Late today, lawyers in the Special Counsel’s office and lawyers for Donald Trump filed the joint status report that wasn’t due until tomorrow in the Trump election interference case in the District of Columbia.
Yes I so fully agree. We don’t have a 3rd branch of government protecting the people. It’s incredibly hard to understand how callus and uncalled for this Court is. The only cure is expansion.
Expansion, enforceable ethics code, retroactive term limits. SCOTUS' decisions on Citizens United, Dobbs and presidential immunity are so outrageous and impactful that we must do something to ward off more devastating decisions.
Susan. I totally agree that numerous of the Roberts Court decisions need to be overturned as fast as possible when we get the expansion and the term limits which are critical. The Roberts 6 have decided they know best what should happen in this country and it is their mob boss Toddler-Trump or someone like him in power and who cares about what the American people want! Not OK!
Ruth, I would not be surprised if they were affiliated with the Heritage Foundation. That's what really runs trump. And I completely agree that trump in power is not OK.
And for Citizens United, I think we have more than enough proof of the harm done by this ruling. In addition, overhaul of the FEC and a more balanced decision-making process there could undo some of the damage that SCOTUS has inflicted on the election process. I also think rational people are getting tired of lawsuits before an obviously biased court taking the place of established law and its remedies.
You point to needful changes. The logic of the changes is mostly clear, the specific terse literal formulations that could become Amendment or statute are the challenge. The logic of constitutional democracy is challenging, but each of us can contribute practical insights and questions as we work on formulating and formalization.
We cannot look ahead and imagine all or most of the 'devasting decisions', especially with a character presented by the current Supreme Court majority. We can present a strong set of formulas for evaluating judicial opinion in relation to the Constitution as expression of relationship of deliberate separate authority, which when combined for the sufficient and necessary mechanisms of governance that contribute to and embody people's democratic voluntary governance. The constant inter-action of these four groupings holds the keys or essential conventions. The final accountability rests with us, the people, as we check each other's excesses through the public discussion of shared interests, responsibilities and rule of law protections.
Can the Fed sue SCOTUS for deliberate misreading of the constitution? If not, why not? Can a President under emergency powers dissolve the court? Can she vacate all prior rulings after Kavanaugh was appointed due to corruption? If not, why not?
Again, I am a citizen, not an attorney, so my view is as informed as I can make it.
I do not see that possibility. The path, as envisioned by the Constitution, is to re-strengthen the other branches through chosen action by an inclusive, we the people set of efforts. Congress has been lax, often irresponsible. The resulting legal weaknesses leaves us, the people, vulnerable to excesses by the Executive and federal Judiciary, which excesses can be manifested also in consciously distorted and anti-democratic institutional development in society.
We can reassert our political role only if we have that understanding of the Constitution in its most terse formulation. Why? Well it seems to me that, in that essential formulation, government by the people forms and reforms a minimal but effective democratic system of law and of forming and adapting civil society institutions that support an informed people being factually engaged, cooperatively busy and productive. Congress is our main tool; elections help us to have lawful, peaceful transitions of those in elected offices, a candid admission that change is as inevitable as it is useful, but it must be based on democratic participation.
Strong active work by the people elected to or appointed to work within each branch is required to constitutionally legislate, to constitutionally execute, and to constutionally interpret just outcomes when laws or actions within the scope of laws are questioned.
Final authority belongs to the people, and our most useful tool and most constitutionally protected tool is Congress.
Hence the actions we now see on term limits, and so forth.
Please keep this discussion going.
I share your sense of the recklessly poor and remorselessly destructive decisions being handed down. And, being in my 70s, I do not see it as new so much as I do destructive, destructive of the constitutional system.
Much needs to done with more clarity of understanding that is more self-evident to most.
There must be mechanisms to undo the damage done by a corrupt governmental body. For example, can’t the President/FBI void a coal permit if it were discovered it was obtained through bribery? This really is the same situation.
Well, bribery and rampant corruption in the current SCOTUS. When the integrity of a body is broken, why on earth would any of their judgements not be vacated? They aren’t valid.
A branch of the government cannot unilaterally declare another branch out of compliance with the law. Even within a branch of the government, such as your example, the president or designee (Commerce Dept or maybe EPA if it was a coal permit) might set in motion machinery to rescind the permit, but the bribing company could file a lawsuit, which is under the Judicial branch...and it could end up guess-where, on Clarence Thomas' desk!
However, you will be surprised to know that one of the contemporary major miscreants was actually a key party in the one similar case I know of that was successful and that could be our answer in 2025 (no, not the worst seller of the same title!). We'd have to have a good lawyer in charge of the Federal Government...Ka Ma La!
Back to legal history:
The Chief Justice (yes, John Roberts) noticed that Judge Marilyn Patel of the San Francisco District Court issued a bench decision declaring the convictions in the 1940s of three Americans was illegal and based upon wartime documents suppressed by the Justice Department when the three men unsuccessfully argued they were illegally detained and imprisoned.
Spoiler Alert: Roberts is a good guy in the following paragraphs!!
{I should preface that my wife and I knew these three plaintiffs in the 1970s, as well as many members of their pro bono legal teams. The communities of San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland (OR) all knew the men had been screwed. I should also say that I am not an attorney and have only a colloquial-level knowledge of the events I summarize.
Three teams of attorneys, historians, and strategists discovered the suppressed wartime and litigation documents in musty federal files. Due to the three men having already lost their appeals decades earlier due to DOJ and DOD misconduct, the lawyers tried the rare technique, "coram nobis". In 1983 the three teams announced their joint lawsuits. The case in San Francisco was filed first and Federal District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel drew the case. It was random, and she was also known as a liberal.
Coram Nobis: we understood it had been never successful and was very rarely attempted due to the extremely high level of proof required.
