Great analysis but the simple truth is Trump must lose in November. SCOTUS made a “conservative” declaration of war on the Constitution by providing a liability free roadmap for a presidential coup in its immunity decision. If Trump wins it’s game over.
It's worse than that. If Trump or ANY FUTURE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE wins it's game over. The anti-democratic evangelists are hardly going to give up on their attempt to end US civilisation just because Trump loses; they'll pick someone less obviously deranged and criminal and implement the exact same plan four years later.
Chris, that is a lovely dream and I hope to God you’re right. I don’t think enough people in this country realize that if trump wins we will actually kiss this great experiment good bye. I myself have a cousin who actually voted for trump in 2016 because he would shake things up. I HAD friends who voted for trump because he would take away a woman’s right to choose. I HAD other friends who voted for him because they watched only FOX filth. Democrats (me) have brought us nothing but non-stop LBGQ non-binary entertainment and political correctness - they have been grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory for decades. Our voters don’t get off their asses to vote. Public education has become a joke - no civics or history requirements. We have done this to ourselves. There should never have been another Republican president after Ronald Reagan and his quintessential mastery of republican rot. Like me, we didn’t pay attention.
It can be done, no, it must be done. I can't do anything but keep hoping people will wake up. I do that by writing post cards to voters in swing states and donate money. But I'm scared to death for my kids, and kid all around the country.
People will always be flawed. Americans are dangerously complacent. The 2016 election was all about the Supreme Court. Democrats definitely dropped the ball. But that doesn't exonerate maga and their power grab now. Trump isn't in office. Let's make sure he doesn't get back in. And those polls? Remember the Big Red Wave? Special elections in the last 4 years show an electorate starting to pay attention. And they aren't buying the Christian Nationalism being shoved down our throats. And just one last thing. Gay rights are important because we are good people who protect the easily marginalized. The issue separates the good hearted from the hate.
This weird account is a troll account. Unclear if Russian or Chinese or Iranian or MAGA. I blocked it, but for whatever reason I still see its comments under Substack articles. This account is what 80-90% of the discourse looks like on TikTok, and I don’t touch Xitter but I’m guessing it’s at least as bad. This account represents another big piece of work that needs to be done when Democrats retain the Senate, win back the House, and retain the presidency: crack down on misinformation accounts across all social media. It’s the Wild West out there. Substack is relatively clean, but you see them from time to time.
It would seem you might be hanging out in the wrong venue, buddy. And I’d recommend using spell check before you post — except that your misspelled words add fun color to your absolutely insane comments.
Dude. When you start with WHEREAS, you are then supposed to produce a legal document that will be voted on by a government of some type, be it municipal, state, regional or national. How exactly did we steal the 202o election? (You know O's and 0's are not the same, right?) Are we Demon Rats, or Demon Crats? What does misdedd mean? So there are 15 million unvetted illegals in our country? That's about 5 percent of our population, sounds about right. When you get to WHEREFORE, you need to provide the language of a law that can be voted on. Pretty sure that calling your enemies names and then saying "Must be punish to the max.) doesn't rise to that level.
Yesterday, after the "decision" trump was texting that "the Biden witch hunt against (him) is now over." The cult members cheered. Both trump and his cult members are too fucking stupid to realize that the corrupt supreme court just made a "Biden witch hunt" against him legal.
except, the Thugs correctly counted on Biden’s foundational decency and respect for institutions and the (former) Constitution—and he already stated to the nation he would *not* stoop to such abuse of power.
they also have well-laid plans and people in place for ensuring they “win” in November by any means necessary.
That is true, Biden has respect for institutions and is basically a decent man. It's quite possible that this corrupt supreme court will overturn a Biden win. However if that happens, I would say President Biden might just lose that respect for institutions. And he would have my full support to use whatever means necessary to safeguard democracy.
I had a gym teacher in school say something to me the has stuck with me for forty years. "Nice guys always finish last" I did not want to believe it then and I still don't, but it is obviously true. The Democrats are the nice guys who follow the rules and despite having amore popular platform and willingness to work for the people always end up with no power to get anything done.
Except that - if somehow they rule that Biden lost the election, then between the election results and the end of January, when the he’s supposedly out of office, what does he have to lose? He then could in his official capacity, do all the things they think tfg will do and have immunity for them. He might consider himself above these kinds of dirty tricks that tfg might pull, but for the sake of our country and democracy, it would be worthwhile.
