jailed for violating gag orders and ultimately fraudulent bookkeeping to interfere in an election. Jail is jail. In a sense, the sleepy old blob with funny hair is in jail all week long already. Not campaigning. Not golfing. Just sitting and listening to his prosecution with a jailer looking down on him who has the power to say "shut up" and can enforce it.
And then there is a big trial on November 5th. What will the jury of peers say then? I predict justice will prevail. I predict that the Dobbs decision and all its ripple effects will be the tool of our victory. Beware the woman scorned. Also, have you noticed Joe Biden has gone on the offense - and quite effectively?
When will law-abiding citizens decide it had it with the Federalists and push back and hold the. Accountable
Good question Stephen. When, too, will Democrats push back much harder as a party, double down and stop letting Republican seats go uncontested. It is time to put a full fledged response to the outrage of Republicans content to destroy democracy with the aid of Leonard Leo and the wealthy donors who support The Federalist Society.
John, the more I learn about the many grassroots groups that are advocating for and supporting up and down ballot Democrats all over the country, the more I feel reassured that we are finally getting how important it is. I hold on to the victory of Liberal judge Janet Protasiewicz, who won a seat on Wisconsin's state Supreme Court, flipping the body's ideological majority...after rich GOP's poured millions into the race. It's happening! Here's my home group which keeps me informed and shows me opportunities to do what I can.
markersfordemocracy.org.
Here's the story on WI SC race.
https://www.wisdc.org/news/press-releases/139-press-release-2023/7390-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-cost-record-51m
I agree Chaplain. In fact, I had mentioned yesterday that I participated in a Zoom call with Partners for Democracy wherein we heard from Wisconsin and Michigan activists. There are certainly challenges but these folks have worked hard to actively counter the Republican efforts to suppress voting. It was an encouraging conversation.
I love every bit of evidence I see/hear that grassroots is/are growing. Perhaps you could post a link to Partners? thank you!
Thank you Chaplain for the 'markers' link!
Moved to WI from IL 9 yrs ago, and the difference is stark, but if positive change can happen here, there's hope. There's also Ben Wikler who is instrumental for the start of this turn around.
I suspect there are a lot of law abiding, busy citizens out there who have never heard of Leonard Leo or the Federalist Society. There has been a great deal of dark money and the dark actors that generate it that is hidden. These folks thrive on secrecy.
As does the Republican Party. That I can report from experience. They work hard to keep their cards close.
That doesn’t surprise me but it does make me sad.
I agree with John Cooper. It is a good question. It's hard to counter a movement that began decades ago, mostly below the radar screen, by neocons and corporate interests who loathed the idea of a fully participatory democracy. It's almost diabolical how the architects of this system cobbled together an unlikely coalition of televangelists, political conservatives, and Christian nationalists all dedicated to dismantling the New Deal and rolling back civil rights and equal justice and opportunity for all.
I've heard it described as a modern version of the pre-civil war 'Mudsill' Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudsill_theory?wprov=sfti1#). I am grateful to Professor Heather Cox Richardson for introducing me to the term. As I understand it, it's an arrogant, reprehensible and undemocratic excuse that wealthy elites use when in reality their primary goal is to maintain power at all costs. Truly Machiavellian, brilliant, and impressive - if one can let go of the sheer horror and unAmerican, dystopian future envisioned by the movement's leaders.
The one thing on the side of those who oppose the Federalist Society's plan is that, even with the unholy coalition they've cobbled together, they are in a minority. Perhaps our best chance for thwarting them is to call them out and work to publicly denounce their plans as antithetical to the principles upon which the United States was founded. However, they are well funded and organized. They have an army of loyal drones who have been brainwashed into believing that the movement is a religious war. They've also had decades to lay the foundation for their takeover and hone a well scripted propaganda/doublespeak campaign in which to control the media and journalism in this country.
So - what do opponents of "Project 2025" have going for them? Good question. I would start by (as my military training taught me long ago) to look at what our 'force multipliers' are:
-First, we have a majority of the country opposed to Fed Society goals. That's a start.
