When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he was eager to blend in ideas from the Scottish enlightenment and consulted Francis Hutchenson, who stated that in each human being there is a moral sense that no government should violate. Apparently, that belief did not hold last week. But it should be our hope going forward. I don't think any decent human being will vote for Trump after this. The question is how many decent Americans are still left? It's a clear fact that Trump is a White Nationalist driven by dark forces. Hilary recognized it early; she just did not have FDR or Lincoln's guile to gently lead the American people to recognize what they did not want to believe.
Rob [Warden, Mr. Alterman’s brother-in-law ] asks: “What if, with his new-found immunity, President Biden ordered the FBI to seize without warrants the six justices in the majority and hold them incommunicado at some secret gulag in the wilds of northern Alaska?”
“Where would the justices turn, the laws that would have protected them now being flat?”
Of course, Biden would never do that. “
Which - at this moment of national crisis unequaled in our history since the run up to the Civil War - begs the question: Why not?
Is not Joe Biden the duly and fairly elected President and Commander in Chief of the entire armed forces, sworn to “Protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic “? Clearly, as has been noted here, ordinary citizen Trump has already sought to take advantage of this new SCOTUS ruling. Why is our President waiting to exercise all of his powers to fulfill his oath and put a stop to a blatant attempt to overthrow our government ?
Great piece, Jonathan. And this abomination of a ruling was only part of the Supreme Court's coup this past week. Between the Chevron deference and Jarkesy rulings, they wiped out about 90 years of established regulatory law. Throw in their trashing reproductive rights and their absurd ruling on bumper stocks, and we have a Court that seems bent on taking us back to some time in the 19th century. Its deregulation of the financial industry alone seems likely to set of a worldwide financial meltdown some time in the near future.
Whatever the future of this horrendous ruling, it is absolutely critical that Trump be defeated. Earlier this year, we discussed the problems with Biden as a candidate. He needs to step aside and allow the banner to be carried by someone who can make the case for the direction that the Democrats have moved the country in, the achievements of the last four years and, well, for democracy versus dictatorship. Those Democrats, and I am sorry to have to include Barack Obama among them, who are making an argument for Biden’s continued candidacy are doing the same thing that Trump’s followers have been doing for years. They are excusing the inexcusable. I have a great deal of respect for Joe Biden, but I would not allow him to drive my car right now, let alone be at the helm of United States of America for the next four years. The emperor has no clothes.
I've rooted for Joe Biden since he first ran for president in 1988, but I agree, Tom, he needs to step down soon. If he stays in the race and wins this November, there will not be a Democratic incumbent to run in 2028. The Republicans will then likely cakewalk into the WH four years from now as the party of youthful vision. Et puis le déluge commence.
I have to agree, too. Biden has been the biggest political surprise of my lifetime. I think his administration has done a terrific job under incredibly difficult circumstances. But obviously, he cannot continue like this.
At the risk of forfeiting my lifelong liberal Democrat credentials(and getting excoriated here), could it be plausibly argued that Robert’s and co. have set the bar high for prosecuting a former president for acts during a presidency because that’s where it should be?
Does any reasonable person, including a Trumpist Justice, really believe that murdering a political opponent falls within any extant definition of “core constitutional” duties or power? How does this hyperbole advance the legal argument?
Same for the question of whether inciting a mob, while concocting an extra legal scheme to subvert the constitution(aka our democracy).
Even if the Court’s opinion had gone where we and the dissenters would have had it go….no immunity for a president’s criminal acts…. Would not most lawyers agree that there STILL would need to be an evidentiary hearing, a fact finding exercise, to determine IF the acts alleged (but not proven in court) were indeed “official acts” or not?
What happened on January 6, 2020, in broad daylight before our very eyes was unadulterated treason by sitting president of the United States. A travesty by any definition. Yet,
even Jack Smith did not indict Trump on that charge. Young trial lawyers are admonished routinely by their seniors…in court you can never assume that the sun came up that morning. You have to prove it with evidence.