When the lead case, Fred Korematsu's, was heard, Judge Patel issued her decision from the bench, ruling totally in favor of Fred and against the government. The other two cases were similarly declared in favor of Minoru Yasui and Gordon Hirabayashi. The DOJ declined to appeal the cases. Their 1940s convictions were set aside and we all celebrated not just these victories, but also, President Bush (the first one) would sign and send an apology letter to living survivors of the WW2 FDR concentration camps. Plus, a $20,000 partial compensation check for damages and suffering. (These were after Congress passed a law requiring the president to do so.) My wife and I were born too late to get either one, but our parents all got the apology and payments in 1990. The lawsuits and the Congressional pressure campaign were parallel tracks in the Japanese American community across the nation to retrieve our rights. A common heritage of these efforts: two of our nieces in Maryland are now among many fourth and fifth generation, fulltime activists against federal detention camps (e.g. both Trump and Biden are using them against migrants).
Because the cases were decided at the initial stage, the principle was unaddressed by any appellate court, including the Supreme Court. So in practice, a Latinx or PRC asylum hopeful or their infant kids could be re-incarcerated by Stephen Miller (to name just one accomplice) and it would be potentially legal.
Chief Justice Roberts when he was just a newbie in his job (memory takes over here) decided sua sponte (on his own actions) that he on behalf of the Court would validate the decisions. (A friend of ours on the Court staff at the time told us Roberts also changed the regulations, obsoleting the coram nobis term and substituting an identical procedure. He was also a lawyer so his kind explanation flew over my head. So: find yourself a real lawyer and they'll find you the right pages.)
It seems to me (non-attorney) that the current cabal of Trumpists (plus the other 2 or 3 habitual suspects) have a ton of decisions that are subject to modern coram nobis filings. Others still may deserve trash-canning fates possible only by other means. I.e., the Dred Scott decision by Roger Taney is equivalent of the Dobbs decision by Alito and Thomas. But find yourself a graduate of a legit law school, even if we are all in this together!!
The whole judicial and accountability process strikes me as irritatingly slow; I am not an attorney and not involved with the criminal justice system outside of 'Witness for the Prosecution'.
😡
It seems to me that the immunity doctrine promulgated by the Supreme Court -- or as a fan of Dr Cox Richardson quips, "extreme court" -- will collapse under the practical scrutiny of cases tried.
⚖️
¿Will actions proven to be taken out of self-interest rather than, and divergent from, the public interest be anything but "unofficial acts"? Emoluments clause or Logan Act, ¿anyone?
🤔
With respect to Court expansion: it should be a prerogative of a Democratic admin. to add two Justices to the Supreme Court to undo the anti-institutional court-packing by Senator McConnell and President Trump.
💡
That, at least, would restore the one vote G.O.P.-appointed majority that ought properly to be in place. Current 'institutionalism' should correct, not enable, previous anti-institutionalism. Precedent can only go so far as one saw with the Dred Scott decision or the Alien and Sedition Acts.
💔
As we all understand, such an expansion addresses only the numbers side of the problem, not the compromised quality of three Justices -- Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas -- unfit to be on the Supreme Court.
🤢
Two (i.e., Justices Alito and Thomas) from naked abuses of ethics and two (i.e., Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas) for having a weird relationship with power. the chair for the tenth Justice really should go to Attorney General Garland as he should be seated on the Court today.
Bill, the Supreme Court majority is corrupt. That’s all there is to it. Not only are they not protecting citizens, they are and have been actively pursuing an agenda meant to remove power from the people and give it to the executive branch of our government. In fact, an authoritarian/fascist regime can’t exist if citizens have power to vote the dictator out of office.
That’s why Trump talks about voting as if it’s a burden.
To paraphrase Trump, -Don’t worry folks, vote just one more time to put ME in power and you’ll never have to vote again- I’ll tell you how to live your life
so you don’t have to make pesky decisions anymore. The income taxes you pay will come directly to me and I’ll use that money for YOUR benefit because I want you to live your best possible life, AFTER I skim
50% off the top, end social security & medicare, end
Meg, it's terrible to correct someone...as if I don't make mistakes...but, I think you meant grifter. Of all the things CFDT is, he's not a drifter unless you meant his meandering mind.
I've never thought as a drifter as a grifter. A drifter is someone that travels and meanders from place to place. A grifter is someone that is a fraud. FYI: And I'm the daughter of an English teacher. 🙂
Pamela, I love learning about the commonalities people on this thread have! It's terrific! I am a retired teacher and am glad so many here have teachers as family members!
The six radical justices made up this immunity garbage, not to mention throwing out 240 years of precedent. They did this in support of a mentally ill man baby. The immunity argument his lawyers put forth is not one a parent would tolerate from a child.
Jenn isn’t referring to a precedent as far as I can tell.
I think she’s referring to the corrupt Supreme Crt’s majority decision on presidential immunity.
“Last month the U.S.Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v. United States providing broad presidential immunity. “The Court declared that a President is immune from prosecution when exercising the ‘core powers’ of the presidency. Immunity means a person cannot be prosecuted. This is a radical departure from the Constitutional order and American history – it elevates the President to a position like a monarch. It is at odds with an essential American value that nobody should be above the law.”
“During arguments on this case, a question was posed to Trump lawyers about whether a President could dispatch a ‘SEAL Team’ to kill his political enemies. Like the dissent articulated, the Court’s decision Monday answers that question with ‘yes.’ Under this ruling, if a President, in their official capacity, orders the military to kill other Americans – judges, elected officials, reporters, your neighbor – they can do so. I think most Americans, and I include myself, think that should be a crime. But the Court decision says that a President who did that would be immune from accountability under criminal law.”
Alas Meg, I was not surprised at the package for Baby Donnie. I think the 6 are part of Trump's mob. I hate feeling that way. I think the only reason they didn't want to hear Trump's challenge to sentencing for his 34 guilty convictions was that Roberts and his mob had ruled that we can have a king and that bribes after the fact are not bribes, neither decision is constitutional nor popular. I would love it if somehow we could get the word out about what the SC 6 are doing and maybe even revisiting just how they got nominated and voted onto the court. People should know what additional insanities from the SC we are in for if Trump is re-elected.