-Second - for the time being anyway - we have a noble and principled president who believes in democracy, the rule of law, and is governing more effectively than any president in my lifetime. Democrats control the Senate by a slim majority, and although they are not yet in control of the House, their unity is allowing them to lead from behind.
- Third, the Federalist Society has engendered outrage as Americans wake up to the fact that these theocratic fascists have been plotting this coup for a long time.
- Fourth, the frustration that many of us feel is creating a powerful sense of unity and urgency to come together to fight the existential threat to our nation - in much the same way we've witnessed the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people as they come together to save their country and their own lives.
This will take time, effort, determination, cooperation and will. If we can inspire others and be willing to work together in unity, we can create a better future that more fully embodies the aspirational values and principles upon which our nation was founded. I, for one, am willing to do my part. Let's all roll up our sleeves and work together. For children, our grandchildren, and for those to come.
(I'll get off my soapbox now😊)
Kate agree with our comments but I believe we really don’t fully comprehend the depth of their influence and power. They at a certain level own a major portion of the judiciary and are training and recruiting an army of lawyers to backfill the courts. No one has actually really investigated or exposed them which I believe is because of their money and power. They need to be exposed. The frustration is very few voters know who they are and what they do because of where they get their “ news”. We need to hang in there
Well Stephen, I took heart after listening to a BigTentUSA Zoom conversation recommended by Robert Hubbell. BigTentUSA is very aware of the right’s plans to challenge “en masse” voters. They, too, have lawyers at the ready to counter this. Plus, they have been training election workers and volunteers to be prepared for people challenging votes to support voters.
John thanks for sharing. The Biden Administration has developed an infrastructure and has paid staff in most of the swing states whereas the other guy does not. There is a wing of the Republican Party who are dedicated to challenging elections and perceived fraud. Republicans cannot win honestly.
I agree with this. We need to expose these folks. But how?
Susan, more articles like the Time Magazine piece are a start. Just watched "Bad Faith". We can start by familiarizing ourselves and others with their overall goals and strategy (see Project 2025, or any of the unhinged coalition group's' manifestos (NCP, Heritage Foundation, etc.). I'm joining my local Democratic Party group, and volunteering. In the end, the more energy, hard work, passion , organization, commitment, and unity we can bring to this the better.
Hell hath no fury like an awakened and outraged citizenry.... (My apologies to William Congreve). Right winger "Christians" will do well to remember this..!
That was a very clarifying comment. No need to apologize for your soapbox. Thanks🙏
Stephen- I agree. Federalist Society power is indeed daunting.
Our best strategy is 'the disinfectant effect of exposure'. As you wrote, their hold over media keeps them insulated from full attention and accountability. Still, we have to find a way to address this untenable situation. Talking about it is a start, such as in venues like this. Joining causes like Media and Democracy and others that Hubbel and others suggest is also a good idea. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." If the Federalist Society succeeded under this concept, then we can too.
It's hard to not get demoralized by unequal power dynamics. I fight it daily. Reading posts like yours helps me. Thank you
Kate thank you but sometimes I wonder if the readers of this substack and others are in a bubble and the rest of the country just doesn’t give damn like us.
Your fear is not unjustified. The one thing that I find encouraging is how many people I know have stopped watching television news and reading their news instead. but again, this may still be a minority.
I agree Stephen, in increasingly frequent dark moments.
Two things I believe we have going for us, though, is the outrage over removal of rights that have been in place for a long time; they underestimated this.
The other is, despite long term planning, is that they've screwed themselves over championing trump. His increasingly detestable character, plus his remora wannabes, are becoming more of a liability daily.
And this week their cruelty became a badge of honor amongst them, and total dominance is their goal.
I don’t disagree there is outrage but I am not convinced the outrage is as all encompassing as it should be. The students protesting what is happening in Gaza are all upset about what they perceive is happening but where are all the students protesting the outrage of an crooked authoritarian running for President who wants to take freedoms away from them who ignored the pandemic and tried to overthrow, the government.