I concur. I have not yet read the Opinion, so I should NOT comment. But from what I have heard, I believe all Article II acts should be immunized. I think that Roberts' Opinion limits the application of immunity to "official" acts and, despite Sotomayor's concerns, I think (hope?) that Article II would not "sanitize" criminal or illegal conduct. I am surprised this issue has not been confronted sooner than now.
This means a lot more work for the trial judges and more ultimate POWER for the US Supremes. We shall simply have to wait and see how it plays out.
Donald Trump has requested immunity from prosecution for the Stormy Daniels affair because he signed hush money checks in the Oval Office. In similar fashion, Bill Clinton would have received "official" fellatio from Monica Lewinsky in the same Oval Office.
You suggest that a simple evidentiary hearing would settle the question of whether a future president's acts were "official" or "unofficial". Pray that Judge Aileen Cannon is not presiding.
PS:as you probably know the presiding judge, the trial court judge the case has been remanded to for findings of fact, is Tanya Chutkan. She has demonstrated that she is no “friend” of those that had a part in attacking our capitol.
No. Not a “simple” evidentiary hearing. SCOTUS’ decision was “on the law”, not the facts. The district court now has the task of making a finding of fact. …testimony, evidence, credibility determinations, a decision whether under the law as now defined(however wrongly) by SCOTUS the facts warrant going forward to a jury trial.
If SCOTUS had ruled that there was “absolute immunity” for ALL-presidential conduct, then they would have remanded the case for dismissal… or dismissed it themselves.
As Jonathan noted, SCOTUS did not even go into the events of January 6. Why? Because they no evidentiary record.
The worst thing about SCOTUS’ decision (which as I understand it did not let Trump off the hook) is that they took too damn long to decide it. Delay is Trump’s game. We are just have beat Trump so he has to face this music as a former president.
My hope, however, is that they have overreached in cynically announcing their illegal and unconstitutional Trump ploy only a couple of days before the Fourth of July. I think that underlines what they are destroying, and may send people to the polls to reverse it by voting against Trump.
The six traitors of the Supreme Court have just executed a massive coup. It is illegal and unconstitutional and must be overturned. We already knew how corrupt they were, but to destroy our democracy is unbelievably shocking.
And you refuse to believe tha Americans deserve whatever will happen. TRUMP is smarter than nay liberal/progressive democrats. He knows the public is bad news. What's Wrong With America is Americans. and they are bad because Democrats will not tell the truth. Trump doesn't , but he admits it.
Please don't be absurd. Millions of Americans—and millions of Democrats—don't "deserve" this. It is judicial coup, and it is proceeding regardless of what Democrats are saying.
Since only about 55% vote who are entitled to vote and one side gets half plus one percent we NEVER ELECT THE PRES WITH A MAJORITY. NEVER. It's about 26% who decide. And it matters little now since Trump controls the Court and even if he doesn't get the job he still controls the direction.
My wife’s father was British and she is in the process of getting her citizenship formalized with a passport to give us more options in case we need to leave. Never thought we would seriously be making plans like this.
I never imagined it either. Deeply disliked the Reagan and Bush administrations but never worried they would go all in against US citizens. This is different, feels dangerous, especially with our horribly corrupt Supreme Court.
Jonathan, I’m 79 now & have seen lots of political water go under the bridge in my time on earth, but never any shenanigans like what we’ve seen this week. SCOTUS is very complicit in MAGA activity! Trump doesn’t even act surprised anymore!
Trump vs US is on par with The Dred Scott case.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he was eager to blend in ideas from the Scottish enlightenment and consulted Francis Hutchenson, who stated that in each human being there is a moral sense that no government should violate. Apparently, that belief did not hold last week. But it should be our hope going forward. I don't think any decent human being will vote for Trump after this. The question is how many decent Americans are still left? It's a clear fact that Trump is a White Nationalist driven by dark forces. Hilary recognized it early; she just did not have FDR or Lincoln's guile to gently lead the American people to recognize what they did not want to believe.