I’m all for Jack Smith making sure all his i(s) are dotted and his t(s) are crossed. lowercased don’s attorneys will just have to wait to try and delay it and have
Judge Chutkan say NO!
This case is important. Maybe don will have lost the election before it goes to trial.
Thank you, Joyce for always explaining and keeping us abreast of the latest developments. “We’re in this together.”
If we win the House & Senate as well as the presidency, the Supreme Court will change in many ways. Those on the Supreme Court who have abused their positions may find themselves impeached and removed. More fair and impartial Justices would replace them who would ensure DJT was held accountable.
It'd be really nice if we could. I'd like to see them prosecuted for taking gifts from people who clearly had business before the Court. I don't want them to slink quietly into their government retirement paid for by the very people they cheated. I doubt that Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo would be offering them anything (or paid-for legal help) once their stooges retire.
Thomas, Alito, and Roberts should be impeached for corruption. Come to think of it, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett should be impeached for lying under oath about precedent during the confirmation hearings.
Agreed. I’ve been telling everyone to VOTE BLUE UP and DOWN the BALLOT. We need the Senate, House, and state Judges to all be blue. Then we will be able to take care of SCOTUS and impeach others who are puppets of lowercased don.
I think I’m going to be the lady that always says that and also to go to Vote.org just to check and make sure you’re registered. They can also sign you up for an absentee ballot or register you to vote. If you opt in they will even tell you who is on the ballot and you can print out who you are going to vote for and take it with you. I feel like I should make a PSA announcement. I’m not going to stop as I don’t want that felonious, lying lowercased don and his sidekick jd to win.
Likely not impeached and convicted as the threshold is still too high. But if an additional 6 judges are appointed then these 6 can be pushed to the back of the room and maybe retire. And perhaps just as important would be the passage of the voting rights act.....damn the filibuster full speed ahead!
Is Roberts included in your count? Putting it kindly , he's ineffective. Putting it less kindly, his wife presents conflicts of interest that could possibly have resulted in recusals he hasn't made.
That would be an awesome scenario. It's a stunner how someone who called for suspending the constitution over his loss in 2020, and now says he will terminate it can even run for office. Too bad Biden can't jail the Supremes for disloyalty to the constitution!😃
The time to lay the electoral college to rest is now. The very essence of democracy rests on the idea of 'representation by population' one person, one vote. That is how the presidency should be determined The goal of ensuring influence for people in less populated states in political affairs is taken care of by the Senate, two Senators per state, regardless of population. I'm OK with that because it provides a basis for compromise, which in the end, underpins our consent to be governed and makes democracy work.
The problem I have with the Senate is the discrepancy between Wyoming and California populations. I think there needs to be some protection for the very small states and some protection for the larger states from the small states. So not enamored of the Senate as the solution under its current structure.
I understand your concern re: the Senate with respect to fairness. I'm not an expert on political systems but do like blue skying solutions. Anything that provokes thought and discussion is hopeful and possibly helpful. So, might experts consider situations where states with a small population get an additional vote?
I just can't accept the justification of the electoral college in today's world. We should not be electing POTUS by state. Having a second election by state. Which is what the electoral college is. We should be electing by person.
If you want to win in the electoral college maybe you have to appeal to the entire country, not just the NEO MARXIST post modern progressives in a handful of cities.
Maybe the loathsome, church going, white middle class you hate might require
I'm actually part of the church going white middle class. What I find loathsome is people like you who spew hate and anger as a way to respond to civil discourse. So lame.
I think he will lose the popular vote, but the local certifications that seem very insecure are a cause of very real danger to Democracy and accurate vote counts. It feels like we really have no real choice in who wins.
Yes, Marc Elias and his legal team are all prepared to sue election deniers that the red states have in place. Read Democracy Docket for more info on Elias.
Trump has never won the popular vote. The majority of Americans have never wanted him as POTUS. The electoral college is what I fear. It must be abolished.
Right now there is only one path that makes sense in the weird world in which we live. Harris Walz win on November 5th and by a margin that diminishes, ideally eliminates all the shenanigans teams 45 are planning. The court cases must not be hurried. It is far better to get as much right as possible as one thing is certain, six black robed men will do all they can to get 45 off. A beating at the polls might just put them on red alert not to make too dicey a ruling(s) in his favor for fear a Democrat controlled other two branches may be energized to put SCOTUS on a more sane footing. Am I dreaming, fantasizing? The reception H/W is getting gives me hope.
Yes, she is now. When she was younger, she actually served as a “handmaiden” to her “masters” in the Roman Catholic group/sect she lived with. And she was proud to do so. (Icky to me, but to each her own…🤪)
Thank you, Joyce for giving us an understanding of this law. I still believe, from my reading of the Constitution, that the finding of those six justices is wrong. I see no language even suggesting that ANYONE in the Government is held harmless in pursuit of criminal activity in or out of office, George W. Bush began what I still believe was an illegal war against Iraq, but he did it in good faith so it was not criminal behavior. Inciting an unofficial mob to attack, break into, steal, and damage a Federal Building and stealing top secret documents for his personal use are definitely felonies.
The Wheels of Justice do indeed move slowly. We must have patience and trust that no matter how slowly those wheels revolve, Justice will win in the end. [I just wish I were more patient (:-)]
Because he’s a revolutionary fighting against the “deep state” that has taken over our government, our country. His propaganda and that of his sycophants is thick with this sort of rhetoric. Thus the insurrection was an official act, an official duty of a president to fight the “take over”. It’s amazingly twisted yet he has 50% of Americans believing it’s true. Also has them believing that he, and only he can stop the take over!