The actions of this Supreme Court have been leading up to, not only the immunity decision, but also to the implementation of Project 2025. Trump got worse during his term as his arrogance and hubris became worse. You can add unethical behavior and the same is true for this Supreme Court. We need to keep the WH, regain the House, keep (or expand) the Senate and kill the filibuster. Today, abortion and this Supreme Court are kryptonite for Republicans . We need to add expanding the Supreme Court to the platform. Trump's racism is also getting worse as his "Black jobs" comment (which he's doubling down on), and Marco Rubio's idiotic attempt at explaining it, have shown. The same can be said about the "Hispanic jobs" comment and the fact that Trump mentioned immigration and/or the border in answer to virtually every question in the debate. I'd love to see someone (maybe the Lincoln Project) do a video about what a round-up of 10 million immigrants would look like. Would they choose people based on their names, their appearance, their accents? Would they put them in your backyard before deportation? Which countries would accept them? Would people need to start carrying their "papers" unless you're white and speak without an accent and don't have a Latino sounding name? The Republican Party needs to lose big in November. I'm old enough to remember when LBJ beat Goldwater in 1964 by a landslide. And, in 1968 when LBJ stepped down and Humphrey had such a late start we ended up with Nixon. Can we please learn from history.
Just some random thoughts and questions about the Supreme Court's decision on Presidential immunity.
First, a call to action: think about what YOU can do to ensure overwhelming Democratic victories in November, and start doing it. It may cost you money, time, friends,... ...but whatever the cost, I guarantee that it is not as painful as living under a dictatorship headed by Donald Trump and violently enabled by his minions and supporters, including Vladimir Putin.
On to the Court decision: we all need to recognize that there is nothing surprising about this decision, any more than there was anything surprising about the decision to overturn Roe, to eviscerate the Chevron doctrine, to permit de facto automatic weapons, etc. If this Court takes up a case, it is going to decide it in line with the most radical rightwing doctrine possible.
That means that the radical rightwing majority on the Court will look for opportunities to overturn Sullivan v. NYT, a cornerstone of both equal rights and freedom of the press, and Obergefell v. Hodge, which legalized gay marriage in the United States. They will continue to do everything they can to hobble the administrative and regulatory functions of the federal government.
The second thing we need to recognize is that if Trump is elected, it won't matter what the Supreme Court or any other court decides anyway. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he intends to rule as a dictator. He will not be constrained by the courts, the Congress or any other institution. The SCOTUS decision merely rubberstamps what he would have done in any case, if he is elected.
The third thing we need to recognize is that this case clearly signposts how the Court will decide ANY case relating to the 2024 election. It is another clear signal that all who care about democracy, equality and the future of the United States and of a democratic free world must do all they can to register, educate and turn out voters.
A couple of other points: 1) Trump was convicted in NY State court for actions he took BEFORE he was elected. 2) Trump is indicted in Florida (a case sadly overseen by (in)Justice Cannon) largely for actions he took AFTER he unwillingly left office. Is the Supreme Court next going to extend his immunity to all actions he has taken since he first announced his candidacy for the 2016 election and that he has taken since he left office? Rhetorical question, but a logical one.
Another question is how could President Biden ethically use the essentially unlimited powers that the Court has given him. The Court has eviscerated the Chevron doctrine, which allowed government agencies to use scientific and legal interpretations of laws passed by the Congress to determine how those laws should be converted into regulation and enforced. Could Biden call in experts from the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Justice, the FCC, or the FTC, and issue executive orders based on their advice?
Finally, there is no question that this week demonstrates beyond a doubt that, if Biden is reelected and Democrats take the House and the Senate, the first order of business must be to reform the SCOTUS with immediate effect. I think that means adding four seats to the Court immediately, followed up by instituting a code of ethics that has teeth for the Court, and possibly other reforms (like term limits).
The second order of business must be to pass the Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. These bills would ensure that radical minorities are never again able to threaten American democracy.
So figure out what you can do today—donating money to campaigns is a good place to start—and get busy.
As far as the NYC verdict, it's been pointed out that while events mostly occurred before he was elected, he continued to make payments from office after elected so that's why he thinks he should be immune. As for the FL case, he thinks he had/has complete control over "his" documents as president so he can do whatever the hell he wants with them so is immune there. Judge Fangirl has been waiting for this as any excuse (or really no excuse at all) to toss the case.
Reminder: The SCOTUS judges can be impeached. Its not easy, an demands some work on our part in the long term, but would get rid of the immediate threat.
Thank you for laying all of this out so well. It's important as too many seem to think if we beat 45 the danger is past. Learning a bit about the history of the Heritage Foundation and how white supremacists melded with the religious right and the decades long planning that has been under way and you can see where Project 2025 originated and why it won't just disappear. As you stated, massive reform and protections must be put in place. We can only do that by winning across the board.
We must plant seeds and have difficult conversations. Whatever works in each given situation. I find I can win people over only by first identifying what matters to themand where they are vulnerable and laying out how things might personally change for them under an autocracy. Will their social security be on the chopping block? Are they or loved ones minorities that might be expelled from the US? Do they rely on ObamaCare for insurance? Are they a child bearing woman, have an interest in IVF or have daughters? Meet people where they're at. Imo and ime not preaching and simply educating is what works best.
Young people! Make your siblings, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. anyone you know who is voting age register. Drive them as necessary. Then have a voting party. Buy a few pizzas, and celebrate that they voted. We need to get younger voters engaged. Pretty sure that's part of what is happening right now, younger voters are not voting, or paying any attention to politics. By the time they become aware, it will be far too late.