Rob [Warden, Mr. Alterman’s brother-in-law ] asks: “What if, with his new-found immunity, President Biden ordered the FBI to seize without warrants the six justices in the majority and hold them incommunicado at some secret gulag in the wilds of northern Alaska?”
“Where would the justices turn, the laws that would have protected them now being flat?”
Of course, Biden would never do that. “
Which - at this moment of national crisis unequaled in our history since the run up to the Civil War - begs the question: Why not?
Is not Joe Biden the duly and fairly elected President and Commander in Chief of the entire armed forces, sworn to “Protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic “? Clearly, as has been noted here, ordinary citizen Trump has already sought to take advantage of this new SCOTUS ruling. Why is our President waiting to exercise all of his powers to fulfill his oath and put a stop to a blatant attempt to overthrow our government ?
Great piece, Jonathan. And this abomination of a ruling was only part of the Supreme Court's coup this past week. Between the Chevron deference and Jarkesy rulings, they wiped out about 90 years of established regulatory law. Throw in their trashing reproductive rights and their absurd ruling on bumper stocks, and we have a Court that seems bent on taking us back to some time in the 19th century. Its deregulation of the financial industry alone seems likely to set of a worldwide financial meltdown some time in the near future.
Whatever the future of this horrendous ruling, it is absolutely critical that Trump be defeated. Earlier this year, we discussed the problems with Biden as a candidate. He needs to step aside and allow the banner to be carried by someone who can make the case for the direction that the Democrats have moved the country in, the achievements of the last four years and, well, for democracy versus dictatorship. Those Democrats, and I am sorry to have to include Barack Obama among them, who are making an argument for Biden’s continued candidacy are doing the same thing that Trump’s followers have been doing for years. They are excusing the inexcusable. I have a great deal of respect for Joe Biden, but I would not allow him to drive my car right now, let alone be at the helm of United States of America for the next four years. The emperor has no clothes.
I've rooted for Joe Biden since he first ran for president in 1988, but I agree, Tom, he needs to step down soon. If he stays in the race and wins this November, there will not be a Democratic incumbent to run in 2028. The Republicans will then likely cakewalk into the WH four years from now as the party of youthful vision. Et puis le déluge commence.
I have to agree, too. Biden has been the biggest political surprise of my lifetime. I think his administration has done a terrific job under incredibly difficult circumstances. But obviously, he cannot continue like this.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. WOW.
Scoobie-oobie doobie-wah-wah!
Easy does it here. Can we take a breath here?
At the risk of forfeiting my lifelong liberal Democrat credentials(and getting excoriated here), could it be plausibly argued that Robert’s and co. have set the bar high for prosecuting a former president for acts during a presidency because that’s where it should be?
Does any reasonable person, including a Trumpist Justice, really believe that murdering a political opponent falls within any extant definition of “core constitutional” duties or power? How does this hyperbole advance the legal argument?
Same for the question of whether inciting a mob, while concocting an extra legal scheme to subvert the constitution(aka our democracy).
Even if the Court’s opinion had gone where we and the dissenters would have had it go….no immunity for a president’s criminal acts…. Would not most lawyers agree that there STILL would need to be an evidentiary hearing, a fact finding exercise, to determine IF the acts alleged (but not proven in court) were indeed “official acts” or not?
What happened on January 6, 2020, in broad daylight before our very eyes was unadulterated treason by sitting president of the United States. A travesty by any definition. Yet,
even Jack Smith did not indict Trump on that charge. Young trial lawyers are admonished routinely by their seniors…in court you can never assume that the sun came up that morning. You have to prove it with evidence.
Go to it Jack.
