#Criminal SCOTUS

[meandmybigmouth]

[politijohn]

Source

[jonostroveart]

Talking Smack

[eugenedebs1920]

On the eve of America appointing its first king let’s take some time to reflect. Reflect on history from both long ago, and that which is more recent. Peer backward from where we came, we can not go back there, and tomorrow is uncertain, yet somehow strangely familiar.

There’s a phrase the mainstream media likes to use. Trumpnesia. Some mental health experts suggest that as a collective whole much of society’s memories from the pandemic, 2020, and generally the chaos and sh*tshow the first Trump administration was, have been forgotten, hazed over, spotty.

I would assume many who voted in this election were unable to in 2016, their attention focused on much more simple, enjoyable aspects of life.

Honestly, my recollection is subject to rolling brownouts regarding the Trump years. To be completely truthful, I was a savage, and I mean SAVAGE whiskey enthusiast and imbiber during that particular period of this train wreck I perceive as existence. Which may have contributed to the fogginess by its own accord. Nonetheless, there’s more I remember than I’d like.

Every day it was some ridiculous sh*t. Every day it was Trump’s obnoxious voice, or an all caps tweet, dodging accountability, blatantly lying, immaturely insulting, pathetically justifying corruption, every day just cringe worthy embarrassing behavior on the would stage, out there for all to see. It was humiliating!

It was like, have you ever rode in a vehicle where someone refuses to buckle their seatbelt? Despite the “friendly” and relentless coaxing from the safety feature of said vehicle asking them to do so? Just a nonstop, endless, mind piercing, fury stoking, twitch inducing, ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding, till you’re at the point where your most attractive option is to drive the vehicle off a bridge to your seductive looking watery grave, rip your hair out and punch yourself in the dick to experience something less agitating, or unabashedly berate and howl at your fellow rider, informing them that whether or not they agree with the act, that siren song of a security alarm will not cease until they buckle their f*ckin seatbelt.

Like your neighbor forever using a gas powered leaf blower, day in, and day out, from sunup to sundown, even after the sun has ventured from the east in its determined pursuit to scorch the earth below it, until, in the western horizon it sinks, slumbering to recuperate in preparation to do it all over again. Like being in a house under construction with multiple wood trades, running multiple compressors, seemingly timed to where there is not a single moment of serenity, stillness or silence.

You know? Maybe there were external factors that encouraged my excessive enjoyment of the beautiful, sharp, warm, brown liquor. That which puts out the fire but keeps in the warmth. Whiskey. Mmmmmmmmm.

I digress, and may need a drink.

The utter perturbation one experienced before consuming the news. The dismay at the conduct conducted. The oblivious disgrace brought to the highest office in the land, a once honorable title now in possession of a reality tv personality who fooled half the country into thinking he was even remotely competent or worthy. The shame in the fact that this was a representation of you, your country, and your fellow citizens.

Who the f*ck had the dishonest audacity to, with no hint of humor or irony, declare a lies “alternative facts”!? It’s staggering!

That was every day. This is before the pandemic!

For f*cks sake! The pandemic?! What a disaster! I mean… You could see the frustration, concern and puzzlement of these experts, doctors, and scientists, as Trump would undoubtedly voice his highly unqualified and childish opinion on the subject. His narcissism overriding his ability to allow folks who dedicated their entire adult life to complex sciences to explain and inform the population. I felt bad for them.

What a nightmare! Intense, all encompassing humiliation. A recurring, spiteful, patronizing stale joke. Some darker, irritating and moronic sequel to Groundhog Day.

Well. Here we go again. Only this time spiked with retribution. This time schemed upon for years. This time validated and emboldened by his “reelection” and the absolute immunity bestowed to him by a compromised Supreme Court in all its self righteous perceived wisdom. This time carried out by a far more vindictive, hateful and degrading man.

I keep telling people, this is going to get worse before it gets better. So unlike that jackass who somehow is impervious to the insufferable seat belt alarm. Buckle up.

[liberalsarecool]

Lifelong appointments based on perjury should be disqualifying. What other occupation would allow such corruption/lack of ethics?

[roguekhajiit]

With the SCOTUS ruling that the president is above the law, the MAGATs are showing their true colors.

And it's not the red, white, and blue that they fly next to their cult flags.

No, it's peach and orange.

