On Thursday, during oral arguments in Trump v. United States, the Republican-appointed justices shattered those illusions. This was the case we had been waiting for, and all was made clear—brutally so. These justices donned the attitude of cynical partisans, repeatedly lending legitimacy to the former president’s outrageous claims of immunity from criminal prosecution. To at least five of the conservatives, the real threat to democracy wasn’t Trump’s attempt to overturn the election—but the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute him for the act. These justices fear that it is Trump’s prosecution for election subversion that will “destabilize” democracy, requiring them to read a brand-new principle of presidential immunity into a Constitution that guarantees nothing of the sort. They evinced virtually no concern for our ability to continue holding free and fair elections that culminate in a peaceful transfer of power. They instead offered endless solicitude for the former president who fought that transfer of power.
Posting will be a challenge today because I spilled coffee on the mouse and now it’s not working, and trying to format anything without it is making me crazy. And there’s no place handy to get another one. I’ve got my fingers crossed that Amazon can deliver a replacement tomorrow.
Update: The mouse is working a bit better now; maybe it just needed to dry out more.
I didn’t listen to yesterday’s Supreme Court hearings on Trump’s immunity, but the reviews have been devastating. Josh Marshall writes The Court is Corrupt. Say It With Me.
Everything comes into conceptual alignment if we understand the Court’s corruption: corrupt in its construction, corrupt in its jurisprudence, venally corrupt as well, though that is the least of its problems.
On this show I still saw people saying things like, “I hope this isn’t the case.” “I hope I’m wrong.” Don’t hope you’re wrong. This just leaves us still in some hunt for the silver lining in the Court’s corruption. Or even worse, this undermines faith in the Court. No. We don’t want to shore up faith in a corrupt institution.
We are where we should know we are. The Roberts Court is a corrupt institution which operates in concert with and on behalf of the Republican Party and to an ambiguous degree right-wing anti-regulatory ideology. If we believe in a different set of policies or even democratic self-governance we will have to succeed at that with the Supreme Court acting as a consistent adversary.
That’s the challenge in front of us. It sucks. But things become more clear cut once we take the plunge and accept that fact. Swallow it whole.
And, of course, Steve M. is right here:
If the Supreme Court gives Trump partial immunity, which seems very likely, he’ll say he was given “absolute immunity.” He’ll say this over and over again, often in all caps, the way he used to repeat “no collusion,” and at least 45% of the country will believe it’s true.
— Steve M. (@stevemnomoremister.bsky.social) Apr 26, 2024 at 7:03 AM
This underscores both the absolute necessity to win in November and then for Congress to add at least four to six justices to the Court. After that they can begin impeachment of Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. If this isn’t done, even if Trump disappears we’re still going to be in a hard fight to keep our democracy.
Update: Jonathan Last, The Bulwark: Conservative Legal Theory Was All a Lie, Too.
"Dear. SCOTUS:
"Under your questioning, it seems that a President could decide, if a Supreme Court (soi disant) 'Justice' made a bad decision, to murder that Justice in their sleep. Just let us know if that's how you'll rule, and this nice doctor here will give you a shot to make you… sleep."
I wonder if, stripped of partisan assumptions, the decision is any easier.
The Bulwark article is brilliant. Conservative legal theory has only the illusion of principles. Is it no wonder it appears that we are recently getting only the illusion of justice?
There are instructions and videos online regarding cleaning your mouse balls. Which your mouse will thank you for.
Yikes! I should not have just taken a swig from my coffee cup as I read this!
Marcy at Emptywheel included a part of Kavanaugh's concerns. A whole lot of what he said was an announcement that he doubts the legitimacy of the prosecutions because of the motives of the prosecutor(s.) Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that he's interested in protecting even Democrats from partisan prosecutions.
Kavanaugh: "Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as picking the man and then searching the law books or putting investigators to work to pin some offense on him? "
Kavanaugh did not say directly, but he seems to believe that all the prosecutions are rooted in partisan persecution of a particular person of the opposite party. (Which he would protect the Democrats from.) Trump has made it clear that all the prosecutors and all the judges (except Cannon) are against him. I expect shallow thinking from Trump but not a Supreme Court Justice.