Stephen,
Sadly most law-abiding citizens don’t know what or who the Federalist Society is, or what their philosophy is. Like you, I am frustrated, beyond belief, with this so called Supreme Court. It is a joke.
Like you, I hope most woman are as angry as I am. I have three granddaughters, what country are they going to grow up in?
I am a volunteer to help with the election in the fall. I beginning to wonder why.
The Republicans want us to give up and get disgusted and frustrated and if that happens they win and we lose. Keeping Democracy and the rule of law is a tough job. We can only make it better if we all work hard and gain the majority because we have the right candidate in Joe Biden we can trust and has the experience to make it all work out. Hang in there.
I agree that the Supreme Court absolutely had to hear this case, the highest court in the land ruling on an unprecedented situation. But, I have trouble following the reasoning on the "official" vs "private" acts part of the case. In the former, whether you're George Bush, Donald Trump, or Joe Biden...."official acts" are those undertaken on the advice of the President's Cabinet and/or Security Council in the furtherance of the Country's goals or safety. In the latter, with Trump as the only example, "private acts" are clearly those taken despite the advice of cabinet or counsel (excepting those separately indicted), in furtherance of private goals....namely re-election. The fact that these "private" campaign-related actions were taken despite having lost 60+ court cases, only magnifies the "individual/private" determination to persevere. The Court needs to rule on the facts of the case.
I disagree because I see this court as illegitimate and with its own destructive agenda to begin with.
That Clarence Thomas has not recused himself nor been dealt with for his ethical violations is frankly inexcusable, in my opinion.
Yes!
Maybe I missed something, but it’s my impression that this Supreme Court case was about Trump’s misdeeds. Trump’s lawyer and the reactionary ‘justices’ changed the subject; the liberal justices were suckered into the changed subject. And now the Court’s reactionary majority is poised to legislate from the bench.
Well apparently their opinion is going to be that if Trump did it during his presidency it was official. No matter what it was. I strongly suspect their opinion would also be that if Biden did something in the gray zone between official and private act, it would always be a private act.
Is throwing a plate of ketchup against the dining room wall an official act?
"It could be".
Very succinct and I totally agree.
Hi Bill, well said!
For the strict constructionists on the Court, the specific omission of "presidential immunity" should have been a disqualifier, but apparently it was not.
I'm of a mind that the Supreme Court legitimately needed to weigh in on this, although the way they weighed in is way beyond the pale. The Quadefendant and his very able defense attorneys are doing everything they can to slow this down and gum up the works. Their indefensible "absolute immunity" position is absurd and a risky ploy on their part, but I think they banked on the Supremes wanting to take it up.
I don't like the fact that the Quadefendant and his attorneys are able to pull this kind of stuff, but that's the way our system works; in an effort to assure fairness for all, it allows some to game the system and act in bad faith. In some cases, it's the cost of justice, and in others, where the claims are frivolous or worse, it can cost the attorneys or the defendant. In my view, the claim of "absolute immunity" is at least frivolous, but alas, the Supremes seem to think it's not.
Perhaps the real conundrum here is that the Quadefendant and his attorneys have taken the "absolute immunity" position, and the prosecution has taken the "no immunity" position. Even though Jack Smith suggested in his brief that there might be a middle ground, maybe the justices just want him to go there and stop swinging for the fences.
At this point, I think the best outcome is for the charges to be separated between those that might be official acts, and those which are clearly personal acts. I think it's pretty clear that the personal stuff is fair game, and pursuing it as such might be the only way to ensure that there's a trial about any of it.
I'm wondering if the prosecution could amend the indictment or prepare a superseding one that removes the charges that could possibly be official acts (or on the “outer perimeter,” as they say), and then add them back later or charge them under a new indictment if the Court rules that even as "official acts," willfully illegal actions do not deserve immunity. It seems to me that such a move might break the logjam. If it would create a double jeopardy situation though, it would have to be evaluated in that light. But 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
As Robert and others have advised, we cannot expect or wait for the Supreme Court or any court to hold the Quadefendant accountable. That's up to the voters. We can hope that justice will be served, but we shouldn’t expect that it will happen quickly. So we should blow off our steam and then move on.
