This is so scary. When one person holds all the power and makes all of the decisions for a government, this is called a dictatorship. Thanks again, Joyce, for spelling this out so clearly. Congress has abdicated its role. Will the judiciary?
A friend sent me a piece that describes the "CEO-Monarchy" that is now happening thanks to trump-Vance-Thiel-Yarvin-PayPal-Musk. I don't know the author but it gives some background into how we got here, and it was planned long ago!
Off the rails... I'd rather think they (at least the four who voted against the recent ruling re: paying USAID contractors) are just corrupt. They delayed the case for a week, and did not go far enough in their ruling: the administration is still dragging its feet, contractors have not been paid. Their failure is egregious enough to warrant both term limits and age limits for SCOTUS justices.
I do wonder if there’s a limit to Roberts’ corruption. At the time of the complete rollover for Trump’s immunity, they could rationalize that at least half the country believed in Trump, but that’s not now the case. Is it possible that he will attempt to rehabilitate how history records him since the country overwhelmingly disapproves of MUMP’s moves?
Joyce, I have all the confidence in the world in your legal interpretation and knowledge, and that includes Harry's, but I will be the first to admit I have lost all confidence in the Supreme Court. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem hell bent on destroying the gains made by minorities and women in providing horrendous cover for Trump. The immunity ruling opened the door for this, and I am not sure we will recover. But I will not stop advocating for democracy until the day I die. America is my home and even if I could afford to relocate as an expat, I would not. Take care all.
Yes, it was for that reason I did not include Roberts and Barrett. I do think Chief Justice Roberts opened a can of rotten worms with the immunity ruling, and I have no doubt Trump will ignore the court at some juncture. He is already tenderizing the public for such a time. Trump believes that his EO's are the law, they are not. How the court responds are a toss-up. I hope Trump's continued abuse and flagrant disregard for the law may actually hinge on Roberts and Barrett siding with the liberals.
The decision wasn't amazing. It was an insult. In my estimation, there are only three justices on the court who hold dear the basic principles of this democracy. Of the other six, four are corrupt. The last two just don't know what their responsibility to the people is. And Roberts? Well, it's his court, even if we do sometimes call it "the Thomas court."
The shameful part of this post is that I cannot argue with it. That is a damning indictment against the United States. Roberts has actually for decades been dismantling Civil Rights; Alito and Thomas are just so transparently corrupt. Alito and Thomas actually appear to advise Trump's DOJ attorneys on how to file appeals and what arguments to use. Kavanaugh will side with the group of conservatives. What Roberts and Barrett are doing is giving us crumbs to embrace while handing Trump the entire pie.
I am certain that the firing of Gwinne Wilcox is clearly because she is both Black and female. That is all the excuse trump needs. He operates on the assumption that she will never see anything the way he does, even though he has no way of knowing that's true. I hope the SCOTUS upholds Humphrey's Executor.
I'm shocked. Before following Civil Discourse, the extent of my legal knowledge came from, SVU, Law and Order, Suits, Endeavour, Murder She Wrote, etc. Since following Civil Discourse I have learned so much about the rule of law, the Constitution, and the relationship between those constructs and the balance of powers governing the Presidency and Congress. Those constructs are, well, brilliant and have served the Republic well. It's still standing. All of this to say that I understood every word of your post tonight without having to spend time in reference books. Thank you for educating me.
That said, my heart is in my throat finally realizing that the greatest judicial power actually rests in the hands of the Supreme Court. Political power or political favour is not supposed to be in their hands. The integrity of and our trust in the Supreme Court rests on its ability to be non partisan in its decisions. We assume that they will understand and respect their role. At the same time, we also believe that the Constitution is a living breathing instrument with the capacity to evolve with the times and emerging norms reflective of the population. Life in the 1800's does not reflect reality of American life or its values today. The Federalist Society is way past its Best Before Date by a couple of hundred years. The Federalist Society today represents people whose intelligence never evolved. So sad.
The other day, Justice Alito, a federalist,said that he was 'stunned' by the majority decision to confirm that the United States of America has the responsibility to pay for work contracted by and performed by USAID contractors. In other words, Alito stands against the principle that the US government has the responsibility to pay its bills. Alito, in that statement says that the Supreme Court has the power to approve or disapprove of Congressional spending laws. Constitutionally, the power of purse belongs to Congress and only to Congress. Are Alito's remarks beyond the power and remit of the Supreme Court and are his remarks impeachable?
Joyce, Thank you so for your ability to teach the rule of law in ways we can understand.