Ideas on how to stop a renegade court from destroying democracy? Any connection between the Supreme Court and Elon Musk? I can't believe I'm saying this but left wing billionaires need to pony up and investigate Musk who, as we speak, is openly using his billions to destroy free and fair elections at the local level.
All I remember on January 7, was the newspaper headline of " Trump Incites Mob" and there were many who thought he would be removed from office within days. We are past the summer solstice rapidly heading toward the 4th anniversary of that awful day with many doubts if the perpetrator will ever be held accountable. What a weird country we live in. I have hope that Kamala will appoint people who are able to handle this mess, what we have is fake justice right now.
In Trump's Presser today he said that nobody died on Jan 6th. Geeze what a lying loser. Oh and he also said, "I won that case in Florida!" Nothing like spinning another lie.
At the maniacs "press conference " today what happened to the press- did they have their vocal cords removed?? Not one journalist pushed back on the the lies which he spouted- are they afraid of him?????
The Press Conference was held at Mar-a-lago. Trump territory. So the press was likely pretty intimidated. And Trump was prefacing many answers with, "What a stupid question!" The press are obligated to be there. I would not like that assignment.
Why are they obligated to be there? Will they be fired if they refuse to participate in what is obviously a sham? Will they be fired if they ask any follow-up questions? Or fact check a ridiculous statement about helicopters? Are Trump sycophants the only ones who could afford a ticket to Florida in time?
Joyce, thank you, as always, for helping me understand.
Have to say I've been outraged at the Supreme Court for its immunity decision (among other things!), and outraged on behalf of Jack Smith, Judge Chutkan, and others who are intending actual and lawful justice!
Perhaps all the nasty trump evidence comes out two weeks before election day, in the press, not the courtroom. Perhaps there’s several ways to hold trump to account, in the public square
We already know the Imperial Court will overturn any conviction, so why bother? Hoist him up where Alito et al have no sway
Dave: Wish Ds would do that but they’re just too nice. More likely that Christopher Wray pulls a Comey and releases something just before early voting starts.
Maybe TRump will do something incredibly stupid when he loses the election in November and President Biden can use his powers of immunity for official acts to throw TRump behind bars for awhile, along with the corrupt Republican in Congress who've been aiding and abetting TRump all along. I can dream, can't I?!
Thank you for explaining what is happening, and how vital it is to get it right. Nothing about the defendant's conduct on January 6th should be construed as an "official act", in my opinion, unless inciting a riot to overthrow an election is somehow sanctioned by the Supreme Court, which may be the case. But it's outrageous. Far and fair is better than fast, but when I step back and look at the bigger picture, it's just ridiculous. But here we are.
Thank you, as always! Frustrating, but as you say, three weeks is not that long, plus closer to the time people are voting. And better to go further together than fast alone.
In trying to understand the Supreme Court's rationale for its blanket decision that the President, acting within his Constitutional authority as President, cannot be criminally charged for any of his acts performed within the scope of his lawful authority.
For example, while President Obama ordered the execution of Osama bin Laden, I don't think that any reasonable American would doubt that he had the lawful authority within his Presidential duties under the Constitution to order the hit.
I think that the basic principle of the Court's ruling turns on whether the act or acts in question fall within the scope of the President's authority. If, for example, President Obama ordered the same fate for Donald Trump when Obama was President, the reasonable man would have concluded that such execution was outside the scope of President Obama's authority. The principle of conduct outside the scope of one'e authority is deeply embedded in our common law and is referred to as "ultra vires" acts.
I believe that the Supreme Court promulgated a general principle under the rubric of "Presidential immunity from prosecution" to apply to those acts that are within the scope of the President's Constitutional authority, explicitly rejecting those ultra vires acts, or acts outside the scope of the President's authority, as being protected by the immunity principle.
I further believe that in the regular practice of setting forth general principles of law, that the Court is leaving it up to the lower courts to apply this principle to cases before them, and, in doing so, create precedents, subject to higher court judicial review, to establish the legal application of this principle to the facts of the case.
My own opinion here is that the entirety of Trump's acts to quash the legitimate Electoral College vote amidst his provoked storming of the Capitol to create chaos and government disfunction along with his conspiracy to plant fake state Electors to replace the lawfully elected Electoral College Electors were committed not as the President of the United States but in his private capacity as a candidate running to be elected President of the United States for a second term.
That is, I believe that all of Trump's acts were committed by Donald J. Trump citizen, rather than Donald J. Trump President and that all such acts were outside the scope of his lawful authority as the President of the United States.
That seems the most logical take. Could one then also say that if Biden put a hit on Trump as a terrorist to protect the Constitution, that he is acting within his duties? It's a horrible scenario that would no doubt result in turmoil, but seems like one allowable outcome.
True, but I believe some of the rationale was they were looking past the traitor in making this decision.
I think a more interesting outcome under presidential immunity would be President Biden or Harris finding that Thomas and Alito committed actual crimes and orders their immediate arrest.
What if the Special Counsel submits to Judge Chutkan that all four charges are based on the traitor acting outside his official duties. Would that not require then an evidentiary hearing where all the evidence is presented and becomes part of the public record. The Judge can rule what is or isn’t admissible but is still available to the public. He could then be tried in the court of public opinion.
The Court really tied this up with a red ribbon for Trump. What a damn mess to protect a mob boss, con man, and drifter.
Yes I so fully agree. We don’t have a 3rd branch of government protecting the people. It’s incredibly hard to understand how callus and uncalled for this Court is. The only cure is expansion.
Expansion, enforceable ethics code, retroactive term limits. SCOTUS' decisions on Citizens United, Dobbs and presidential immunity are so outrageous and impactful that we must do something to ward off more devastating decisions.
I would like to see those really bad decisions rescinded.
Susan. I totally agree that numerous of the Roberts Court decisions need to be overturned as fast as possible when we get the expansion and the term limits which are critical. The Roberts 6 have decided they know best what should happen in this country and it is their mob boss Toddler-Trump or someone like him in power and who cares about what the American people want! Not OK!