So well stated, and thank you for the statement!
Clearly the SC is all in for normalizing fascist takeover. It may be a bumpy ride but…the antidote to anxiety is taking positive action to turn out the blue vote. 🕊🌊
thank you for such positive messaging
You are more than welcome. It's too easy nowadays to....just freak the heck out. And a little bit of that is inevitable. But we must always regroup and turn our attention to finding a way to support all the good candidates across the nation. Blue wave IS very possible. My mentor in "hope with a plan" is the wonderful Simon Rosenberg of Hopium Chronicles (and also, now Mr. Hubbell). TOGETHER WE CAN.
Will Biden take advantage of immunity and do something to the criminals who are now private citizens and have no immunity? I doubt it.
Will Trump if re-elected see immunity as giving him all he needs to fulfill his retribution campaign unimpeded? I have no doubt.
The far right absolutely counts on Biden and DEMs staying within the guard rails.
Trump already upped his retribution threats, very likely encouraged by the tenor of the SCOTUS arguments.
It would be a terrible mistake to throw out the government's case. A lot of bad and stupid things were said in court yesterday by Trump's attorney, but Trump is entitled to choose an attorney who says bad and stupid things and under absolute no circumstances should the case against Trump be thrown out. That is exactly what Trump wants. In all the vitriol have we lost our minds?
Thank you, Peter. I've had the same reaction when reading comments about the Supreme Court's immunity hearing both here and on other Substacks: "In all the vitriol have we lost our minds?"
There's plenty of reason to be angry about the Supreme Court, but let's take a beat here.
Thursday's hearing was not a ruling; no decision has been made. Outrage that the Justices would grant total immunity to a President who assassinates his rival, or otherwise commits a criminal act, is misplaced. Willingness to engage in a discussion of novel legal theories is not at all the same as endorsing those theories.
But the issue of a president being subject to criminal liability for official acts performed during his tenure is both serious and timely. That's not just because Donald Trump is charged with criminal acts. It's also because if Donald Trump becomes president again, his Justice Dept. would almost certainly charge Joe Biden with having committed criminal acts while president.
In other words, there is some urgency to the need for establishing a reasonable (emphasis on reasonable) level of protection from criminal liability for a president's official acts. Better that should be done sooner rather than later.
.
Conceptually you may have a point BUT since the beginning of time we never ever had to address the issue of criminal liability with any President. Just because Trump is a criminal doesn’t mean all Presidents or even a few have to be protected from criminal liability. If it was such an issue it would have surfaced years ago and the issue of criminal liability is separate from total immunity. Deny total immunity and deal with criminal liability as a separate issue later if required.
SCOTUS should never have taken the case. Clarence Thomas should have recused himself or been strongly encouraged to recuse. The legitimacy of any decision of this court as currently composed is lessened. I agree that we can't "throw out" the case now. I also agree that outrage against the court considering outrageous hypotheticals would be misplaced, but I don't hear the outrage (generally) phrased as being about posing the hypothetical instances, but about the responses to them. One way to make a point is to pose extreme examples which by their sheer absurdity show the weakness of a stance. When the response to such a hypothetical is a blase agreement with the absurd, then outrage is appropriate. The justices know the public is watching every nuance and the messages they are sending are not entirely unintended.
I understand the urge to protect Biden from illegal retribution, but no amount of immunity given Trump now would be enough to protect Biden if Trump became President. There is too much subjectivity involved in determining what is official vs private, and the plan apparently is to defang the legitimate justice department anyway. Anyone who thinks protections for Republicans will protect Democrats needs to consider, for example, how evenly McConnell applied his rule on SCOTUS nominations. They are too slippery for us to protect now in hopes of being protected in return later.
Only if Trump is kept out of office and the rule of law strengthened can we expect protection for Biden. He already weathered an attempt at impeachment on no grounds at all exactly because neither Biden nor any other president nor any other citizen can be tried and convicted for any crime there is no evidence with regard to so long as the justice department does it's job correctly. And that was without immunity!