BTW, according to that logic, all former presidents can now do whatever they like with impunity. That includes Clinton, Obama, Bush, and even Jimmy Carter. Can you imagine?
They *can’t* do whatever they like without impunity. They *can* do whatever the SCOTUS declares to be an “offical” act without impunity, which with the bent of this court means anything that fulfils the GOP’s autocratic goals.
Not sure what Bush would do. But I fully support what ever Clinton, Obama, and Jimmy Carter would do. So much admiration for the Carters. They had a goal for America and killed it.
Since the Constitution nowhere authorizes the President to commit criminal acts, it ought to follow that a criminal act committed by a President is ipso facto not official, hence exposes the President to prosecution. A brave judge may so argue one day, and the matter will rise quickly right back to the Supremes, who punted in the first place.
Right, I’m confused how breaking the law (assuming laws fall under the constitution) or demanding others break the law can be considered an “official” act when the president has taken an oath to not break the law (the constitution)
Question from this part of the article: "Given that the ruling would grant nearly limitless powers to whoever is elected the next president, it is more imperative than ever to ensure that the winner is not Donald Trump."
What can the next president do to get this overturned? Since the next president is going to be a Democrat (if the nation wants to survive), will they do something obnoxious to get the attention of SCOTUS and get them to overturn their own ruling? Because we know damn well that if a Democratic president takes advantage of these powers, right wing judicial watch groups will challenge them faster than a Trumpanzee can throw his poop at the wall. And SCOTUS will, in turn, rule in favor of the right wing challengers.
How about this. How about we just accept the justice system has COMPLETELY failed to hold him accountable and drop all the pending cases against him. Then, instead of in actual courts that have miserably failed us, we dump all the evidence against this flaming orange menace into the court of public opinion. Have Jack Smith on every news program every single night from now until the election discussing the mountain of evidence against this clown. Let the people then decide for themselves. How about we try that for a change? Cause otherwise the cynic in me says he's gotten away with ALL the criming which emboldens him to up the ante on what criming he's willing to do when he has nothing to lose.
Excellent analysis. I will add this. State governments mirror the federal government in having three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The executive of each state is the governor. Using the Supreme Court's logic, many state governors, especially red state governors, will argue that they, too, have the same kind of absolute immunity as the president when conducting their official duties, a truly frightening, but entirely foreseeable, prospect.
This is quite possibly the worst Supreme Court ruling in history. It ignores the constitution, ignores the framers' clear intent, is so vague as to be borderline incoherent, and leads to many obvious absurdities.
Given a chance, I think the Supremes will actually overrule *themselves* - while pretending that they are just clarifying.
Chutkan should simply rule against Trump's immunity on almost all counts, each time spelling out that if Trump were considered immune for this action, it would imply immunity for some other patently absurd situation (like assassinating a political rival), so that simply *can't* be what the Supremes meant.
Let that bubble up the appeals chain and force the Supremes to consider a ruling structured like:
1) if Trump were immune for this action, then this absurdity follows
2) if Trump were immune for this other action, then this other absurdity follows
.. and so on.
I suspect the Supremes will then "clarify" their way to a new ruling that, while still awful and manifestly unconstitutional, will at least close the door on certain end-of-the-Republic absurdities.
How do we get this suggestion to Chutkan? Amicus brief? Anyone have connections?
Well aware of the possibility, but I foresee a Biden win, and even if he doesn't, the next administration (if there is one) can pursue it.
Also, even in a Trump win, he will face a lot of backlash if he kills those cases.
Indeed, one way that this may play out is that, if Trump wins and begins to do dictatorial things, so many competent people either resign or refuse to follow illegal instructions that the system begins to visibly collapse, and then MAGA types wake up and realize they actually need their SS checks, fire department, local hospital and so on.
That's the thing about goose-stepping morons.. turns out, they are morons :)
Trump can surround himself with yes-men, but such people are incompetent, and their incompetencies will be visible quickly to the American public - including MAGA types, who are often elderly white people dependent upon public services.
MAGA types are impervious to logic but not impervious to the lack of ability to buy food, or go to the hospital, or send their kids to a public school.
So then what happens? The 25th Amendment doesn't apply with a cabinet full of yes-men, but impeachment does, if the MAGA representatives realize that Trump is no longer the MAGA darling.
One can hope, at least, that his second term ends that way, without too too much damage to America.
IF he gets re-elected there will be alot of damage to this country. The MAGGOTS will never blame him for things gone wrong and it seems there is no end to the line of yes men ready to step up and replace any he gets rid of. The incompetancies were not apparent to much of America the first time and those same people will turn a blind eye the second. This scenario you have laid our is a pipe dream, a second term will be disastrous to this country and we will be very lucky to have any allies left outside of Putin. The damage he did the first time will be nothing compared to what happens the next time.