Ruth, I would not be surprised if they were affiliated with the Heritage Foundation. That's what really runs trump. And I completely agree that trump in power is not OK.
You mean the Federalist Society, who wrote Project 2025 and chose these justices.
Alito
Thomas
Roberts
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barret
Roberts KILLED the VOTING RIGHTS ACT, and he MUST be held ACCOUNTABLE in WAYS that will REVERBERATE throughout the UNIVERSE!!
And for Citizens United, I think we have more than enough proof of the harm done by this ruling. In addition, overhaul of the FEC and a more balanced decision-making process there could undo some of the damage that SCOTUS has inflicted on the election process. I also think rational people are getting tired of lawsuits before an obviously biased court taking the place of established law and its remedies.
Thank you for this comment, Ms Stevens.
You point to needful changes. The logic of the changes is mostly clear, the specific terse literal formulations that could become Amendment or statute are the challenge. The logic of constitutional democracy is challenging, but each of us can contribute practical insights and questions as we work on formulating and formalization.
We cannot look ahead and imagine all or most of the 'devasting decisions', especially with a character presented by the current Supreme Court majority. We can present a strong set of formulas for evaluating judicial opinion in relation to the Constitution as expression of relationship of deliberate separate authority, which when combined for the sufficient and necessary mechanisms of governance that contribute to and embody people's democratic voluntary governance. The constant inter-action of these four groupings holds the keys or essential conventions. The final accountability rests with us, the people, as we check each other's excesses through the public discussion of shared interests, responsibilities and rule of law protections.
Can the Fed sue SCOTUS for deliberate misreading of the constitution? If not, why not? Can a President under emergency powers dissolve the court? Can she vacate all prior rulings after Kavanaugh was appointed due to corruption? If not, why not?
Thank you for the questions.
Again, I am a citizen, not an attorney, so my view is as informed as I can make it.
I do not see that possibility. The path, as envisioned by the Constitution, is to re-strengthen the other branches through chosen action by an inclusive, we the people set of efforts. Congress has been lax, often irresponsible. The resulting legal weaknesses leaves us, the people, vulnerable to excesses by the Executive and federal Judiciary, which excesses can be manifested also in consciously distorted and anti-democratic institutional development in society.
We can reassert our political role only if we have that understanding of the Constitution in its most terse formulation. Why? Well it seems to me that, in that essential formulation, government by the people forms and reforms a minimal but effective democratic system of law and of forming and adapting civil society institutions that support an informed people being factually engaged, cooperatively busy and productive. Congress is our main tool; elections help us to have lawful, peaceful transitions of those in elected offices, a candid admission that change is as inevitable as it is useful, but it must be based on democratic participation.
Strong active work by the people elected to or appointed to work within each branch is required to constitutionally legislate, to constitutionally execute, and to constutionally interpret just outcomes when laws or actions within the scope of laws are questioned.
Final authority belongs to the people, and our most useful tool and most constitutionally protected tool is Congress.
Hence the actions we now see on term limits, and so forth.
Please keep this discussion going.
I share your sense of the recklessly poor and remorselessly destructive decisions being handed down. And, being in my 70s, I do not see it as new so much as I do destructive, destructive of the constitutional system.
Much needs to done with more clarity of understanding that is more self-evident to most.
There must be mechanisms to undo the damage done by a corrupt governmental body. For example, can’t the President/FBI void a coal permit if it were discovered it was obtained through bribery? This really is the same situation.
Well, bribery and rampant corruption in the current SCOTUS. When the integrity of a body is broken, why on earth would any of their judgements not be vacated? They aren’t valid.
A branch of the government cannot unilaterally declare another branch out of compliance with the law. Even within a branch of the government, such as your example, the president or designee (Commerce Dept or maybe EPA if it was a coal permit) might set in motion machinery to rescind the permit, but the bribing company could file a lawsuit, which is under the Judicial branch...and it could end up guess-where, on Clarence Thomas' desk!
However, you will be surprised to know that one of the contemporary major miscreants was actually a key party in the one similar case I know of that was successful and that could be our answer in 2025 (no, not the worst seller of the same title!). We'd have to have a good lawyer in charge of the Federal Government...Ka Ma La!
Back to legal history:
The Chief Justice (yes, John Roberts) noticed that Judge Marilyn Patel of the San Francisco District Court issued a bench decision declaring the convictions in the 1940s of three Americans was illegal and based upon wartime documents suppressed by the Justice Department when the three men unsuccessfully argued they were illegally detained and imprisoned.
Spoiler Alert: Roberts is a good guy in the following paragraphs!!
{I should preface that my wife and I knew these three plaintiffs in the 1970s, as well as many members of their pro bono legal teams. The communities of San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland (OR) all knew the men had been screwed. I should also say that I am not an attorney and have only a colloquial-level knowledge of the events I summarize.
{For an excellent summary: https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Coram_nobis_cases/}
Three teams of attorneys, historians, and strategists discovered the suppressed wartime and litigation documents in musty federal files. Due to the three men having already lost their appeals decades earlier due to DOJ and DOD misconduct, the lawyers tried the rare technique, "coram nobis". In 1983 the three teams announced their joint lawsuits. The case in San Francisco was filed first and Federal District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel drew the case. It was random, and she was also known as a liberal.
Coram Nobis: we understood it had been never successful and was very rarely attempted due to the extremely high level of proof required.
When the lead case, Fred Korematsu's, was heard, Judge Patel issued her decision from the bench, ruling totally in favor of Fred and against the government. The other two cases were similarly declared in favor of Minoru Yasui and Gordon Hirabayashi. The DOJ declined to appeal the cases. Their 1940s convictions were set aside and we all celebrated not just these victories, but also, President Bush (the first one) would sign and send an apology letter to living survivors of the WW2 FDR concentration camps. Plus, a $20,000 partial compensation check for damages and suffering. (These were after Congress passed a law requiring the president to do so.) My wife and I were born too late to get either one, but our parents all got the apology and payments in 1990. The lawsuits and the Congressional pressure campaign were parallel tracks in the Japanese American community across the nation to retrieve our rights. A common heritage of these efforts: two of our nieces in Maryland are now among many fourth and fifth generation, fulltime activists against federal detention camps (e.g. both Trump and Biden are using them against migrants).