That's because all this time, while they were screaming the loudest about how they were the "True patriots," they were really just reading a script their great orange leader gave to them.

They absolutely praise the deeds of these corrupt justices that blatantly disregard the vision the founding fathers had for our country.

When you call them out on their treasonous ideas, and that's what this boils down to, they can't do much more than regurgitate the tweets of their supreme leader.

They are not Patriots! Project 2025 seeks to tear down our democracy and rebuild our government into a dictatorship, crowning their cult leader as king.

All of these recent SCOTUS rulings are designed to lay the groundwork for Project 2025, and the MAGATs fully support it. Don't you forget that. Every single truck flying a MAGA flag, every single house with a Trump 2024 sign out front, and every red hat in the crowd at this year's 4th of July parade; they all support a dictatorship.

Don't let these kool-aid drinkers win this year. If they do, you can kiss your freedoms goodbye. They will undo all the progress we made over the years and set us back 300+ years. Under their regime, only rich, white men will have any semblance of freedom in the new country.

The only way we can hope to stop it is to get out and vote, turn as many states blue as we can. And let's hope that the electoral college isn't as corrupt as the Supreme Court is.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jill Filipovic at Slate:

Should the very state of being pregnant place women in a subclass of citizen, vulnerable to criminal prosecution or civil penalties for behavior that would be perfectly legal from a nonpregnant person? Judging by their proposed legislation and various legal antics, the anti-abortion movement says: Yes. Pregnant women simply should not have the same rights as any other U.S. citizen. Take, for example, efforts to criminalize the crossing of state lines for abortion. There is a very, very long tradition in the U.S. of allowing people to travel out of state to access medical care, and it’s so deeply ingrained we barely think about it. Consider, for example, the businesswoman who lives in New Jersey but works in New York City and so goes to the dentist in midtown Manhattan, or the dad who lives on the Kansas side of Kansas City but takes his sick kid to a specialist at a hospital on the Missouri side. A great many Americans don’t think twice about crossing state lines for health care. Abortion opponents are trying to change that for one group of people: pregnant women.

Conservative legal groups are already drafting model legislation to prevent pregnant women from traveling for abortions by legally penalizing anyone who helps them, a strategy used by the state of Texas in one of its abortion bans, which allows anyone in the U.S. to sue those who assist women with abortions—and be rewarded with a bounty paid by the state. The architect of that Texas abortion bounty law was Jonathan Mitchell, an anti-abortion activist (and Donald Trump lawyer) who is currently representing a Texas man in his quest to probe into his ex-girlfriend’s abortion, which she allegedly sought outside of their home state. Mitchell filed a petition to learn the details of this woman’s abortion for, he says, a potential future lawsuit. But to be clear, the woman in question did absolutely nothing illegal: Traveling out of state for health care, including abortion, is not against the law in Texas or anywhere else. It’s just that Mitchell and other abortion opponents would like to change that—and are apparently happy to represent controlling (and, in another case Mitchell took on, allegedly abusive) men to do it.

They’re also happy to reclassify pregnant women as a kind of sub-citizen who, by simple virtue of their pregnancy status, are not entitled to the same legal freedoms and protections as anyone else. A Texas woman who goes to a Colorado abortion clinic is being treated differently from any nonpregnant person who travels for a medical procedure—and you can bet that this categorization of pregnant people as suspect, should they travel out of state, will lead to all sorts of investigations and abuses.

Take this hypothetical: Say the anti-abortion movement succeeds and makes it a crime to travel out of state for an abortion. Say a woman in Idaho (where abortion laws are so extreme, they have no exceptions for saving a woman’s health) travels to Washington state, where abortion is legal, and gets her hands on abortion-inducing drugs. Say she’s not pregnant. Say she takes the drugs anyway. Has she committed a crime? Or, to use a more likely legal model, say Texas makes it a crime to help a woman travel for an abortion, and a Texas woman goes to Colorado, gets abortion-inducing drugs, and takes them, despite not being pregnant. Is the friend who helped buy her plane ticket still liable? Presumably not: No pregnancy means no abortion, which means no violation of an abortion ban. But if the two women in these scenarios had been pregnant, the legal calculus would be entirely different.