My question is, why would the Supreme Court give trump more power when he is testing the waters by blatantly indicating his intention to ignore court rulings?
Alito is an extreme right theocrat with a huge chip on his shoulder - a mean little man with a lot of power. Thomas is completely corrupt. I used to hold the Court in great esteem. Now I hold only a few of the Justices in great esteem.
I'm having trouble finding the words for Alito's tirade after the 5-4 decision this week. Just jawdropping. And I have to admit to a grudging respect for Amy Coney Barrett. She has thus far proven to be her own person when the easy thing (and I think the expected thing at her nomination) would be to throw in with the right a la Lapdog Kavanaugh.
I actually wrote Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown and told them how sorry I feel that they have to go to work with those other people. Sotomayor actually said that sometimes she goes into her office, closes the door and cries....
Assuming many and soon all of the legislative powers into the Executive branch literally means - we no longer need a House of Representatives or a Senate which is why all of his signing of EO's does exactly this - eliminates the need to go through Congress. I cannot understand why these members of the House and Senate who clearly value their jobs and titles so much so they are willing to sell out our country for them do NOT understand they are being made redundant. He doesn't want a House or a Senate. A dictator or "king" as he pretends to be doesn't need a House or a Senate. And his "you won't need to vote again" is not only a reference to him assuming and staying in power, but a reference to there will be no one to vote for if he disassembles Congress. And still the GOP abides by his decisions. Damn, we have elected fools!
I don't think he will be so bold as to seriously try to disband Congress. Why bother? Congress doesn't cost that much. He could try to cut back on their budget to reduce some "superfluous" staffers but he'd need to amend the Constitution to completely get rid of Congress and he can just ignore them for the most part without doing that.
I agree with the premise but it is almost certainly reality that there is no way to actually remove ANYONE since the conviction requirement is 2/3 of the Senate. That would mean TWENTY republican Senators have to agree to vote to convict anyone impeached in order to remove them from office. It wasn't possible to get even THREE Senators to vote against any of Trump's cabinet except for Hegseth and that was just BARELY three.
You are just drinking too much kool aid if you seriously think you can remove anyone from Trump's cabinet let alone Trump himself by impeachment.
It isn't going to happen no matter how much it should.
I refuse to support delusional politics on EITHER side. This idea is just a total waste of energy.
Thank you, Joyce! This is so clear! “When Congress provides for the appointment of officers whose functions, like those of the Federal Trade Commissioners, are of Legislative and judicial quality, rather than executive, and limits the grounds upon which they may be removed from office, the President has no constitutional power to remove them for reasons other than those so specified.” The Congress has all but abdicated their power to these phony co-kings, Musk/Trump. What will it take for them to rein themselves in? They are running away from their constituents by refusing to have more town-hall meetings. As someone pointed out, that's no different from taxation without representation. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to find their spines. Meanwhile, we keep pushing back.
I honor and thank you for your clarity on the key points to understand, your careful research and excellent ability to teach us what is at stake about this crucial matter for all of us. It is a tipping point in our democracy experiment.
I wonder, in this chess game of politics ....whether there are legal minds working together now on future strategies to anticipate and plan possible future moves ahead?
This is more and more frightening each day. My cousin is reading Jason Stanley’s book, Erasing History- How Fascists Erase History. I told her I already have so much anxiety and less sleep, I’m not reading the book.
Please schedule a day off. Go out for brunch. We are all so grateful for you. 💙💙💙
Yolanda Arnold, you are exactly right, and that is the heart of the problem on the Court. Those four Justices, along with Chief Justice Roberts, are not approaching cases as if their task is settling disputes. They are approaching cases as an opportunity to push their policy preferences, a political agenda. That is not the proper role of courts.
The problem for Trump is that he seeks to overthrown many decades of settled law. You remember settled law--that's what Trump's nominees for the Extreme Court said Roe v. Wade was. The problem for us is that Trump and his cronies are engaged in a war against the Constitution, the law and democracy. And we need to meet war with war.
AG Barr was wrong. His acceptance of the President as an all powerful leader was wrong. Justice Roberts was wrong to not resist, strongly, the direction of the religiously influenced justices (who do not follow the precepts of christianity) and to think his ideas were unbiased. Trump has already stated publicly that he is the law. That's what he told the Governor of Maine. I am the law. No one in that room stood up to support her. Cowards, one and all. Four Democrats also voted to sanction Al Green (no one sanctioned MTG when she heckled Biden) when he protested Trump's speech. The answer to all this scary terrible stuff, is what? Is Trump or Musk or Vance going to go to jail if they ignore the law, the SCOTUS, and the Constitution? No. Is there anything we can do if he refuses to leave office, to stop elections, to turn us into a police state, like his buddy, Vlad, has. No. The answer is rallies like the one Bernie Sanders recently had in Kenosha. Did it get any coverage on any media? No. If the newspapers and the TV networks, the internet and the other outlets of mass communication have to make the stockholders happy, and not cover the news, what is our recourse? Where are Obama, Clinton (both), Gore, and all the rest of our national Democrats? Why don't they have press conferences? Thank you, Joyce, for all you do every day. Keep sending us photos of your beautiful chickens......with their names!