Because the cases were decided at the initial stage, the principle was unaddressed by any appellate court, including the Supreme Court. So in practice, a Latinx or PRC asylum hopeful or their infant kids could be re-incarcerated by Stephen Miller (to name just one accomplice) and it would be potentially legal.
Chief Justice Roberts when he was just a newbie in his job (memory takes over here) decided sua sponte (on his own actions) that he on behalf of the Court would validate the decisions. (A friend of ours on the Court staff at the time told us Roberts also changed the regulations, obsoleting the coram nobis term and substituting an identical procedure. He was also a lawyer so his kind explanation flew over my head. So: find yourself a real lawyer and they'll find you the right pages.)
It seems to me (non-attorney) that the current cabal of Trumpists (plus the other 2 or 3 habitual suspects) have a ton of decisions that are subject to modern coram nobis filings. Others still may deserve trash-canning fates possible only by other means. I.e., the Dred Scott decision by Roger Taney is equivalent of the Dobbs decision by Alito and Thomas. But find yourself a graduate of a legit law school, even if we are all in this together!!
Also, make DC and Puerto Rico states, which in all probability means four more Democratic senators.
The whole judicial and accountability process strikes me as irritatingly slow; I am not an attorney and not involved with the criminal justice system outside of 'Witness for the Prosecution'.
😡
It seems to me that the immunity doctrine promulgated by the Supreme Court -- or as a fan of Dr Cox Richardson quips, "extreme court" -- will collapse under the practical scrutiny of cases tried.
⚖️
¿Will actions proven to be taken out of self-interest rather than, and divergent from, the public interest be anything but "unofficial acts"? Emoluments clause or Logan Act, ¿anyone?
🤔
With respect to Court expansion: it should be a prerogative of a Democratic admin. to add two Justices to the Supreme Court to undo the anti-institutional court-packing by Senator McConnell and President Trump.
💡
That, at least, would restore the one vote G.O.P.-appointed majority that ought properly to be in place. Current 'institutionalism' should correct, not enable, previous anti-institutionalism. Precedent can only go so far as one saw with the Dred Scott decision or the Alien and Sedition Acts.
💔
As we all understand, such an expansion addresses only the numbers side of the problem, not the compromised quality of three Justices -- Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas -- unfit to be on the Supreme Court.
🤢
Two (i.e., Justices Alito and Thomas) from naked abuses of ethics and two (i.e., Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas) for having a weird relationship with power. the chair for the tenth Justice really should go to Attorney General Garland as he should be seated on the Court today.
Correct
Bill, the Supreme Court majority is corrupt. That’s all there is to it. Not only are they not protecting citizens, they are and have been actively pursuing an agenda meant to remove power from the people and give it to the executive branch of our government. In fact, an authoritarian/fascist regime can’t exist if citizens have power to vote the dictator out of office.
That’s why Trump talks about voting as if it’s a burden.
To paraphrase Trump, -Don’t worry folks, vote just one more time to put ME in power and you’ll never have to vote again- I’ll tell you how to live your life
so you don’t have to make pesky decisions anymore. The income taxes you pay will come directly to me and I’ll use that money for YOUR benefit because I want you to live your best possible life, AFTER I skim
50% off the top, end social security & medicare, end
public schools and repeal Affordable healthcare.
Meg, it's terrible to correct someone...as if I don't make mistakes...but, I think you meant grifter. Of all the things CFDT is, he's not a drifter unless you meant his meandering mind.
It's not terrible to correct someone. Spoken as a teacher here.
“Drifter” is also a synonym for fraudster
I've never thought as a drifter as a grifter. A drifter is someone that travels and meanders from place to place. A grifter is someone that is a fraud. FYI: And I'm the daughter of an English teacher. 🙂
Thanks to you both for the smiles
I'm the proud and grateful daughter of an English teacher too Megan!
Pamela, I love learning about the commonalities people on this thread have! It's terrific! I am a retired teacher and am glad so many here have teachers as family members!
It's no coincidence that Kamala Harris addressed the AFT right off the bat! And I'm a proud member.
Me too Ruth! Wish we all could get together for coffee . . .
I guess you could say speech wise - drifter fits. Meanders???
There you go. My bad. But wait, my dictionary gives these definitions only:
1. a person who is continually moving from place to place, without any fixed home or job.
2. a fishing boat equipped with a drift net.
You're 100% correct. A drifter is not a grifter.
Hope, and Trump's mind is drifting more and more each day!
He's a madman in every sense and a convicted felon to boot.
The six radical justices made up this immunity garbage, not to mention throwing out 240 years of precedent. They did this in support of a mentally ill man baby. The immunity argument his lawyers put forth is not one a parent would tolerate from a child.
What in the hell are you talking about? Cite the precedent you are referring to?
Are you saying President's have NO immunity? If so, what does the line start and stop?
This seems to be the rant a Trump deranged woman child.
I can’t see anyway to undo the Court’s decision (of giving immunity to Presidents) except to expand the Court.
Jenn isn’t referring to a precedent as far as I can tell.
I think she’s referring to the corrupt Supreme Crt’s majority decision on presidential immunity.
“Last month the U.S.Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v. United States providing broad presidential immunity. “The Court declared that a President is immune from prosecution when exercising the ‘core powers’ of the presidency. Immunity means a person cannot be prosecuted. This is a radical departure from the Constitutional order and American history – it elevates the President to a position like a monarch. It is at odds with an essential American value that nobody should be above the law.”