Or to use a perhaps more realistic scenario: Mifepristone, an abortion-inducing drug, is also commonly used to treat Cushing’s syndrome, and researchers say it has tremendous potential to treat other illnesses, too, from various cancers to PTSD. Under an anti-abortion legal scheme, if a Texas woman with Cushing’s syndrome travels out of state, gets mifepristone, and takes it, she (or those who help her) would face potential legal consequences only if she’s pregnant. It’s her status as a pregnant woman—not the act of traveling or even taking an abortion-inducing drug—that is the problem. And generally, the law frowns on making a person’s status—rather than their actions—the basis of a crime or a lawsuit. That’s part of treating all people equally under the law, and offering all people the equal protection of it.

Preventing pregnant women from crossing into a state for a legal medical procedure isn’t the only way in which the anti-abortion movement is attempting to curtail basic rights and protections for anyone carrying a pregnancy. Earlier this year, abortion opponents argued before the Supreme Court that pregnant patients should be treated differently than nonpregnant ones in cases of serious medical emergencies—that doctors and other health workers should be permitted to give pregnant women a substandard level of care, and to essentially refuse to appropriately stabilize them. If a woman comes in and is very ill, she’s entitled to one standard of care; if she comes in and is very ill and pregnant, that standard of care is lower in states that criminalize abortion.

At issue in the Supreme Court case, a ruling in which is expected early this summer, is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a law initially written to prevent hospitals from dumping seriously ill patients who couldn’t pay. Pregnant women in particular were often coming into hospitals in labor, only to be refused care; there were stories of women birthing in hallways and cars. EMTALA says that any hospital receiving federal Medicaid dollars (which is most hospitals, both public and private) must provide lifesaving care to anyone who walks through their doors, regardless of their ability to pay. That means that hospitals have an obligation to stabilize ill patients. (If they don’t have the ability to appropriately stabilize a patient, they must move the patient to a facility that does.)

Jill Filipovic wrote in Slate the insidious trend of anti-abortion hardliners making pregnant people 2nd class citizens by enacting laws criminalizing access to out-of-state abortion services (this is also applicable to gender-affirming care).

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

don't piss off cat people

* * * *

Biden-Harris promote Supreme Court reform!

July 30, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

At long last! President Biden announced proposals for significant reforms to the Supreme Court, and presumptive nominee Kamala Harris immediately endorsed those reforms! President Biden has also proposed a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. US that granted extra-constitutional immunity to presidents after they leave office.

Although passing these reforms depends on the outcome of the 2024 election and the successful defense of the proposed laws in the courts, President Biden and V.P. Harris have changed the framework for discussing the Supreme Court. The question is now, “When?,” not “If?”

It has been a long and uncertain road to this point, but the Supreme Court’s stream of lawless decisions issued by a conflicted and hyper-partisan bench has proved too much for the American people. In proposing the reforms and constitutional amendment now, President Biden has ensured that the Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2024.

President Biden authored an op-ed in the Washington Post that explains his proposals. See Opinion  Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law. (This article is accessible to all.) I hope you will take the time to read the entire op-ed.

President Biden places the ethics scandals at the Court front-and-center in his proposal:

[T] he court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. [¶] What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.

President Biden has proposed three reforms:

1.    A constitutional amendment that would provide that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office 2.    A binding code of ethics 3.    Eighteen-year term limits (A president would appoint a new justice every two years, who would serve for 18 years).

Some commentators welcomed the proposals as a “practical way forward” that could garner support for passage after the 2024 election. See Politico, Democrats May Have a Real Chance to Reform the Supreme Court. President Biden’s proposal omitted enlarging the Court, a proposal that the Politico article described as an unpopular outlier not likely to gain legislative support.

Each proposal faces difficulties in gaining passage.

As to the constitutional amendment abolishing presidential immunity, Ian Millhiser in Vox reviewed the historical challenges faced by earlier proposed amendments, including the ERA and a proposal to ban child labor. (To date, neither has passed.) An amendment requires approval by a 2/3 supermajority in both chambers of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states (38 states). That is a tall order, indeed. But it won’t happen if we don’t try. And Republican states may be more supportive of such an amendment if they perceive that a Democratic president—like Kamala Harris—is too powerful.

The binding ethics code is plainly constitutional because the Constitution grants Congress the authority to create “exceptions” and impose “regulations” on the Court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction. But the plain words of the Constitution haven’t prevented Justice Alito from taking the position that Congress is constitutionally prohibited from imposing regulations on the Court. Alito should lose, but it will be a fight.