Isn’t a decision of this magnitude creating a new law? Isn’t this the responsibility of Congress? I keep thinking about a Robin Williams monologue line where he screams, we better wake up people! They’re trying to rewrite the constitution on an Etch a Sketch.
"The interesting twist, as reported in the New York Times, is this: Such an evidentiary hearing could prove quite expansive and act like a mini-trial, placing the government’s evidence before the American public long before the actual trial, and, importantly, possibly even ahead of the November election."
Is Jay saying that the evidentiary hearing will allow the prosecution to publicly declare what evidence they have so Judge Chutkan can decide whether to include it in the trial? As far as I am concerned at this point, having a court of public opinion is really the next best thing.
It seems to me that Chutkan would be quite within the opinion to find that the presumption of immunity is overcome for charges of trying to overturn the election because no executive power is impacted, there being no executive power to overturn elections. Even before the Electoral Count Reform Act, the argument was the VICE president had the power, not the president and that potential "executive power" is now gone bye bye.
Same goes for the suborning of state officials. No executive power to interfere with state elections so no presumption. And as for evidence: what is prohibited if I recall is using motive and "executive privilege" kinds of things to decide whether the immunity exists. Don't think it said anything about using that kind of evidence where it does not exist.
The thing I can see here is that the dreadful reasoning gives sane lower courts a whole lot of reasons to distinguish this opinion from whatever they have in front of them.
As for the altering docs case: The bad behavior and most of the plotting was BEFORE he was elected. Trump wasn't convicted of being the main planner of how Cohen got paid; agreeing to it was an acceptable jury inference from all the other facts presented; there is no special relationship of executive power to the CEO of your own corporation nor any presidential duty involved in writing person checks on your personal account. Any testimony about what happened while he was president was testimony about what OTHER people did. Go Merchan.
Can Congress make a law that makes the DOJ independent of the president other than a) confirming the appointment after advice and consent or b) firing for just cause? After all, they GET to the broad powers by looking at his power to execute the laws and if there's a law, he's gotta execute it.
Further the court relies heavily not just on Article 2 but on the powers Congress has given to the president. Why not make a statute that says that any powers given to the president have an exception--when he uses those granted powers for corrupt purposes, and evidence of motive and similar is admissible for determining when the exception applies. Nothing about "immunity"--just a removal of a granted power. So come on in, evidence.
Finally, besides enlarging the court, Congress should look at its powers to limit jurisdiction of the court; remove jurisdiction for deciding on questions of immunity not granted explicitly by the Constitution. Also, when a court decision CONTRADICTS the Constitution's clear statements (like the part about criminal acts in the impeachment statute) the court immediately loses jurisdiction to enforce its holding in any way that so contradicts, as having no jurisdiction to decide on an unconstitutional basis. The whole power of judicial review is NOT in the Constitution--the court invented it in Marbury--and we certainly don't want to limit that power entirely--but one could carefully craft a statute that limits the KINDS of judicial review the court has power to do
"Today’s Supreme Court has wound the clock back 50 years..."
i'll argue that it's wound the clock back over 250 years, before the Revolutionary War, to the time of George III, the British monarch ruling absolutely over the inchoate country. And what the Court has decreed is sort of a Bourbon Restoration, but ushering in a dictator rather than a king, but with unchallenged powers of the divine rights of kings. This is what the election of tRump will bring, in addition to an unparalleled crime wave launched from the Oval Office.
With yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that the US President will be immune from any criminal prosecution going forward, I would love to see pollsters in the US ask just one question: "Who do you believe will be MOST likely to use the office of President to break the law and do things for personal gain?"
Well that answer comes down to who you ask. The MAGGOT base still believes he's done nothing wrong and that the "Biden crime famil" is "the most corrupt we've ever seen in out lifetime "
Great analysis but the simple truth is Trump must lose in November. SCOTUS made a “conservative” declaration of war on the Constitution by providing a liability free roadmap for a presidential coup in its immunity decision. If Trump wins it’s game over.
It's worse than that. If Trump or ANY FUTURE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE wins it's game over. The anti-democratic evangelists are hardly going to give up on their attempt to end US civilisation just because Trump loses; they'll pick someone less obviously deranged and criminal and implement the exact same plan four years later.
Like jd vance
It is game over.
It's not over yet, don't give up there is too much riding on it.
Biden can win if the People wake up and vote. There are vastly more sleepers than voters.
It’s also imperative to get good majorities in the house & senate - otherwise the destruction will continue.
And the states need to be purged of NAZIs, as well. I’ll let my Ohio stand as the prime corruption example.
We cannot survive three corrupt branches of government.
We can keep the senate, take the house - and hold the White House. Or do you think President Biden can't win?