This sounds very sensible Yehawes, but haven’t we trusted our rational side since the day we woke up the find Donald J. Trump as president? At this moment with the justices having spent two hours casting about with “ideas/theories” and “what if” yet never addressing the issue before them - the reprehensible and criminal offenses of a president who did not accept defeat - can we not be allowed a bit of anger.
The Supreme Court on Thursday either made fools of themselves or they made fools of us. I’ve had enough of being made a fool and dreaming of a better day with Republicans and this extremist Federalist Society Court.
Oh, please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm not furious! I'm livid.
I responded to someone (above? below?) who counseled waiting to hear their decision before engaging in outcry over the hearing. My response was to say that after we hear their decision it is too late. Our system gives us no recourse to a higher court, no send-it-to-the-voter, no viable recall the judge... and our enforcement agents will enforce the SCOTUS decisions regardless of how tainted.
If there is a great enough ruckus over the next few days however, it is just possible the court, politically motivated as they are, might modify their final decision. We have had so many examples (the leaked "draft", the abortion decision) that they simply ignore the voice and even the welfare of the people, but they won't entirely ignore their own welfare. If the outcry is loud enough they just may hear and, to some small extent, fear, a lessening of their power.
We have every right to anger, and it might just be constructive to voice it as loudly and clearly as we are able.
Yehawes, thanks for your considered reply to my comment. Here are a few points in response.
1). "SCOTUS should never have taken the case."
It was Jack Smith himself who asked the Supreme Court to rule on the matter, saying in his petition for certiorari (request for review of a lower court decision) that it is "of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by [the Supreme Court]."
2) "When the response to an extremely absurd hypothetical is a blase agreement with the absurd, then outrage is appropriate."
I heard no Justice agree or disagree with any attorney's argument. The purpose of the hearing is to hear the arguments, not for the Justices to argue with the attorneys. Their role in this setting is to question, not to render opinions.
3). "No amount of immunity given Trump now would be enough to protect Biden if Trump became President."
This gets to the heart of the matter. As was stated explicitly by some Justices, this hearing was only circumstantially about Trump and Biden. The real subject was more abstract and more universal. Specifically, it's about "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office." That question refers to any president, including both the present one and any future one.
_____
The general public listens to these proceedings focused only on how the eventual ruling will affect the next election. We hope to get a hint as to whether Donald Trump will be helped or hurt in his quest to regain the presidency. Consequently, many commenters are outraged that there was no discussion of what the former president actually did. That outrage is misplaced.
Certainly we should be outraged that Donald Trump apparently believes he is above the law, and that as president he should be immune from all criminal liability. But there is nothing outrageous about seriously considering the claim. Nor is it indicative of corruption on the part of the Court for them to do so. Their job is to decide constitutional issues, not to opine on guilt or innocence.
If the Court were to decide that presidents do enjoy total immunity as claimed, I'll be as outraged as anyone else. That is counter to every precedent and norm under which our Republic has been governed since its founding. But I seriously doubt that will be the ruling, and I have yet to see or hear anything to make me believe otherwise.
.
Judge Chutkan had rejected Trump's immunity claim, it was being appealed, was going to go through two rounds of appeals then the Supreme Court, and Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to speed up the inevitable by jumping over the intermediate steps. He wasn't seeking the SCOTUS' ruling per se - he was seeking to ensure that Trump's claims of immunity be "resolved as expeditiously as possible" - in other words, attempting to have the trial in a timely manner which was not happening only because of appeals to a ruling the Supreme Court could have accepted from a lower court. I am simply saying I believe they should have.
I'm not sure why you assumed I meant the "blase acceptance" of the absurd hypothetical was by a judge. Perhaps I phrased that poorly. Both judges and defense were posing hypothetical instances however, and there is much to be read between the lines in what is proposed. I have stated that absurd hypotheticals are often used to probe for boundaries, so obviously I'm not saying they shouldn't be a part of arguments, but they are also sometimes direct suggestions clearly hinting at an opinion.