As to the term limits, there will be a fight over whether the Constitution’s grant of life tenure to judges—subject to good behavior—permits term limits. Some constitutional scholars (including Professor Laurence Tribe) believe that term limits are permissible in the absence of a constitutional amendment, while others disagree. The Supreme Court would likely decide this issue.

One reform not suggested by President Biden is enlarging the Court. That path would not be subject to constitutional challenge and would require only a majority vote in both chambers of Congress (and a carve-out to the filibuster, which requires only 51 votes in the Senate). But for reasons that escape me, many politicians and observers view the least legally objectionable pathway as the most radical. Nonetheless, Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts has proposed legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court to thirteen justices. See  Democracy Docket, ‘We Must Expand the Court:’ Sen. Markey, Advocates Call for Adding 4 SCOTUS Seats.

Oddly, in an interview with Laura Ingraham on Monday, Trump criticized President Biden’s proposal, claiming that Biden “wants to pack the Court.” Laura Ingraham responded, “That’s not in Biden’s proposal.”

Regardless of the way forward, reforming the Supreme Court is now on the table with the support of President Biden, Vice President Harris, and leading Democrats in Congress. It will happen—if only because the current reactionary majority will continue to curtail the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is only a matter of time—and it is up to us. We must all vote as if Supreme Court reform is on the ballot in 2024—because it is!

Kamala Harris continues to challenge Trump / Vance directly and vigorously

On Monday, an Iowa six-week abortion ban went into effect. At a campaign rally, V.P. Kamala Harris repeatedly referred to legislation restricting reproductive liberty in the states as “Trump abortion bans.” See WSJ, Harris Puts Abortion, a Weakness for Trump, at Center of Campaign. As noted in the WSJ article, President Biden was reluctant to say the word “abortion,” while Kamala Harris is a “fighter” on the issue who is willing to urge voters to “stop Donald Trump’s extreme abortion bans.”

V.P. Harris also posted a video on YouTube condemning the Iowa abortion ban and promising to sign legislation to protect the right to abortion nationally. See YouTube, Vice President Harris on Trump's Abortion Ban in Iowa | Harris 2024.

Some (most?) women sensed President Biden’s discomfort on the issue and are responding positively to Kamala Harris’s strong support for access to abortions and reproductive healthcare for all women in the US. Harris’s approach resonates with many women in America who felt that President Biden was a reluctant advocate for abortion rights, even though President Biden and Kamala Harris support the same policies.

The Harris Campaign continues to go after Trump and Vance with lightning speed and full force. Within hours of JD Vance removing his absolutist abortion stance from his website, the Harris HQ Twitter feed posted Vance’s now-deleted position with the comment, “Weird that Vance just deleted this from his website.”

The Harris campaign also posted a quick reply to Trump's claim on Monday that the Biden-Harris record on crime was “terrible.” The Harris campaign posted the following:

Our opponent Donald Trump is a criminal.

• Migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under the Biden-Harris administration. • As president, Donald Trump oversaw the largest single-year spike in the murder rate in more than a century. • As president, Trump proposed a $400 million cut to local law enforcement funding. • Trump has demanded the defunding of federal law enforcement, while proposing using the FBI and Justice Department to go after his political enemies. • JD Vance said, "I hate the police."

The Harris Campaign is also amplifying a clip from Trump's interview with Laura Ingraham that included this exchange:

Ingraham: Why not debate Kamala Harris? Trump: Because everyone already knows everything Ingraham: They’re saying you’re afraid of debating her Trump: I’m leading in the polls

Can you smell the fear? It is not true that Trump is leading in the polls. The race has tightened considerably, with Kamala Harris making up persistent deficits posted by President Biden. The race remains close, within the margin of error in many polls, but the trends all favor Kamala Harris. She has the momentum, and Trump and Vance are on the defensive.

So, if you are feeling good about Kamala Harris’s candidacy, you should be. After a whole week as the presumptive nominee, she continues to have the Trump campaign on its back foot. And the first three days of this week will feature massive online fundraisers and strategy meetings with hundreds of thousands of volunteers!

I invite readers who attend(ed) any of the online meetings to post your observations in the Comment section.