Chris, that is a lovely dream and I hope to God you’re right. I don’t think enough people in this country realize that if trump wins we will actually kiss this great experiment good bye. I myself have a cousin who actually voted for trump in 2016 because he would shake things up. I HAD friends who voted for trump because he would take away a woman’s right to choose. I HAD other friends who voted for him because they watched only FOX filth. Democrats (me) have brought us nothing but non-stop LBGQ non-binary entertainment and political correctness - they have been grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory for decades. Our voters don’t get off their asses to vote. Public education has become a joke - no civics or history requirements. We have done this to ourselves. There should never have been another Republican president after Ronald Reagan and his quintessential mastery of republican rot. Like me, we didn’t pay attention.
It can be done, no, it must be done. I can't do anything but keep hoping people will wake up. I do that by writing post cards to voters in swing states and donate money. But I'm scared to death for my kids, and kid all around the country.
People will always be flawed. Americans are dangerously complacent. The 2016 election was all about the Supreme Court. Democrats definitely dropped the ball. But that doesn't exonerate maga and their power grab now. Trump isn't in office. Let's make sure he doesn't get back in. And those polls? Remember the Big Red Wave? Special elections in the last 4 years show an electorate starting to pay attention. And they aren't buying the Christian Nationalism being shoved down our throats. And just one last thing. Gay rights are important because we are good people who protect the easily marginalized. The issue separates the good hearted from the hate.
I paid attention, but was a voice crying in the wilderness...
This weird account is a troll account. Unclear if Russian or Chinese or Iranian or MAGA. I blocked it, but for whatever reason I still see its comments under Substack articles. This account is what 80-90% of the discourse looks like on TikTok, and I don’t touch Xitter but I’m guessing it’s at least as bad. This account represents another big piece of work that needs to be done when Democrats retain the Senate, win back the House, and retain the presidency: crack down on misinformation accounts across all social media. It’s the Wild West out there. Substack is relatively clean, but you see them from time to time.
I have no idea why I bothered to reply. But I kind of like the idea of being “Demon Rats”. It may be what we need to counter the MAGA Rs.
That's a LOT of exclamation points. Probably our first clue.
Huh???
"Contumacious" thinks he is being defiant when he's just an easy mark with Daddy issues.
What is the VA giving you for these delusions?
It would seem you might be hanging out in the wrong venue, buddy. And I’d recommend using spell check before you post — except that your misspelled words add fun color to your absolutely insane comments.
Just report and block, not worth engaging them!
Do you even know what a socialist is? Other than someone you hate...
Just say you don't know what socialism is and move on
Dude. When you start with WHEREAS, you are then supposed to produce a legal document that will be voted on by a government of some type, be it municipal, state, regional or national. How exactly did we steal the 202o election? (You know O's and 0's are not the same, right?) Are we Demon Rats, or Demon Crats? What does misdedd mean? So there are 15 million unvetted illegals in our country? That's about 5 percent of our population, sounds about right. When you get to WHEREFORE, you need to provide the language of a law that can be voted on. Pretty sure that calling your enemies names and then saying "Must be punish to the max.) doesn't rise to that level.
Isn't it just fascinating that 45 of our 46 presidents have managed to fulfill their role and service to the country......without needing immunity?
Imagine that...
Yesterday, after the "decision" trump was texting that "the Biden witch hunt against (him) is now over." The cult members cheered. Both trump and his cult members are too fucking stupid to realize that the corrupt supreme court just made a "Biden witch hunt" against him legal.
except, the Thugs correctly counted on Biden’s foundational decency and respect for institutions and the (former) Constitution—and he already stated to the nation he would *not* stoop to such abuse of power.
they also have well-laid plans and people in place for ensuring they “win” in November by any means necessary.
That is true, Biden has respect for institutions and is basically a decent man. It's quite possible that this corrupt supreme court will overturn a Biden win. However if that happens, I would say President Biden might just lose that respect for institutions. And he would have my full support to use whatever means necessary to safeguard democracy.
I had a gym teacher in school say something to me the has stuck with me for forty years. "Nice guys always finish last" I did not want to believe it then and I still don't, but it is obviously true. The Democrats are the nice guys who follow the rules and despite having amore popular platform and willingness to work for the people always end up with no power to get anything done.
But they know he won't do that. So ...
Except that - if somehow they rule that Biden lost the election, then between the election results and the end of January, when the he’s supposedly out of office, what does he have to lose? He then could in his official capacity, do all the things they think tfg will do and have immunity for them. He might consider himself above these kinds of dirty tricks that tfg might pull, but for the sake of our country and democracy, it would be worthwhile.
I still doubt he would do anything he considered unethical. But I totally get your point.