I concur. I have not yet read the Opinion, so I should NOT comment. But from what I have heard, I believe all Article II acts should be immunized. I think that Roberts' Opinion limits the application of immunity to "official" acts and, despite Sotomayor's concerns, I think (hope?) that Article II would not "sanitize" criminal or illegal conduct. I am surprised this issue has not been confronted sooner than now.
This means a lot more work for the trial judges and more ultimate POWER for the US Supremes. We shall simply have to wait and see how it plays out.
Donald Trump has requested immunity from prosecution for the Stormy Daniels affair because he signed hush money checks in the Oval Office. In similar fashion, Bill Clinton would have received "official" fellatio from Monica Lewinsky in the same Oval Office.
I HOPE you are wrong!
You suggest that a simple evidentiary hearing would settle the question of whether a future president's acts were "official" or "unofficial". Pray that Judge Aileen Cannon is not presiding.
PS:as you probably know the presiding judge, the trial court judge the case has been remanded to for findings of fact, is Tanya Chutkan. She has demonstrated that she is no “friend” of those that had a part in attacking our capitol.
No. Not a “simple” evidentiary hearing. SCOTUS’ decision was “on the law”, not the facts. The district court now has the task of making a finding of fact. …testimony, evidence, credibility determinations, a decision whether under the law as now defined(however wrongly) by SCOTUS the facts warrant going forward to a jury trial.
If SCOTUS had ruled that there was “absolute immunity” for ALL-presidential conduct, then they would have remanded the case for dismissal… or dismissed it themselves.
As Jonathan noted, SCOTUS did not even go into the events of January 6. Why? Because they no evidentiary record.
The worst thing about SCOTUS’ decision (which as I understand it did not let Trump off the hook) is that they took too damn long to decide it. Delay is Trump’s game. We are just have beat Trump so he has to face this music as a former president.
If Joe would only go… sigh.
One more allusion from A Man for All Seasons- “It is bad enough to lose your immortal soul (here, judicial integrity) but for Wales (Trump)?!”
It’s amazing that we and our Presidents managed 248 years without all this immunity mumbo-jumbo.
My hope, however, is that they have overreached in cynically announcing their illegal and unconstitutional Trump ploy only a couple of days before the Fourth of July. I think that underlines what they are destroying, and may send people to the polls to reverse it by voting against Trump.
The six traitors of the Supreme Court have just executed a massive coup. It is illegal and unconstitutional and must be overturned. We already knew how corrupt they were, but to destroy our democracy is unbelievably shocking.
And you refuse to believe tha Americans deserve whatever will happen. TRUMP is smarter than nay liberal/progressive democrats. He knows the public is bad news. What's Wrong With America is Americans. and they are bad because Democrats will not tell the truth. Trump doesn't , but he admits it.
Please don't be absurd. Millions of Americans—and millions of Democrats—don't "deserve" this. It is judicial coup, and it is proceeding regardless of what Democrats are saying.
Since only about 55% vote who are entitled to vote and one side gets half plus one percent we NEVER ELECT THE PRES WITH A MAJORITY. NEVER. It's about 26% who decide. And it matters little now since Trump controls the Court and even if he doesn't get the job he still controls the direction.
Perfectly stayed. Thank you. The Founders would be turning over in their graves, and we’re in trouble.
I am afraid. My fight/flight instinct is kicking in. Now looking at alternatives for living outside the US.
My wife’s father was British and she is in the process of getting her citizenship formalized with a passport to give us more options in case we need to leave. Never thought we would seriously be making plans like this.
I never imagined it either. Deeply disliked the Reagan and Bush administrations but never worried they would go all in against US citizens. This is different, feels dangerous, especially with our horribly corrupt Supreme Court.
Good luck. Where ya gonna go?
Undecided. Somewhere that has a stable government and good quality of life.
Mine too!
Jonathan, I’m 79 now & have seen lots of political water go under the bridge in my time on earth, but never any shenanigans like what we’ve seen this week. SCOTUS is very complicit in MAGA activity! Trump doesn’t even act surprised anymore!