As to the question being addressed, and the broader use and near outcome of choices in ways the question is interpreted and answered, oddly even that was being probed. Rather than extensive quotes, it's more useful to simply say the transcript shows how the question itself was being massaged in the final pages: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_l5gm.pdf
Judge Luttig seems to feel the case should not have been heard, and more narrowly examined now that it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPiFiT3ADz0
I'm sorry - I may not have responded to every point you made. It's late and I have been off, but I think at least I've addressed the majority? It is always useful and interesting to hear other opinions, and can help add nuance to one's own understanding of how events may be viewed.
Excellent!
Yet the Supreme Court is continuing to delay, how does that square?
"Willingness to engage in a discussion of novel legal theories..." What can go wrong if that discussion is triggered and dominated (thank you, Mitch McConnell) by this posse, put in place by the Federalist Society.
I could see some concern about tit-for-tat criminally charging presidents in the future, given the tit-for-tat impeachment proceedings, but I cannot see conservative justices being concerned about what Trump might do to Biden. More likely the argument is a cover.
It is. They tried to impeach Biden and could not. They could not indict him either in the face of a lack of illegal activity or proof... so long as the (lower) courts remain legitimate. So long as Trump fails to take over.
In my mind, there is no way that the Court would rule in such a way that prevents a Tr*mp DOJ from indicting President Biden. If anything they would twist a ruling to be narrowed to a Tr*mp-specific set of facts that would protect him and no one else. But of course it’s all speculative at this point. I’ll bet they’ll delay delay but ultimately find no presidential immunity.
I have often speculated on the result you describe. After all Bush v Gore was not precedent. It would be the worst outcome IMO.
Trump's Justice Dept. would absolutely charge Joe Biden with having committed criminal acts while president.
And IF they can honestly get a grand jury of 12 peers to indict him, and IF they can get a trial jury of 12 peers to convict him, Biden would have troubles for certain.
For example?
Biden would be indicted and convicted.
Indicted for what?
Wow ... i would never have thought of that -- but now that you mention it, it's a total "duh". Thanks for helping me feel better about the immunity hearing on Wednesday. I couldn't fathom Alioto's line of questioning (except to see it as BS) ... but now I can see that he was bringing up an important consideration!
WE haven't lost our minds! But these justices have!
Obviously, the radical justices of the SCOTUS have lost their minds.
and dangerous
Thank you. You are absolutely correct.
Happy birthday Robert - and many more! We're going to need you around for a looonnnnngg time, it looks like. So take care of yourself.
Yes, happy birthday, Robert. You picked a great place to start the new year and get away from it all.
As to needing "you around for a looonnnngg time" I do hope that you refer to the time of the second Biden administration with majorities in both the House and the Senate, TCinLA. That's where the heavy lifting starts and Biden indeed will need some nudging – beginning with enlarging SCOTUS and getting rid of filibuster.
Enlarge the Supreme Court ("rebalancing").
Ridding us of the filibuster.
Hopeful thoughts for early in the second Biden administration.
I do indeed mean that.
Happy Birthday, Robert. No matter what, the road will run on long past November. And we all need to stay strong, inspire the young, and enlist those of us who are older to not give up on the American Dream, which, by the way, is not two cars and a chicken in every pot and a home in the suburbs, but the earlier dream that a free people may govern themselves as equals without corruption from money and power, hatred and fear. It's always been a fragile dream. But your leadership has helped so many of to remember that it is our work to keep it alive. The biggest birthday wish I can offer you is many more years of working your head off for the good of the people who rely on you. Sorry, that's not much, but that's the blessing and curse of true leadership. As ol' Henry David Thoreau used to say, "Only that day dawns to which we are awake." Thank you for helping many of us wake up, not only to the threat, but to our own agency in countering the threat that imperils America.
I certainly hope the Trump immunity case hurts the SCOTUS a helluva lot more than Bush v Gore did. The Framers would be horrified. And every American should be horrified.
they think they are above the law, and they are. Lifetime appointments. And they don't care what we think of them.
The 6 SCOTUS justices who subscribe to the "originalist doctrine" will not be able to avoid their "doo-doo" logic on this immunity case.