“During arguments on this case, a question was posed to Trump lawyers about whether a President could dispatch a ‘SEAL Team’ to kill his political enemies. Like the dissent articulated, the Court’s decision Monday answers that question with ‘yes.’ Under this ruling, if a President, in their official capacity, orders the military to kill other Americans – judges, elected officials, reporters, your neighbor – they can do so. I think most Americans, and I include myself, think that should be a crime. But the Court decision says that a President who did that would be immune from accountability under criminal law.”
(lofgren.house.gov)
Grifter
Alas Meg, I was not surprised at the package for Baby Donnie. I think the 6 are part of Trump's mob. I hate feeling that way. I think the only reason they didn't want to hear Trump's challenge to sentencing for his 34 guilty convictions was that Roberts and his mob had ruled that we can have a king and that bribes after the fact are not bribes, neither decision is constitutional nor popular. I would love it if somehow we could get the word out about what the SC 6 are doing and maybe even revisiting just how they got nominated and voted onto the court. People should know what additional insanities from the SC we are in for if Trump is re-elected.
Read "The Scheme" by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. It paints the picture how they got to be Supreme Court Justices.
Meg: How well, almost poetically, you sum up the mess in very plain-spoken yet tasteful prose.
That is a real talent, and I salute you.
Totally agree with your assessment.
I am restacking your comment!
Thank you so very much for sharing!
What stupid analysis. Maybe before you bring a case, maybe you should determine
whether it has any merit, and whether you have standing?
I’m all for Jack Smith making sure all his i(s) are dotted and his t(s) are crossed. lowercased don’s attorneys will just have to wait to try and delay it and have
Judge Chutkan say NO!
This case is important. Maybe don will have lost the election before it goes to trial.
Thank you, Joyce for always explaining and keeping us abreast of the latest developments. “We’re in this together.”
If we win the House & Senate as well as the presidency, the Supreme Court will change in many ways. Those on the Supreme Court who have abused their positions may find themselves impeached and removed. More fair and impartial Justices would replace them who would ensure DJT was held accountable.
It'd be really nice if we could. I'd like to see them prosecuted for taking gifts from people who clearly had business before the Court. I don't want them to slink quietly into their government retirement paid for by the very people they cheated. I doubt that Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo would be offering them anything (or paid-for legal help) once their stooges retire.
Thomas, Alito, and Roberts should be impeached for corruption. Come to think of it, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett should be impeached for lying under oath about precedent during the confirmation hearings.
I totally agree, but would be happy if Thomas and Alito were gone after first.
Agreed. I’ve been telling everyone to VOTE BLUE UP and DOWN the BALLOT. We need the Senate, House, and state Judges to all be blue. Then we will be able to take care of SCOTUS and impeach others who are puppets of lowercased don.
You'd think voters would have learned that elections have consequences by now. Kamala is inserting these reminders in her speeches.
I think I’m going to be the lady that always says that and also to go to Vote.org just to check and make sure you’re registered. They can also sign you up for an absentee ballot or register you to vote. If you opt in they will even tell you who is on the ballot and you can print out who you are going to vote for and take it with you. I feel like I should make a PSA announcement. I’m not going to stop as I don’t want that felonious, lying lowercased don and his sidekick jd to win.
Blue tsunami can drown them. https://www.fieldteam6.org/
I also support Beto’s “Poweredbypeople.org”, hoping to get rid of Ted Cruz!
More importantly, voting blue gets us people who care about ‘for the people, by the people
Likely not impeached and convicted as the threshold is still too high. But if an additional 6 judges are appointed then these 6 can be pushed to the back of the room and maybe retire. And perhaps just as important would be the passage of the voting rights act.....damn the filibuster full speed ahead!
We just need to replace three with justices of character.
Is Roberts included in your count? Putting it kindly , he's ineffective. Putting it less kindly, his wife presents conflicts of interest that could possibly have resulted in recusals he hasn't made.
If only….
Call in Jamie Raskin to Chair!
One can only hope!
I don’t think so.
He will definitely lose the election. Unfortunately, he may gain office again through the abomination know as the electoral college.😢
No. Biden and then Harris could declare martial law legally and enforce allegiance to the Constitution
That would be an awesome scenario. It's a stunner how someone who called for suspending the constitution over his loss in 2020, and now says he will terminate it can even run for office. Too bad Biden can't jail the Supremes for disloyalty to the constitution!😃
I thought he could use extreme action and eliminate them without prosecution.
Yeah, the old "Seal Team Six" exercise trump's appellate lawyer argued was legally immune.
What’s good for the goose…
Please explain.
The time to lay the electoral college to rest is now. The very essence of democracy rests on the idea of 'representation by population' one person, one vote. That is how the presidency should be determined The goal of ensuring influence for people in less populated states in political affairs is taken care of by the Senate, two Senators per state, regardless of population. I'm OK with that because it provides a basis for compromise, which in the end, underpins our consent to be governed and makes democracy work.
The problem I have with the Senate is the discrepancy between Wyoming and California populations. I think there needs to be some protection for the very small states and some protection for the larger states from the small states. So not enamored of the Senate as the solution under its current structure.
I understand your concern re: the Senate with respect to fairness. I'm not an expert on political systems but do like blue skying solutions. Anything that provokes thought and discussion is hopeful and possibly helpful. So, might experts consider situations where states with a small population get an additional vote?
I just can't accept the justification of the electoral college in today's world. We should not be electing POTUS by state. Having a second election by state. Which is what the electoral college is. We should be electing by person.
So the country should be RUN by 4 or 5 states?
How is that democracy?
If you want to win in the electoral college maybe you have to appeal to the entire country, not just the NEO MARXIST post modern progressives in a handful of cities.
Maybe the loathsome, church going, white middle class you hate might require
a little attention too.
I'm actually part of the church going white middle class. What I find loathsome is people like you who spew hate and anger as a way to respond to civil discourse. So lame.
Not worth replies, Cindy.
What in the hell are you talking about? The left wants to disenfranchise voters?