The actions of this Supreme Court have been leading up to, not only the immunity decision, but also to the implementation of Project 2025. Trump got worse during his term as his arrogance and hubris became worse. You can add unethical behavior and the same is true for this Supreme Court. We need to keep the WH, regain the House, keep (or expand) the Senate and kill the filibuster. Today, abortion and this Supreme Court are kryptonite for Republicans . We need to add expanding the Supreme Court to the platform. Trump's racism is also getting worse as his "Black jobs" comment (which he's doubling down on), and Marco Rubio's idiotic attempt at explaining it, have shown. The same can be said about the "Hispanic jobs" comment and the fact that Trump mentioned immigration and/or the border in answer to virtually every question in the debate. I'd love to see someone (maybe the Lincoln Project) do a video about what a round-up of 10 million immigrants would look like. Would they choose people based on their names, their appearance, their accents? Would they put them in your backyard before deportation? Which countries would accept them? Would people need to start carrying their "papers" unless you're white and speak without an accent and don't have a Latino sounding name? The Republican Party needs to lose big in November. I'm old enough to remember when LBJ beat Goldwater in 1964 by a landslide. And, in 1968 when LBJ stepped down and Humphrey had such a late start we ended up with Nixon. Can we please learn from history.
Feckin Nixon.
Just some random thoughts and questions about the Supreme Court's decision on Presidential immunity.
First, a call to action: think about what YOU can do to ensure overwhelming Democratic victories in November, and start doing it. It may cost you money, time, friends,... ...but whatever the cost, I guarantee that it is not as painful as living under a dictatorship headed by Donald Trump and violently enabled by his minions and supporters, including Vladimir Putin.
On to the Court decision: we all need to recognize that there is nothing surprising about this decision, any more than there was anything surprising about the decision to overturn Roe, to eviscerate the Chevron doctrine, to permit de facto automatic weapons, etc. If this Court takes up a case, it is going to decide it in line with the most radical rightwing doctrine possible.
That means that the radical rightwing majority on the Court will look for opportunities to overturn Sullivan v. NYT, a cornerstone of both equal rights and freedom of the press, and Obergefell v. Hodge, which legalized gay marriage in the United States. They will continue to do everything they can to hobble the administrative and regulatory functions of the federal government.
The second thing we need to recognize is that if Trump is elected, it won't matter what the Supreme Court or any other court decides anyway. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he intends to rule as a dictator. He will not be constrained by the courts, the Congress or any other institution. The SCOTUS decision merely rubberstamps what he would have done in any case, if he is elected.
The third thing we need to recognize is that this case clearly signposts how the Court will decide ANY case relating to the 2024 election. It is another clear signal that all who care about democracy, equality and the future of the United States and of a democratic free world must do all they can to register, educate and turn out voters.
A couple of other points: 1) Trump was convicted in NY State court for actions he took BEFORE he was elected. 2) Trump is indicted in Florida (a case sadly overseen by (in)Justice Cannon) largely for actions he took AFTER he unwillingly left office. Is the Supreme Court next going to extend his immunity to all actions he has taken since he first announced his candidacy for the 2016 election and that he has taken since he left office? Rhetorical question, but a logical one.
Another question is how could President Biden ethically use the essentially unlimited powers that the Court has given him. The Court has eviscerated the Chevron doctrine, which allowed government agencies to use scientific and legal interpretations of laws passed by the Congress to determine how those laws should be converted into regulation and enforced. Could Biden call in experts from the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Justice, the FCC, or the FTC, and issue executive orders based on their advice?
Finally, there is no question that this week demonstrates beyond a doubt that, if Biden is reelected and Democrats take the House and the Senate, the first order of business must be to reform the SCOTUS with immediate effect. I think that means adding four seats to the Court immediately, followed up by instituting a code of ethics that has teeth for the Court, and possibly other reforms (like term limits).
The second order of business must be to pass the Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. These bills would ensure that radical minorities are never again able to threaten American democracy.
So figure out what you can do today—donating money to campaigns is a good place to start—and get busy.
As far as the NYC verdict, it's been pointed out that while events mostly occurred before he was elected, he continued to make payments from office after elected so that's why he thinks he should be immune. As for the FL case, he thinks he had/has complete control over "his" documents as president so he can do whatever the hell he wants with them so is immune there. Judge Fangirl has been waiting for this as any excuse (or really no excuse at all) to toss the case.
Reminder: The SCOTUS judges can be impeached. Its not easy, an demands some work on our part in the long term, but would get rid of the immediate threat.
Thank you for laying all of this out so well. It's important as too many seem to think if we beat 45 the danger is past. Learning a bit about the history of the Heritage Foundation and how white supremacists melded with the religious right and the decades long planning that has been under way and you can see where Project 2025 originated and why it won't just disappear. As you stated, massive reform and protections must be put in place. We can only do that by winning across the board.
We must plant seeds and have difficult conversations. Whatever works in each given situation. I find I can win people over only by first identifying what matters to themand where they are vulnerable and laying out how things might personally change for them under an autocracy. Will their social security be on the chopping block? Are they or loved ones minorities that might be expelled from the US? Do they rely on ObamaCare for insurance? Are they a child bearing woman, have an interest in IVF or have daughters? Meet people where they're at. Imo and ime not preaching and simply educating is what works best.
Helping register people to vote is another useful action, which costs only your time!