We should be hoping that the court quickly comes to a decision that makes sense and allows the trial to move forward quickly, in advance of the election, not that the Court inflicts more damage on itself than it already has.
I agree. But I'm not optimistic about the Court coming to its senses.
The Court has no reason to make a swift decision in light that they are fully behind the person making the claim!
Tell me how they are goi g to be hurt.
their reputation is circling the toilet.
With their self-importance, how could they care?
So it's your birthday? Wow! You couldn't be in a nicer place to celebrate it. Hope it's wonderful.
I am astonished anyone thought anything you said about the Supreme Court was intemperate.
This is a big one, folks. When the SCOTUS decides to yank the rug out from under the rest of the justice system's equal application of the law, one of the three balancing powers governing our country has already declared itself taken over. When SCOTUS makes it blatantly clear they do not care one whit how transparently politically motivated, contradictory, ethically tainted or absurd their proceedings and potentially their decisions are, because there is no one who can gainsay them, then they have become the ruling branch of government. They decide what Congress can do, they decide what the Executive branch can do, and what it can get away with.
No sense of honor, respect for any guidelines such as the Constitution, or precedents, or desire to retain reputation - and only the flimsiest of pretense at explanation - is reining this court in. What they say becomes law and we all dance to it, our lower courts adjust to it, our enforcement agencies enforce it.
This has been a long time coming but it's been like the train in the tunnel. Anyone who looked could see it coming. It was just a matter of how fast and how big.
Yes, we need to expand the court as first among other reforms. We need to tie it to something reasonably related (I suggest the number of federal districts) and not too easily changed, which will answer some of the trepidation in those who believe it's a bad idea to set precedents for later Republicans - as if they need or pay attention to precedents. My only hope is that if (that is very hard to type) Biden wins the Presidency again, along with a House and Senate with a DEM majority, that this time he won't say he doesn't think it's a good idea like he said the first time. I support Biden and value his years of experience, but I'm leery of his tendency to value what has worked for years. Nine justices doesn't work anymore.
I agree with your assessment, and reserve judgment only because the decision hasn't been announced yet. There is a (not much) greater than zero chance that at least 5 members of the Court will make the proper decision and confirm the Appellate Court's decision.
Hear hear. Let the court decide. We have at least a couple of justices who we know are very ill-suited for their robes. But maybe five of them have enough sense to rise to this moment in time to make the right decision in this case. To build a consensus of five it wouldn't have helped for them to impatien with the arguments or each other. There will be a time for us to constructively channel our energies to protest the court. Now is not that time.
I feel like the court is more politically motivated than they should be, but because of that they are not deaf to a public voice indicating there will be much outcry if they decide Trump has complete impunity or far more impunity than the Constitution and history suggest reasonable. After a decision may be the time to constructively protest the court, but now is the time to constructively voice opinions about potential decisions.
A very temperate position.
Honestly, I write to the President via his website and express my views often. I believe it makes a difference.
As I was processing both the immense absurdity of yesterday’s case and the argument presented earlier this week in the Idaho case - at which the vast chasm between the women and the men became abundantly clear - I found myself wondering just how horrible and painful it must be for Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson.
They are sitting with two justices credibly accused of sexual misconduct and three others whose decisions are completely driven by their religious beliefs. What emerges as a result is truly Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning completely unmoored from the Law.
I would not be surprised if what plays out behind the scenes is a careful walking-on-eggshells dance in which they must be extremely strategic in order to do what little they can to keep from pushing the men to even further extremes.
None of this is remotely rational.
And none of it has a precedent that I am aware of. One little habit that I think should be abandoned now is the relative silence of the three (women) reasonable justices about the corruption of their fellow jurists. It is long past time for Thomas to be ejected by his peers.
What this Court is entertaining – and might enact – is reordering Executive-Judicial relations so it looks more like that of Hungary.
That’s the big danger.
This Court threatens to drive the American Republic in the direction of soft fascism.
Yes, none of this does have precedent. And that is why the right-wing ‘justices’ are about to Legislate From The Bench. Call them on it.