While we have reason to be hopeful, we have no reason to be complacent. We must beat Trump by a wide margin to remove all doubt and opportunity for election interference by Trump or the Supreme Court. (See Concluding Thoughts.)

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[politijohn]

Source

[lenbryant]

(Long Post/The Atlantic) How Jack Smith Outsmarted the Supreme Court

And why the special counsel’s last-ditch January 6 filing may not matter

By Sean Wilentz

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s recent filing to the D.C. District Court in the Trump v. United States presidential-immunity case both fleshes out and sharpens the evidence of Donald Trump’s sprawling criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. To understand the filing’s larger significance as well as its limitations, we must first review a bit of recent history.

In its shocking decision on July 1 to grant the presidency at least presumed immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority showed once again that it was intent on immunizing one president in particular: Donald Trump. The Court majority’s decision, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, was explicit. It held, for example, that Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure then–Vice President Mike Pence into voiding the 2020 election results on January 6 constituted “official conduct” from which Trump “is at least presumptively immune from prosecution.” That presumed immunity, the Court contended, would disappear only if the prosecution could convince the courts that bringing the case to trial would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

The Court thus remanded the case back to the D.C. District Court to decide the matter, along with the question of whether Trump is actually immune to the rest of the charges against him. How, though, could the prosecution of a president or former president over an “official act” fail to intrude on presidential authority? Seemingly, anything pertaining to Trump’s contacts with the vice president as he presided in his constitutional role as president of the Senate—as well as Trump’s contacts with the Department of Justice, which the Court also singled out and which the prosecution, significantly, felt compelled to omit from its revised indictment—deserves, as the Court sees it, virtually ironclad protection, a powerful blow against the entire January 6 indictment.

Although the sweeping outcome of Trump v. United States took most legal commentators by surprise, its protection of Trump was completely predictable given the Court’s previous conduct regarding the January 6 insurrection. The refusal of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to recuse themselves from any matter related to the insurrection, despite their own conflicted positions—Thomas due to the direct involvement of his wife, Ginni Thomas, in the subversion; Alito because of his flag-waving support of Trump’s election denials—has received the most public attention concerning the Court majority’s partisan partiality. But another set of telltale signs becomes apparent after a closer tracking of the Court’s decision making.

Almost as soon as the case against Trump came before D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Supreme Court played along with the Trump lawyers’ efforts to delay the trial until after the November 2024 election. First, after Chutkan ruled against Trump’s absolute-immunity claims in December 2023, Special Counsel Smith asked the Supreme Court to expedite matters by hearing the case immediately, not waiting for the U.S. Court of Appeals to rule on Trump’s appeal of Chutkan’s decision. The Supreme Court refused. Two months later, though, when the appeals court ruled against Trump and set a new trial date, the Supreme Court dragged its feet for as long as possible before announcing that it would take up the case after all. It then set the date for oral arguments as late as possible, at the end of April. This meant that even before hearing the case, the Court made it highly unlikely that Trump’s trial would proceed in a timely manner, effectively immunizing Trump until after the election.

Although radical in its long-term reconstruction of the American presidency, the ruling more immediately affirmed and extended the Court’s protection of Trump from prosecution. By remanding the case to the D.C. Circuit Court to decide what in the indictment constitutes official (and, therefore, presumably immune) conduct, the justices guaranteed that no trial would occur until after Election Day. After that, meanwhile, should Trump win the election, no trial would occur at all, because he would certainly fire Smith and shut down the proceedings.

Smith’s filing tries to slice through the Court’s security shield regarding the insurrection. Skillfully quoting from or alluding to language in the Court majority’s own opinion, the filing demolishes the notion that Trump’s activities, culminating on January 6, deserve immunity. Outwardly, Smith’s filing respects the Court’s dubious ruling about the immunity of official presidential acts. Legally, Smith had no choice but to operate within that ruling, a fact that sharply limited how far his filing could go. But even though it never challenges the conservative majority directly, the filing makes a case, incontrovertible in its logic and factual detail, that the core of Trump’s subversion involved no official actions whatsoever. It persuasively argues, with fact after fact, that Trump was the head of an entirely private criminal plot as a candidate to overthrow the election, hatched months before the election itself.