Gluesenkamp sent me a fund-raising e-mail. My reply was that, since she had voted to censure Green, she would never be receiving any funds from this Democrat. I've written all three of my congress critters and asked them why they didn't all leave when he was escorted out by the sergeant at arms. Shameful.
I am beyond disappointed with any democrat in this repub. administration,who would vote to censure a fellow democrat when marge 3 names disrupted congressional meetings without any protests of her behavior—-which was lies, not the truth Green espoused!
This is so scary. When one person holds all the power and makes all of the decisions for a government, this is called a dictatorship. Thanks again, Joyce, for spelling this out so clearly. Congress has abdicated its role. Will the judiciary?
A friend sent me a piece that describes the "CEO-Monarchy" that is now happening thanks to trump-Vance-Thiel-Yarvin-PayPal-Musk. I don't know the author but it gives some background into how we got here, and it was planned long ago!
Unitary executive.
I saw that piece also -- hoped to post a link in my reply, but cannot locate it now. Scary as it gets.
Do you mean Peter Thiel?
Yes, I do. Apologies for misspelling his name.
Exactly the words I used as I finished reading Joyce's piece: This is so scary. And we have a supreme court that is off the rails...
Off the rails... I'd rather think they (at least the four who voted against the recent ruling re: paying USAID contractors) are just corrupt. They delayed the case for a week, and did not go far enough in their ruling: the administration is still dragging its feet, contractors have not been paid. Their failure is egregious enough to warrant both term limits and age limits for SCOTUS justices.
In true Trump form: "contractors have not been paid."
He said he’d be a dictator for one day. He lied. Does a lie qualify as incompetence. It should.
We'd have no politicians left... it's what they do.
I think it was "on day one." (Unspoken: "also day two, three four......")
I do wonder if there’s a limit to Roberts’ corruption. At the time of the complete rollover for Trump’s immunity, they could rationalize that at least half the country believed in Trump, but that’s not now the case. Is it possible that he will attempt to rehabilitate how history records him since the country overwhelmingly disapproves of MUMP’s moves?
The conservative justices were installed on SCOTUS for exactly this purpose - to give this coup legal cover and legitimacy.
Joyce, I have all the confidence in the world in your legal interpretation and knowledge, and that includes Harry's, but I will be the first to admit I have lost all confidence in the Supreme Court. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem hell bent on destroying the gains made by minorities and women in providing horrendous cover for Trump. The immunity ruling opened the door for this, and I am not sure we will recover. But I will not stop advocating for democracy until the day I die. America is my home and even if I could afford to relocate as an expat, I would not. Take care all.
The immunity ruling and Citizens United before it - that permitted all this billionaire money into the political system.
The recent 5-4 decision was amazing !!
Yes, it was for that reason I did not include Roberts and Barrett. I do think Chief Justice Roberts opened a can of rotten worms with the immunity ruling, and I have no doubt Trump will ignore the court at some juncture. He is already tenderizing the public for such a time. Trump believes that his EO's are the law, they are not. How the court responds are a toss-up. I hope Trump's continued abuse and flagrant disregard for the law may actually hinge on Roberts and Barrett siding with the liberals.
And now MAGA is calling Barrett a DEI hire.
WOW.
The decision wasn't amazing. It was an insult. In my estimation, there are only three justices on the court who hold dear the basic principles of this democracy. Of the other six, four are corrupt. The last two just don't know what their responsibility to the people is. And Roberts? Well, it's his court, even if we do sometimes call it "the Thomas court."
The shameful part of this post is that I cannot argue with it. That is a damning indictment against the United States. Roberts has actually for decades been dismantling Civil Rights; Alito and Thomas are just so transparently corrupt. Alito and Thomas actually appear to advise Trump's DOJ attorneys on how to file appeals and what arguments to use. Kavanaugh will side with the group of conservatives. What Roberts and Barrett are doing is giving us crumbs to embrace while handing Trump the entire pie.