HBTY
HBTY
HBDR
HBTY!
AMM!
Happy birthday. And, as a gift, I predict SCOTUS will not grant absolute immunity so enjoy your day.
I love your optimism Watergate Girl!❤️
Thanks Jill! I needed to hear you say that right now!
Good to hear especially coming from you! "We are in this together"!
In honor of your birthday, Robert, and in honor of you, words of blessing by John O’Donohue ~
"May the nourishment of the earth be yours,
May the clarity of light be yours,
May the fluency of the ocean be yours,
May the protection of the ancestors be yours.
And so may a slow
Wind work these words
Of love around you,
An invisible cloak
To mind your life."
✨
Verses from the poem, “Beannacht,” the Gaelic word for Blessing.
From John O’Donohue’s collection of poetry, "To Bless the Space Between Us: A Book of Blessings."
My favorite. Thank you for sharing.
“Trying to overthrow the government can’t be one of those official acts.” –
It’s absurd even to entertain the *notion* that conducting a putsch can be an “official act”. It’s something Voltaire would have skewered.
Right-wing jurists have begun to warp contemporary American political thought.
Even giving the appearance of siding with the seditionists makes those justices unfit for office. All of them should be forced to resign. (I know its a lifetime appointment.)
It is a lifetime appointment, but …:
Abe Fortas, whom Lyndon Johnson nominated to the Supreme Court, was forced to resign over what amounted to personal misconduct. Those were different days, in which ethical standards were not as routinely shrugged off.
An act by an official isn’t necessarily an official act.
‘Conservatives’ are playing word games.
Happy Birthday Robert! Thanks for your updates. Ruth Ben-Ghiat said today in our Zoom group that Clarence Thomas could no longer be taken seriously. He was a political operative pretending to be a Supreme Court Justice. And Marcy Wheeler says what many have been saying. We can’t control the court, but we can get out the vote. That is our last hope Obi-Wan.
The compromised status of C Thomas is dwarfed by A C Barrett, who is a wannabee catholic priestess !
Maybe we could give them code names - The Operative, The Priestess, etc.
Happy Happy Birthday, Robert and here’s to many more! 🎂🍨🎉
Yesterday was depressing. Today I listened to a little bit of a podcast with George Conway and Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark. George was very calm about what we heard from the justices. He said we should not despair as he feels Thomas & Alito will give Trump immunity while the others will not. He said hearing from Coney-Barrett meant that she was paying attention. Longwell felt like the rest of us…nervous and unsure. Regardless, we march on and forge ahead in giving Biden-Harris four more years!
Happy Birthday Robert! Enjoy your time in Winter Wonderland! I hope you get the water issues sorted.
I honestly can't imagine a scenario where Trump could win the election. That said, that loss won't happen without all our combined efforts. Blessings on the NY prosecutors and Judge Merchan. They are holding the line until we reach November.
He can't win the election. He can only steal it. Let's hope America's institutions hold.
I believe they will hold.
Everyday in court Trump is showing his weakness impacting his following.
Among all the venues - NY, GA, FL & DC - seems NY is our best bet so far...Engoron, Kaplan, Merchan.
And by the way, let's not forget about Michael Dreeben's magnificent vurtuoso argument and demeanor representing the Special Counsel yesterday. How lucky we are to have him in the arena, leading our charge on the front lines of democracy at the Court. An amazing advocate. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Happy birthday, Robert. I’m sure there are some May flowers waiting to pop up and blossom under all that April snow.
I was in a toddler mom’s group once upon a time. There was a girl in the group who was quite the little spitfire and her mother said one day, “I think she may become the first female president “. I replied “ No, she should strive to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That’s where the real power sits.”
30-some years later, boy, was I wrong! The Chief Justice is now impotent and 4 of his justices are the corrupt enablers of a criminal former president. John Marshall is rolling over in his grave.
Bill Maher was great tonight....On a lighter note if the Supreme Court grants immunity to the President. It will Joe Biden that gets to go first....LOL
Exactly. Maybe he should…
Hope you have had a wonderful day and a happy and healthy year ahead 💖