In remounting his case, Smith has taken the opportunity to release previously unknown details, some of which he says he doesn’t even plan to present at trial, that underscore the depravity as well as the extent of Trump’s criminal actions. Consider, for example, Smith’s telling of Trump’s reaction to the news from one of his staff, at the height of the violence on January 6, that his tweets attacking Pence had placed Pence’s life in extreme danger. “So what?” Trump reportedly replied. He had clearly intended for his tweets to reach the mob at the Capitol. His nonchalance about the vice president’s life epitomizes the lengths to which he would go to complete his coup d’état.

But the real force of Smith’s filing is in its tight presentation of the evidence of a criminal conspiracy in minute detail, dating back to the summer before the 2020 election, when Trump began publicly casting doubts on its legitimacy should he not be declared the winner. “The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election,” he told the Republican National Convention in his nomination-acceptance speech in August 2020.

From that point forward, Trump was at the center of every effort to keep him in power, even once he was fully aware that he had no grounds to contest Joe Biden’s victory. There were his private operatives sowing chaos at polling places and vote-counting centers, the scheming to declare victory on Election Night before the results were in, the bogus legal challenges, the fake-elector fraud, the plot to deny official certification by Congress on January 6, and finally the insurrection itself. “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election,” one witness reports Trump saying. “You still have to fight like hell.”

The crucial point to which the filing unfailingly returns is that none of Trump’s actions listed in the revised indictment, even those that the Court cited as “official,” deserves immunity. As Smith makes clear, the Framers of the Constitution deliberately precluded the executive branch from having official involvement in the conduct of presidential elections. The reason was obvious: Any involvement by a president would be an open invitation to corruption. To make the case that any such involvement falls within a president’s official duties would seem, at best, extremely difficult.

It is here that Smith turns the Court’s Trump v. United States ruling to his own advantage. Concerning specific charges that Trump’s speechmaking contributed to the insurrection, the Court allowed that “there may be contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader.” Quoting from an earlier Court decision, the ruling then states that determining these matters would require that the district court undertake “objective analysis of [the] ‘content, form, and context’” of the speeches in question, a “necessarily fact-bound analysis.” Likewise, regarding the allegations apart from Trump’s supposedly official communications and public speeches, the justices enjoined the district court, on remand, to “carefully analyze” those charges “to determine whether they too involve conduct for which the President may be immune from prosecution.”

Citing those exact phrases as the Court’s standard of inquiry and proof, Smith then offers evidence that every count in the revised indictment concerns either technically official conduct undeserving of immunity or unofficial conduct involving Trump’s private actions as a candidate and not his official duties as president. These actions include his efforts to pressure state officials, preposterously presented by Trump’s defense attorneys as official inquiries into election integrity. They include his conversations about elector slates, about which the president has no official duties. They also encompass all of his speechmaking about the allegedly crooked election, up to and including his incitement at the January 6 rally at the Ellipse, which was not an official function.

Above all, Smith nails down a matter that the Court’s opinion went out of its way to declare “official” and presumably immune: Trump’s efforts to pressure Pence into declining to certify Biden’s win. Although the filing acknowledges that the Court had held that these conversations between Trump and Pence about “their official responsibilities” qualified as “official,” it rebuts the presumption that those discussions therefore qualify as immune. The filing observes that the discussions did not concern Pence’s duties as president of the Senate “writ large,” but only his distinct duties overseeing the certification of a presidential election—a process in which a president, whether or not he is a candidate for reelection, has, by the Framers’ considered design, no official role.

Here the logic of Smith’s argument cuts to the quick. By the Court majority’s own standard, as stated in its Trump v. United States decision, the presumption of immunity for official actions would disappear only if a prosecutor could demonstrate that bringing criminal charges against a president or former president would not present “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Because certification of a presidential election, the subject of Trump’s “official” pressuring, involves neither the authority nor the functions of the executive branch, the immunity claims concerning that pressuring are therefore groundless—according to the Court majority’s own logic.

The rest of Trump and Pence’s interactions do not even qualify as official, Smith shows. In all of their other postelection, in-person conversations and private phone calls, Trump and Pence were acting not in their capacities as president and vice president but as running mates pondering their electoral prospects, even after Biden had been declared the winner. If, as the Court itself has stated, context is important with regard to speechmaking, so it is important with regard to communications between the top officials of the executive branch. To be sure, Smith allows, Trump and Pence “naturally may have touched upon arguably official responsibilities,” but “the overall context and content of the conversations demonstrate that they were primarily frank exchanges between two candidates on a shared ticket”—strictly unofficial conduct.