Young people! Make your siblings, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. anyone you know who is voting age register. Drive them as necessary. Then have a voting party. Buy a few pizzas, and celebrate that they voted. We need to get younger voters engaged. Pretty sure that's part of what is happening right now, younger voters are not voting, or paying any attention to politics. By the time they become aware, it will be far too late.
BTW, according to that logic, all former presidents can now do whatever they like with impunity. That includes Clinton, Obama, Bush, and even Jimmy Carter. Can you imagine?
They *can’t* do whatever they like without impunity. They *can* do whatever the SCOTUS declares to be an “offical” act without impunity, which with the bent of this court means anything that fulfils the GOP’s autocratic goals.
Not sure what Bush would do. But I fully support what ever Clinton, Obama, and Jimmy Carter would do. So much admiration for the Carters. They had a goal for America and killed it.
Since the Constitution nowhere authorizes the President to commit criminal acts, it ought to follow that a criminal act committed by a President is ipso facto not official, hence exposes the President to prosecution. A brave judge may so argue one day, and the matter will rise quickly right back to the Supremes, who punted in the first place.
Just a thought.
Right, I’m confused how breaking the law (assuming laws fall under the constitution) or demanding others break the law can be considered an “official” act when the president has taken an oath to not break the law (the constitution)
I am drafting Jay for the next SCOTUS vacancy.
Question from this part of the article: "Given that the ruling would grant nearly limitless powers to whoever is elected the next president, it is more imperative than ever to ensure that the winner is not Donald Trump."
What can the next president do to get this overturned? Since the next president is going to be a Democrat (if the nation wants to survive), will they do something obnoxious to get the attention of SCOTUS and get them to overturn their own ruling? Because we know damn well that if a Democratic president takes advantage of these powers, right wing judicial watch groups will challenge them faster than a Trumpanzee can throw his poop at the wall. And SCOTUS will, in turn, rule in favor of the right wing challengers.
The only solution is expanding the court, impeaching the corrupt, and enacting term limits.
Alas, Trump will likely install the honorable Aileen Canon to replace Thomas so that Clarence and Ginny can wallow in the grift they've amassed.
Wish I wasn't serious when I was typing this.
How about this. How about we just accept the justice system has COMPLETELY failed to hold him accountable and drop all the pending cases against him. Then, instead of in actual courts that have miserably failed us, we dump all the evidence against this flaming orange menace into the court of public opinion. Have Jack Smith on every news program every single night from now until the election discussing the mountain of evidence against this clown. Let the people then decide for themselves. How about we try that for a change? Cause otherwise the cynic in me says he's gotten away with ALL the criming which emboldens him to up the ante on what criming he's willing to do when he has nothing to lose.
Excellent analysis. I will add this. State governments mirror the federal government in having three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The executive of each state is the governor. Using the Supreme Court's logic, many state governors, especially red state governors, will argue that they, too, have the same kind of absolute immunity as the president when conducting their official duties, a truly frightening, but entirely foreseeable, prospect.
This is quite possibly the worst Supreme Court ruling in history. It ignores the constitution, ignores the framers' clear intent, is so vague as to be borderline incoherent, and leads to many obvious absurdities.
Given a chance, I think the Supremes will actually overrule *themselves* - while pretending that they are just clarifying.
Chutkan should simply rule against Trump's immunity on almost all counts, each time spelling out that if Trump were considered immune for this action, it would imply immunity for some other patently absurd situation (like assassinating a political rival), so that simply *can't* be what the Supremes meant.
Let that bubble up the appeals chain and force the Supremes to consider a ruling structured like:
1) if Trump were immune for this action, then this absurdity follows
2) if Trump were immune for this other action, then this other absurdity follows
.. and so on.
I suspect the Supremes will then "clarify" their way to a new ruling that, while still awful and manifestly unconstitutional, will at least close the door on certain end-of-the-Republic absurdities.
How do we get this suggestion to Chutkan? Amicus brief? Anyone have connections?
This isn't likely to happen prior to the election, and when Trump wins, Jack's team will be disassembled, all the cases quashed.
Well aware of the possibility, but I foresee a Biden win, and even if he doesn't, the next administration (if there is one) can pursue it.
Also, even in a Trump win, he will face a lot of backlash if he kills those cases.
Indeed, one way that this may play out is that, if Trump wins and begins to do dictatorial things, so many competent people either resign or refuse to follow illegal instructions that the system begins to visibly collapse, and then MAGA types wake up and realize they actually need their SS checks, fire department, local hospital and so on.
What backlash are you speaking of? Do you think anything will deter Trump and his goose-steppers?
That's the thing about goose-stepping morons.. turns out, they are morons :)
Trump can surround himself with yes-men, but such people are incompetent, and their incompetencies will be visible quickly to the American public - including MAGA types, who are often elderly white people dependent upon public services.
MAGA types are impervious to logic but not impervious to the lack of ability to buy food, or go to the hospital, or send their kids to a public school.
So then what happens? The 25th Amendment doesn't apply with a cabinet full of yes-men, but impeachment does, if the MAGA representatives realize that Trump is no longer the MAGA darling.