I am certain that the firing of Gwinne Wilcox is clearly because she is both Black and female. That is all the excuse trump needs. He operates on the assumption that she will never see anything the way he does, even though he has no way of knowing that's true. I hope the SCOTUS upholds Humphrey's Executor.
Trump assumes "she will never see anything the way he does even though he has no way of knowing that's true".
Well I would certainly HOPE it's true!
I'm shocked. Before following Civil Discourse, the extent of my legal knowledge came from, SVU, Law and Order, Suits, Endeavour, Murder She Wrote, etc. Since following Civil Discourse I have learned so much about the rule of law, the Constitution, and the relationship between those constructs and the balance of powers governing the Presidency and Congress. Those constructs are, well, brilliant and have served the Republic well. It's still standing. All of this to say that I understood every word of your post tonight without having to spend time in reference books. Thank you for educating me.
That said, my heart is in my throat finally realizing that the greatest judicial power actually rests in the hands of the Supreme Court. Political power or political favour is not supposed to be in their hands. The integrity of and our trust in the Supreme Court rests on its ability to be non partisan in its decisions. We assume that they will understand and respect their role. At the same time, we also believe that the Constitution is a living breathing instrument with the capacity to evolve with the times and emerging norms reflective of the population. Life in the 1800's does not reflect reality of American life or its values today. The Federalist Society is way past its Best Before Date by a couple of hundred years. The Federalist Society today represents people whose intelligence never evolved. So sad.
The other day, Justice Alito, a federalist,said that he was 'stunned' by the majority decision to confirm that the United States of America has the responsibility to pay for work contracted by and performed by USAID contractors. In other words, Alito stands against the principle that the US government has the responsibility to pay its bills. Alito, in that statement says that the Supreme Court has the power to approve or disapprove of Congressional spending laws. Constitutionally, the power of purse belongs to Congress and only to Congress. Are Alito's remarks beyond the power and remit of the Supreme Court and are his remarks impeachable?
Joyce, Thank you so for your ability to teach the rule of law in ways we can understand.
My question is, why would the Supreme Court give trump more power when he is testing the waters by blatantly indicating his intention to ignore court rulings?
Why?? Because the Republican injustices on the Extreme Court are generally both ethically and morally corrupt, and because they can!
Ethically and morally corrupt, I agree, but why would they be so stupid? By giving him more power they are diminishing their judicial branch power....
Love the Extreme Court reference.
Alito is an extreme right theocrat with a huge chip on his shoulder - a mean little man with a lot of power. Thomas is completely corrupt. I used to hold the Court in great esteem. Now I hold only a few of the Justices in great esteem.
I'm having trouble finding the words for Alito's tirade after the 5-4 decision this week. Just jawdropping. And I have to admit to a grudging respect for Amy Coney Barrett. She has thus far proven to be her own person when the easy thing (and I think the expected thing at her nomination) would be to throw in with the right a la Lapdog Kavanaugh.
I actually wrote Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown and told them how sorry I feel that they have to go to work with those other people. Sotomayor actually said that sometimes she goes into her office, closes the door and cries....
Assuming many and soon all of the legislative powers into the Executive branch literally means - we no longer need a House of Representatives or a Senate which is why all of his signing of EO's does exactly this - eliminates the need to go through Congress. I cannot understand why these members of the House and Senate who clearly value their jobs and titles so much so they are willing to sell out our country for them do NOT understand they are being made redundant. He doesn't want a House or a Senate. A dictator or "king" as he pretends to be doesn't need a House or a Senate. And his "you won't need to vote again" is not only a reference to him assuming and staying in power, but a reference to there will be no one to vote for if he disassembles Congress. And still the GOP abides by his decisions. Damn, we have elected fools!
In some states of regions, we did not vote for GOP candidates and some, not all. are fighting back in addition to holding town halls!
I don't think he will be so bold as to seriously try to disband Congress. Why bother? Congress doesn't cost that much. He could try to cut back on their budget to reduce some "superfluous" staffers but he'd need to amend the Constitution to completely get rid of Congress and he can just ignore them for the most part without doing that.
Well, I hope you're right. I believe he will continue to ignore the Constitution, then continue to violate the court orders, including SCOTUS's so...
We need to have our own Apprentice show and tell Dumbold his own words “YOU’RE FIRED”
Search for the “Ides of Trump” or “Ides of March Trump” and the postcard protest “You’re fired” pink slip event scheduled for 3/15/25.
mpeach the bastards. https://jerryweiss.substack.com/p/remove-impeach-impeach
I agree with the premise but it is almost certainly reality that there is no way to actually remove ANYONE since the conviction requirement is 2/3 of the Senate. That would mean TWENTY republican Senators have to agree to vote to convict anyone impeached in order to remove them from office. It wasn't possible to get even THREE Senators to vote against any of Trump's cabinet except for Hegseth and that was just BARELY three.