In all, by recasting the case against Trump in view of the Court’s immunity decision, Smith has drawn upon that very ruling to establish that none of Trump’s actions in connection with January 6 cited in the revised indictment is immune from prosecution. And in doing that, he has further discredited an already discredited Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, important as it is with respect to Smith’s specific case, the filing cannot come close to undoing the damage that Trump v. United States has wrought, with its authorization of an authoritarian American regime. The very fact that Smith had to omit from both his revised indictment and his filing Trump’s nefarious but official dealings with the Justice Department, including his brazen hiring and firing of top law-enforcement officials on the basis of who would do his personal bidding, shows how fearsomely the Court’s immunity decision has constrained the special counsel. There was a great deal more criminal behavior by Trump and his co-conspirators, as laid out in detail in the House January 6 committee report, that Smith could not touch because the Court has effectively immunized it as “official” activity under the executive branch’s authority.

These limitations show all over again how the Court has given the president absolute license to rule like a tyrant, against which even the ablest special counsel is virtually powerless. Nothing in Smith’s filing alleviates Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s judgment in her forthright dissent in Trump v. United States that the decision empowers the president, acting in his official capacity, to order the assassination of political rivals, to take a bribe in exchange for a pardon, to organize a military coup with impunity: “Immune, immune, immune.” That Smith managed to outsmart the Court as much as he did is a remarkable feat that could have important results—but only if Kamala Harris succeeds in winning the presidency.

On the basis of their past decisions, it is reasonable to expect that both the D.C. district court under Judge Chutkan and the U.S. Court of Appeals will rule in favor of Smith. Trump v. United States would then go once again before the Supreme Court. This will happen if Harris wins the election, because a Justice Department under her administration would almost certainly allow Smith to remain to continue prosecution of Trump. What, then, would the Court do? Would it uphold those decisions and throw Trump upon the mercy of a D.C. federal jury? Or would it strike those decisions down, thereby redoubling the disgrace it earned the first time around?

The only way the Court can avoid that dilemma is if Trump wins the election, an outcome that its conservative majority would now have all the more reason to desire. But what happens if, as seems highly possible, the election leads to litigation, much as the 2020 election did, only this time the Court is left to make the final decision? Will the Court then intervene as Trump’s enabler once again, installing him as a constitutionally tainted president, allowing him to kill the indictment against him, and to pardon those convicted of violent crimes in the attack on the Capitol whom he calls “hostages”? The Court, in Trump v. United States, claimed that it was protecting the sanctity of the presidency, but if it aids Trump in his attempt to escape justice for his January 6 insurrection, it will further seal its illegitimacy while also sealing MAGA’s triumph—and, with that, the majority of Americans, not to mention the rest of the world, will pay a crushing price.

[jodielandons]

2016: I was 17 and when I woke up and saw the results I couldn’t even talk I was just crying.

2024: This time will probably be much worse, but I can’t even cry I just feel numb and hopeless.

[eugenedebs1920]

Hmmmmm!….. Wonder why he would do that?! I feel like a damn broken record.

Who doesn’t want to be fact checked? Liars.

Who doesn’t want t corruption guard dogs such as inspectors general? People who are planning to be corrupt.

Who would want to get rid of a consumer protection agency? People who intend to rip consumers off.

Who terminates any or all people that investigated a crime you’re accused of? A person guilty of said crime.

Who eliminates a department tasked with finding and fighting election fraud? Someone guilty of doing it themselves.

This isn’t hard to comprehend. You don’t remove protections against fraud and terminate law enforcement not loyal to you unless you plan on committing massive fraud and acts of criminality. This is a coup!

The Republican Party has now just became the largest organized crime entity in the world. Our country will suffer greatly.

But hey!! At least the wealthy and corporations won’t have to pay taxes, adding trillions we, and our children will have to pay back! Way to go maga! You f*ckin owned those libs for sure! Traitors…

🖕

[dr-archeville]

Trump is Immune [source] {25 min 27 sec}

Happy Independence Day!

[roguekhajiit]

This is just a friendly reminder that the Civil Rights Act wasn't signed until July 2, 1964.

Just for some perspective.

5 of the 9 supreme court justices are older than the Civil Rights Act.