One can hope, at least, that his second term ends that way, without too too much damage to America.
IF he gets re-elected there will be alot of damage to this country. The MAGGOTS will never blame him for things gone wrong and it seems there is no end to the line of yes men ready to step up and replace any he gets rid of. The incompetancies were not apparent to much of America the first time and those same people will turn a blind eye the second. This scenario you have laid our is a pipe dream, a second term will be disastrous to this country and we will be very lucky to have any allies left outside of Putin. The damage he did the first time will be nothing compared to what happens the next time.
Do you think orange Hitler cares about backlash?
Hi Pam, you asked basically the same question as Geoff, here's my reply:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thinkbigpicture/p/imperial-presidency-scotus-trump-immunity?r=bmh0m&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=60780737
So, the president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution but is then given legal immunity for not upholding the Constitution?
Were the founders really this incompetent?
No. The Robert’s Court is that incompetent.
There was not a whiff of originalism in that opinion. Restore a monarchy???? I think we all know what the founders thought of that!
There were a lot of other whiffs in the decision that were at best, rank.
Isn’t a decision of this magnitude creating a new law? Isn’t this the responsibility of Congress? I keep thinking about a Robin Williams monologue line where he screams, we better wake up people! They’re trying to rewrite the constitution on an Etch a Sketch.
"The interesting twist, as reported in the New York Times, is this: Such an evidentiary hearing could prove quite expansive and act like a mini-trial, placing the government’s evidence before the American public long before the actual trial, and, importantly, possibly even ahead of the November election."
Is Jay saying that the evidentiary hearing will allow the prosecution to publicly declare what evidence they have so Judge Chutkan can decide whether to include it in the trial? As far as I am concerned at this point, having a court of public opinion is really the next best thing.
It seems to me that Chutkan would be quite within the opinion to find that the presumption of immunity is overcome for charges of trying to overturn the election because no executive power is impacted, there being no executive power to overturn elections. Even before the Electoral Count Reform Act, the argument was the VICE president had the power, not the president and that potential "executive power" is now gone bye bye.
Same goes for the suborning of state officials. No executive power to interfere with state elections so no presumption. And as for evidence: what is prohibited if I recall is using motive and "executive privilege" kinds of things to decide whether the immunity exists. Don't think it said anything about using that kind of evidence where it does not exist.
The thing I can see here is that the dreadful reasoning gives sane lower courts a whole lot of reasons to distinguish this opinion from whatever they have in front of them.
As for the altering docs case: The bad behavior and most of the plotting was BEFORE he was elected. Trump wasn't convicted of being the main planner of how Cohen got paid; agreeing to it was an acceptable jury inference from all the other facts presented; there is no special relationship of executive power to the CEO of your own corporation nor any presidential duty involved in writing person checks on your personal account. Any testimony about what happened while he was president was testimony about what OTHER people did. Go Merchan.
Can Congress make a law that makes the DOJ independent of the president other than a) confirming the appointment after advice and consent or b) firing for just cause? After all, they GET to the broad powers by looking at his power to execute the laws and if there's a law, he's gotta execute it.
Further the court relies heavily not just on Article 2 but on the powers Congress has given to the president. Why not make a statute that says that any powers given to the president have an exception--when he uses those granted powers for corrupt purposes, and evidence of motive and similar is admissible for determining when the exception applies. Nothing about "immunity"--just a removal of a granted power. So come on in, evidence.
Finally, besides enlarging the court, Congress should look at its powers to limit jurisdiction of the court; remove jurisdiction for deciding on questions of immunity not granted explicitly by the Constitution. Also, when a court decision CONTRADICTS the Constitution's clear statements (like the part about criminal acts in the impeachment statute) the court immediately loses jurisdiction to enforce its holding in any way that so contradicts, as having no jurisdiction to decide on an unconstitutional basis. The whole power of judicial review is NOT in the Constitution--the court invented it in Marbury--and we certainly don't want to limit that power entirely--but one could carefully craft a statute that limits the KINDS of judicial review the court has power to do
"Today’s Supreme Court has wound the clock back 50 years..."
i'll argue that it's wound the clock back over 250 years, before the Revolutionary War, to the time of George III, the British monarch ruling absolutely over the inchoate country. And what the Court has decreed is sort of a Bourbon Restoration, but ushering in a dictator rather than a king, but with unchallenged powers of the divine rights of kings. This is what the election of tRump will bring, in addition to an unparalleled crime wave launched from the Oval Office.
With yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that the US President will be immune from any criminal prosecution going forward, I would love to see pollsters in the US ask just one question: "Who do you believe will be MOST likely to use the office of President to break the law and do things for personal gain?"
_____BIDEN
_____TRUMP
Well that answer comes down to who you ask. The MAGGOT base still believes he's done nothing wrong and that the "Biden crime famil" is "the most corrupt we've ever seen in out lifetime "