I am no lawyer but I spent a lot of time in consultation with two great lawyers. The issue is not the prosecutor or his opinion (or hostility to) the defendant. The issue is the crime the defendant is charged with – the decision for the jury is whether or not the prosecution has proved the defendant was in violation. I might cede the point to Kavanaugh if the charge was petty and contrived but the charging document in the DC case details a multi-level conspiracy to steal the presidential election by deceit and violence.
Trump failed in the attempt – barely. That's not a forgive and forget event especially as Trump is still on the stage, still trying to grab back political power. Evaluating the criminality in the courts is the best forum prior to the election. And I say prior to the election because trying to subvert an election should be proved according to the rules of evidence to INFORM voters who have to decide. Trump is demanding they make the decision in ignorance of the objective facts. That this strategy will be supported by the USSC is unforgivable.
We have to win this election, retain the Senate, take the House, repeal the filibuster and expand the court. All of this can happen, legally, constitutionally, and quickly. Otherwise, the corporate tools on the conservative side of the bench will undo all attempts at progress for the citizens.
Reflecting on the Immunity hearing, and in particular, why the conservative justices took this case at all, and on the focus of their questioning…
More than Roe, this is the brass ring for these justices, it's what they really want to have influence over.
They want a King. The Trump case is just a way for them to change this country into a kind of monarchy. You've read that they are barely addressing Trump's claims, they're concerned about future presidents.
With a king, voters become more and more irrelevant. The Constitution leaves voting matters to the states, and the conservative justices have amply demonstrated that they have no concern for them.
Mitch McConnell recognized that the SCOTUS is everything. It's a way of ensuring generational conservative rule. A king takes this a step further.
The conservative justices could care less that the voters learn about Donald Trump before the election. They're far more interested in creating the legal framework to facilitate the kind of presidency they want, which will persist long after Trump is gone.
It sounds like your mouse will be OK after its dunking. I'm often amazed at how well electronic gear comes thru a dunking just fine. Now you'll have a backup.
Journalists need to be focusing on the Supreme Court. The public needs to become as fully aware of them as they've been with Trump these last 8 years. Trump is deflating, there will be a blue wave in November, and the Supreme Court's corruption is going to be the next mountain of conservative rot to dispatch. Should be easy with all those women having a hard time with decent OB-gyn care.
Money may not be the root of all evil, but it sure does suck a lot of joy and goodness out of a lot of activities. We American spend/waste more money on poor quality health care and bad politics than many if not all countries. Countries that have both healthier and happier people than we have by a long shot. The SCOTUS is responsible for some of that, and claims that rules and regulations will keep the potential harm away when we make silly decisions like corporations are people. Now, when faced with evidence of the errors of their ways, accounting fraud and even the appearance of influence peddling in its own ranks, they circle wagons around the apparent perpetrators to cover their own poor judgement in the past.
How much more money will be wasted by having Roe overturned. Travel for needed health care is a real problem for most of us, and the lower the population density you live in the more you need to travel to get competent care.
The SC OTUS does not need to worry about hypotheticals when pondering lower courts decisions on presidential immunity. It needs to ponder the real consequences of its own decisions which pander to the rich and plunder the poor. Why is equal justice for all an ideal they run and hide from? The great Dr. Hunter Thompson wrote prophetically about this years ago. You could donate with pride to his defense fund unlike apparent election fraud perpetrators lured by too much political money and rules that take forever to get enforced.
They deserve a SNL skit for this one at a minimum. Let the ridicule begin.
Check Elie Mystal's article months ago. The only solution is enlarge the court and do it Now. Not later.
We women already know the depth of the corruption.
AGs complaining about a female justice 'whining' about saving womens lives with helicopters…….
And you know they will decide jan6 is a misdemeanor even though 5 died that day and taking a dump on the Senate floor doesn't interfere with business. What will happen when the mob visits their precious building?????
Just wait they will probably decide presidential immunity starts before taking office and extends until death or msybe hereafter.
Nothing suprises me from the roberts court.
As bad as last 44 years (1980)has been. The tipping point was bush v gore
5 lied during their confirmation hearings that is verified
And how did Joe vote each time?