4 of those 5 are old enough to remember when Whites Only establishments existed.

1 of those 4 wouldn't even have been able to enter such establishments.

These are the same people taking power away from federal agencies, telling us that the president is above the law and allowing for unhoused individuals to be jailed.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Kevin Necessary

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 25, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 26, 2024

“I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S. Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act,’” lawyer Marc Elias, whose firm defends democratic election laws, wrote today on social media. He added: “I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.” 

Elias was referring to the argument of Trump’s lawyer before the Supreme Court today that it could indeed be an “official act” for which a president should be immune from criminal prosecution if “the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him.”

The Supreme Court today heard close to three hours of oral argument over Trump v. United States, which concerns former president Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal charges for “official acts”: in this case, his attempt to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election and to stay in office against the will of the voters. 

That is, like the authoritarian leaders he admires, Trump tried to steal the 2020 presidential election and seize the presidency. Sometimes I worry that the enormity of that crime against our democracy is becoming normalized. 

It was not normalized by grand jury members who reviewed the evidence of that effort; they indicted Trump in August 2023 on four counts. But Trump responded by claiming that a president cannot be prosecuted for official acts and that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless the House of Representatives has impeached him and the Senate convicted him. 

Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife, Ginni, participated in that effort, did not recuse himself from today’s hearing, and the court did not object to his presence.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post noted that the justices on the court seemed to be weighing “which poses the greater risk—putting a criminal president above the law or hamstringing noncriminal presidents with the risk of frivolous or vindictive prosecutions brought by their successors.” 

The liberals on the court focused on the former—after all, the case is about whether Trump should answer to criminal indictments for trying to overturn our democracy. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted: “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

In contrast, the right-wing justices focused on the risk of vindictive prosecutions, which has been the heart of Trump’s argument for complete immunity. Trump insists that without immunity, a president will be afraid to make controversial decisions out of fear of later prosecution. Such a lack of immunity would destroy the presidency, he has argued, claiming that he is simply trying to protect the office. 

And yet he is the first of 45 presidents to be charged with a crime, and no previous president made any claim of immunity.

Nonetheless, the right-wing justices made it clear they were more interested in the future than in the present. In their comments they stayed far away from Trump and focused instead on presidents in the past and the future. (Conservative judge Michael Luttig noted: “The Court and the parties discussed everything but the specific question presented.”)

Justice Neil Gorsuch said: “I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.” Justice Samuel Alito tried to turn the argument for accountability upside down by suggesting that complete immunity would be more likely to encourage presidents to leave office, because if a president knew they could be prosecuted for crimes, they would be less likely to leave peacefully. 

Indeed, Marcus wrote: “The conservative justices’ professed concerns over the implications of their rulings for imaginary future presidents, in imaginary future proceedings, seemed more important to them than bringing Trump to justice.” Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis was more concrete in his reaction; he found it “[u]nbelievable that Supreme Court justices who see forgiving student loans, mandating vaccines, and regulating climate change as a slippery slope toward tyranny were not clear-eyed on questions of whether a president could execute citizens or stage a coup without being prosecuted.”

The court’s decision will likely take weeks and thus will delay Trump’s trial for crimes committed in his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, likely until after the 2024 election. On Monday, April 22, former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), who served as vice chair of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, called out Trump’s attacks on the legal system and delays to avoid accountability. In a New York Times op-ed, Cheney reminded the justices that delay would mean that the American people would not get to hear the testimony and evidence Special Counsel Jack Smith has uncovered before the 2024 election. 

“It cannot be that a president of the United States can attempt to steal an election and seize power but our justice system is incapable of bringing him to trial before the next election four years later,” she wrote.

And yet, here we are. 

Voters’ right to know what a candidate for president did to overthrow the will of the people in a previous election is at stake in today’s arguments. But so is the rule of law on which our democracy stands. The rule of law means that laws are made according to established procedures rather than a leader’s dictates, and that they are reasonable. Laws are enforced equally. No one is above the law, and everyone has an obligation to obey the law. 

As Justice Elena Kagan noted today: “The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to; there were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They didn’t provide immunity to the president. And, you know—not so surprising—they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?”

Indeed.

“[W]here, say some, is the King of America?” Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, the 1776 pamphlet that convinced British colonists in North America to cut ties with their king and start a new nation. “[I]n America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON