It is impossible to read the decision in Trump vs. United States as other than a court with six Republican justices handing a major victory to the Republican candidate for president, Donald Trump. Indeed, the court’s handling of the case, denying review that was requested in January and then not releasing its opinion until July 1, was in itself a victory in ensuring that there is no way that Trump can be tried before the November 2024 presidential election.
Roberts concluded his opinion by rightly saying: “This case poses a question of lasting significance.” Unfortunately, the court gave an answer to that question that undermines the rule of law and creates a serious future threat to our democracy in placing the president largely above the law.
As of July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that a president can use official activities as a shield when engaged in criminal activities, legalized bribery (as long as it is after the fact), placed the judiciary in charge of regulating big business, and held that the homeless can be thrown in prison for the crime of not having a home.
They have elevated their branch of government over congress and the executive while writing a decision that was broadly protective of Donald J. Trump’s specific past actions yet left open the possibility of future prosecution for presidents not named Trump.
This decision bars courts from considering any of the president’s underlying motives in determining whether the president’s conduct was official versus unofficial. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent, what this means is that even if the president uses official power for an inherently corrupt purpose, they will be immune, because no one can inquire into their underlying motivation.
The Republican candidate’s boastful promise of being a dictator on day one, along with the blueprint prepared for his administration, are now enabled.
Our incumbent President has condemned the Supreme Court’s intrusion on the powers of the Chief Executive, and promised to take the high road throughout his administration.
“Now the American people will have to do what the court should have been willing to do, but will not ... render a judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior,” Biden said.
In other words, we should shake our heads, tsk-tsk at the office water cooler, and vote against the presumptive candidate of the Republican party to send a message.
While I’m sure a landslide against Trump would hurt his ego (but not his quest for power), there needs to be recognition by the public that the rules about being ruled have been altered. One can not simply undo what has been done.
Neither Congress nor the President can change the lineup of the current court fast enough to mitigate this ruling and others flowing from it. Furthermore, they’re not interested. A faint challenge to the court’s authority has come from Congress member Alexandra Octavio-Cortez, who’s promising to introduce articles of impeachment.
Speaking from a historical point of view, the ideological heirs to reactionaries who fought against the New Deal have accomplished what they originally set out to do: defanging the administrative state, establishing the judiciary as a bulwark against liberal institutionalism, and paving the way for favorable authoritarian rule.
None of the drastic consequences being mentioned will come to pass immediately; Project 2025 and its architects will have to endure a period of chaos, as the administrative arm of government struggles to define a role pleasing to its new master. You don’t need to stock up whatever it is that you feel is necessary to protect your family.
There might be some twists and turns on the road to the November election; in hearings to determine what evidence still remains admissible, prosecutors could simply reveal all their evidence concerning the former President’s theft of documents containing state secrets. An appeals court could decide that acts committed prior to Trump’s presidency and the cover up during his campaign aren’t covered in the Supreme Court’s ruling.
It is safe to say that the Trump strategy of delaying trials has succeeded. I’m sure some prosecutors will pursue their cases if Biden is re-elected, but the legal foundations they are based upon have been severely eroded.
So, what is to be done? Solving any problem requires an initial assessment of what challenges lay ahead and how to go about bringing desired changes.
First up, there needs to be an understanding of just how far the termites of authoritarianism have burrowed. Our founding document -the constitution- has become brittle with age. Amendments are impossible practically speaking, thanks to a subset of reactionaries who would lock the document away, to be used as propaganda when needed.
The vaunted fourth estate, as in the power of the press, has been corrupted. To be sure, individual acts by reporters may have an impact, but in the scheme of things to come, the interests of its corporate owners, and the egos of its editors are in line with an authoritarian state.
Furthermore, the pummeling of truth over the past decade has ruined the credibility of reporting. Artificial intelligence will enable the people to see events through the eyes of their leader. Truth will be what the ruling elite says it is, and they’ll have proof at the ready.
Recognizing that there are voices besides the usual banal banter and supporting them is going to be a necessity. Whether it’s Dan Rather or Hamilton Nolan or Heather Richardson, these ideas and observations provide insights needed to remain intellectually outside the boundaries of the authoritarian nightmare.
The Democratic party’s aim of progressive institutionalism as a thing unto itself has eroded their power. “Congress” or “the City Council” or the top elected official are deemed necessary to guide change. Voting is the preferred path to speaking up, even if those on the ballot are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
In places like California, where one party has dominance, the stench of corruption surrounds its agendas. Why should those politicians care? They have your vote by virtue of their team colors.
I say these things, not because I’m agnostic or antagonistic on electoral politics, but because the solutions to our democracy problem require more than elections. “Vote harder” is what we’ve been told for decades, yet we continue to lose ground to those with agendas not in our interest. And the party that purp[orts to represent (more of) our interest continues to focus on personalities rather than progress.
When you vote in November (and I think you should) don’t vote for Biden/Harris. Vote for changes to the Supreme Court, the end of the filibuster, the right to vote, women’s healthcare, and resistance to the oligarchy. Pick one or pick them all. Have standards for your support.
Bluntly, there’s simply no way that any Democrat running in 2024 for federal office can credibly tell us they will fight for reproductive freedom, equality for the LGBTQ community, preventing discrimination against people of color, saving lives from gun violence, protecting voting rights and our democracy, addressing climate, etc. if they do not make reforming the Supreme Court a top priority. After all, it is this GOP Supreme Court—not Congress—that is the one changing policies on these vitally important issues.
The issue of SCOTUS reform is not only grounded in valid policy concerns, but also politically a winner as well. Recent polls find approval levels for the US Supreme Court at all-time lows. The reason is apparent. Seven in ten registered voters believe the Supreme Court is “mainly motivated by politics,” as a 2023 Quinnipiac poll found. Backing that up is an AP poll from last month where 70% say the justices are less about impartiality and more motivated by ideology.
This explains why nearly 70% or more of Americans support a range of reforms to the Court. For starters, a recent AP poll found 67% of Americans support a proposal to set a specific number of years that justices serve instead of life terms, including 82% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans. A same number support an age limit for serving on the Court.
It’s as American as apple pie to avoid discussing class in the context of political power; euphemisms will no longer do.
It’s not just the 1% we oppose, it’s Johnson & Johnson willingly giving Black women cancer, it’s the erosion of social security, it’s private equity gutting your hospital, it’s Google closing off avenues of knowledge, and whatever else late stage capitalism is foisting upon the populace. Measure local candidates with that yardstick. Pick a cause and vote for justice.
Remember that there is no shame in choosing not to mark your ballot where the choices suck.
We need a strong institution that sits outside of electoral politics, that is not at the mercy of right wing courts, that has its own inherent form of power that can be exercised on behalf of the public good, that will naturally work towards progressive goals. My friends, that is the labor movement. That is the place where you, a regular person, have a form of power—labor power—that cannot be taken away by any unjust law or corporate expenditure. You have it because you work. Solidarity and labor unions allow you to exercise it. The combined forces of labor unions can produce a force significant enough to balance out the right wing’s own power, in a way that our captured institutions cannot.
You, the despairing progressive, need to unionize your workplace and join this fight. The wheezing and cautious institutions at the top of the labor movement need to recognize the stakes of this contest, and stir themselves to invest massive amounts of resources in organizing the millions of new workers who sit outside of the reach of unions now. And—most relevant to the topic at hand—the Democratic Party itself needs to recognize how much its own fate is tied to the fate of the labor movement, and to act accordingly
***
VACATION(s)--I intend to take some time off this summer. It’s hard to do because writing is as much a habit as my morning cuppa joe. So far, the days off I have planned are July 4-7 and August 1-12.
When I return from the August break, I’ll begin focusing on my Fall 2924 Voting Guide, meaning that many of my posts will be focused on candidates and ballot measures. On the week that mail-in voting starts, I’ll publish a condensed version, complete with links back to more detailed coverage.
“Today’s decision restores over $2m in punitive damages from the jury’s verdict, which sent a clear message against racist and antisemitic hate and violence,” attorneys Roberta Kaplan, David E Mills and Gabrielle E Tenzer said in a statement.
Lawyers for the defendants did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.
The verdict from the 2021 trial was a rebuke to the white nationalist movement, particularly for the two dozen individuals and organizations accused in a federal lawsuit of orchestrating violence against Black people, Jewish people and others in a meticulously planned conspiracy.
The Fourth of July Sunday offers us a peak into the heretical danger of Christian Nationalism that confuses American and Christian identities. All the worship songs centered and lifted up the United States. The courageous sacrifice of military veterans was conflated with serving God and even the sacrifice of Jesus. And all of this in an election year was mixed in with a clear wink and nod to which political party and presidential candidate to support as a supposed act of Christian responsibility.
Such worship services may seem harmless even if a bit cringey. But it always is dangerous to mix the gospel with the preaching of another kingdom. Christians are being discipled to merge their faith with their patriotism and politics as if there is no difference between pledging allegiance to a nation and giving our allegiance to God. As Jesus taught, we cannot serve two masters.
FBC Atlanta is not merely an influential congregation; it also is emblematic of services that occurred across the nation yesterday — not just in evangelical congregations but also in mainline Protestant ones as we documented in Baptizing America. As we suggested in the book, try “the Martian test.” If a Martian who knew nothing about us showed up at FBC Atlanta on Sunday, who or what would that creature think the congregation was worshiping? The Martian would go back and write about the red, white, and blue gods on stage that the people worshiped while also shooting off some explosives as if preparing for war.
The cash payout is the largest ever approved by the Board of Supervisors in a wrongful-death case, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said. San Diego County now has paid more than $75 million over the past five-plus years for deputy negligence or misconduct, sheriff’s records show.
In addition to the $15 million payment, the agreement calls for the Sheriff’s Department to conduct new training for deputies and jail medical staff. At least some of the remedial education will focus on what is called “training on compassion” for department employees.
The resolution also calls on the sheriff to update the policy on checking vital signs of people incarcerated in the medical observation unit.
We may or may not be able to get TRUMP into jail, but there ARE things that can be done at least for the future. My thoughts as posted on The Big Picture today--particularly about a loophole I see in the Court's ruling on what evidence can be used. The result is to get out the vote for an administration that has a hope of passing the laws I suggest. That means voting Dem in the down-ticket races, to.
****
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
Yes, indeed! Vibrant expanded labor unions should unite with The Poor Peoples' Campaign to (1) defend what we have left, (2) articulate leadership and civic goals, and (3) create a strategy equal to the task, such as a general strike.
We may or may not be able to get TRUMP into jail, but there ARE things that can be done at least for the future. My thoughts as posted on The Big Picture today--particularly about a loophole I see in the Court's ruling on what evidence can be used. The result is to get out the vote for an administration that has a hope of passing the laws I suggest. That means voting Dem in the down-ticket races, to.
****
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
Yes, indeed! Vibrant expanded labor unions should unite with The Poor Peoples' Campaign to (1) defend what we have left, (2) articulate leadership and civic goals, and (3) create a strategy equal to the task, such as a general strike.