You are just drinking too much kool aid if you seriously think you can remove anyone from Trump's cabinet let alone Trump himself by impeachment.
It isn't going to happen no matter how much it should.
I refuse to support delusional politics on EITHER side. This idea is just a total waste of energy.
we did...it was called "the election"
Thank you, Joyce! This is so clear! “When Congress provides for the appointment of officers whose functions, like those of the Federal Trade Commissioners, are of Legislative and judicial quality, rather than executive, and limits the grounds upon which they may be removed from office, the President has no constitutional power to remove them for reasons other than those so specified.” The Congress has all but abdicated their power to these phony co-kings, Musk/Trump. What will it take for them to rein themselves in? They are running away from their constituents by refusing to have more town-hall meetings. As someone pointed out, that's no different from taxation without representation. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to find their spines. Meanwhile, we keep pushing back.
It's almost like they think they have a birth right to their jobs and the authority it gives them rather than they are our reps by dint of our votes.
Yes, we must keep pushing back!
I honor and thank you for your clarity on the key points to understand, your careful research and excellent ability to teach us what is at stake about this crucial matter for all of us. It is a tipping point in our democracy experiment.
I wonder, in this chess game of politics ....whether there are legal minds working together now on future strategies to anticipate and plan possible future moves ahead?
Yes.
Thank you, Counsellor.
What Ally said, Bryan.
Project 2026.
This is more and more frightening each day. My cousin is reading Jason Stanley’s book, Erasing History- How Fascists Erase History. I told her I already have so much anxiety and less sleep, I’m not reading the book.
Please schedule a day off. Go out for brunch. We are all so grateful for you. 💙💙💙
Yolanda Arnold, you are exactly right, and that is the heart of the problem on the Court. Those four Justices, along with Chief Justice Roberts, are not approaching cases as if their task is settling disputes. They are approaching cases as an opportunity to push their policy preferences, a political agenda. That is not the proper role of courts.
“Long held norms that support the balance of power. “ Isn’t that in the Constitution?
Thanks, Joyce. Lots of people are asking about this, and i knew you would do a closer look at this.
Thank you for the clear explanation. Very helpful to this non-attorney.
The problem for Trump is that he seeks to overthrown many decades of settled law. You remember settled law--that's what Trump's nominees for the Extreme Court said Roe v. Wade was. The problem for us is that Trump and his cronies are engaged in a war against the Constitution, the law and democracy. And we need to meet war with war.
AG Barr was wrong. His acceptance of the President as an all powerful leader was wrong. Justice Roberts was wrong to not resist, strongly, the direction of the religiously influenced justices (who do not follow the precepts of christianity) and to think his ideas were unbiased. Trump has already stated publicly that he is the law. That's what he told the Governor of Maine. I am the law. No one in that room stood up to support her. Cowards, one and all. Four Democrats also voted to sanction Al Green (no one sanctioned MTG when she heckled Biden) when he protested Trump's speech. The answer to all this scary terrible stuff, is what? Is Trump or Musk or Vance going to go to jail if they ignore the law, the SCOTUS, and the Constitution? No. Is there anything we can do if he refuses to leave office, to stop elections, to turn us into a police state, like his buddy, Vlad, has. No. The answer is rallies like the one Bernie Sanders recently had in Kenosha. Did it get any coverage on any media? No. If the newspapers and the TV networks, the internet and the other outlets of mass communication have to make the stockholders happy, and not cover the news, what is our recourse? Where are Obama, Clinton (both), Gore, and all the rest of our national Democrats? Why don't they have press conferences? Thank you, Joyce, for all you do every day. Keep sending us photos of your beautiful chickens......with their names!
It was 10 Dems who voted to censure Green! Two of them came from CA and I gave them hell!
Gluesenkamp sent me a fund-raising e-mail. My reply was that, since she had voted to censure Green, she would never be receiving any funds from this Democrat. I've written all three of my congress critters and asked them why they didn't all leave when he was escorted out by the sergeant at arms. Shameful.
YAY, James! I ended up giving money to Green!
Thanks for your hell raising, Marlene!
I am beyond disappointed with any democrat in this repub. administration,who would vote to censure a fellow democrat when marge 3 names disrupted congressional meetings without any protests of her behavior—-which was lies, not the truth Green espoused!
Thank you for clarifying this. 👍🏻