How is the hater? How is my discourse uncivil?
Russian Bot!
I think he will lose the popular vote, but the local certifications that seem very insecure are a cause of very real danger to Democracy and accurate vote counts. It feels like we really have no real choice in who wins.
Yes, Marc Elias and his legal team are all prepared to sue election deniers that the red states have in place. Read Democracy Docket for more info on Elias.
Do they plan to.sue before or after certification is to take place?
There are legal preparations being readied for this. It's not like the Democrats haven't been ON to their shenanigans.
Still he continues to slither around free
I am so befuddled that we all see what he and his cult are doing and nothing can or will stop it!!!
Harris is stopping all of it right now. Join the fun
How?
Trump has never won the popular vote. The majority of Americans have never wanted him as POTUS. The electoral college is what I fear. It must be abolished.
Try winning within the rules?
Agreed. A wise man comes prepared.
I have so much confidence in Jack Smith.
He is amazing.
Yes he is!
Right now there is only one path that makes sense in the weird world in which we live. Harris Walz win on November 5th and by a margin that diminishes, ideally eliminates all the shenanigans teams 45 are planning. The court cases must not be hurried. It is far better to get as much right as possible as one thing is certain, six black robed men will do all they can to get 45 off. A beating at the polls might just put them on red alert not to make too dicey a ruling(s) in his favor for fear a Democrat controlled other two branches may be energized to put SCOTUS on a more sane footing. Am I dreaming, fantasizing? The reception H/W is getting gives me hope.
Don’t forget that one of those 6 black-robed justices is a Handmaiden named Amy.
Yes thank you for the heads up.
Amy is not a Handmaiden. Amy is Serena Joy.
Yes, she is now. When she was younger, she actually served as a “handmaiden” to her “masters” in the Roman Catholic group/sect she lived with. And she was proud to do so. (Icky to me, but to each her own…🤪)
From your post to God’s ears. Overwhelming win everywhere. We all had better hang together or we’ll surely hang separately.
Wonderful thought!
Thank you, Joyce for giving us an understanding of this law. I still believe, from my reading of the Constitution, that the finding of those six justices is wrong. I see no language even suggesting that ANYONE in the Government is held harmless in pursuit of criminal activity in or out of office, George W. Bush began what I still believe was an illegal war against Iraq, but he did it in good faith so it was not criminal behavior. Inciting an unofficial mob to attack, break into, steal, and damage a Federal Building and stealing top secret documents for his personal use are definitely felonies.
The Wheels of Justice do indeed move slowly. We must have patience and trust that no matter how slowly those wheels revolve, Justice will win in the end. [I just wish I were more patient (:-)]
I still do not understand this immunity ruling. How on earth could inciting an insurrection in any be considered an official duty of a president????
Because he’s a revolutionary fighting against the “deep state” that has taken over our government, our country. His propaganda and that of his sycophants is thick with this sort of rhetoric. Thus the insurrection was an official act, an official duty of a president to fight the “take over”. It’s amazingly twisted yet he has 50% of Americans believing it’s true. Also has them believing that he, and only he can stop the take over!
Interesting thought, given that he IS the takeover…
That’s absolutely true Susan! But via propaganda etc he’s managed convince half of the country that it’s not true.
Judge Cannon is an accomplice.
Yes, but she is not yet a Supreme - and hopefully, with a Harris/Walz win this fall Cannon will also be impeached.
I would rather see her indicted .....
Agreed
Even better! (Even though I don't think she's done anything illegal.)
Jack Smith has the chops and moxie to see this overly complicated case to a successful conclusion.
That’s the problem. There won’t be a successful conclusion when you have a renegade Court making unlawful decisions.
Ideas on how to stop a renegade court from destroying democracy? Any connection between the Supreme Court and Elon Musk? I can't believe I'm saying this but left wing billionaires need to pony up and investigate Musk who, as we speak, is openly using his billions to destroy free and fair elections at the local level.
Pray for the demise of Citizens United.
He seems very deliberative and calm.
All I remember on January 7, was the newspaper headline of " Trump Incites Mob" and there were many who thought he would be removed from office within days. We are past the summer solstice rapidly heading toward the 4th anniversary of that awful day with many doubts if the perpetrator will ever be held accountable. What a weird country we live in. I have hope that Kamala will appoint people who are able to handle this mess, what we have is fake justice right now.
In Trump's Presser today he said that nobody died on Jan 6th. Geeze what a lying loser. Oh and he also said, "I won that case in Florida!" Nothing like spinning another lie.
o just a loser, Louise, but a rapist, a misogynist, a liar, a grifter, a thief, and a murderer.
At the maniacs "press conference " today what happened to the press- did they have their vocal cords removed?? Not one journalist pushed back on the the lies which he spouted- are they afraid of him?????
Seems like the maniac held approval over which members of the press were allowed?
That's the one area in which he is not stupid.
Shameful non-responses and pushback from the media during Trump’s PR session!
They were an embarrassment to their profession. Not a single journalist called out the most egregious lie “ no one died.”
Fear and fatigue induced by 30,000+ lies.
Watch Lawrence Odonnell’s show from last night. He ripped into the Media FIERCELY (including MSNBC)! It was very powerful.
I watched it. Lawrence was masterful in calling out the failings of the media to do their job.
They ask him totally stupid questions! So frustrating!
The Press Conference was held at Mar-a-lago. Trump territory. So the press was likely pretty intimidated. And Trump was prefacing many answers with, "What a stupid question!" The press are obligated to be there. I would not like that assignment.
Yeah, I would love it if he held a press conference and no one came. It’s just a silly dream of mine that he would blow an artery over it.
Made me laugh! O
Too effing bad!! That’s what they’re getting paid for, to get news out to the public. REAL NEWS not some fluff crap.
The reporters are being paid to please their corporate masters.
Why are they obligated to be there? Will they be fired if they refuse to participate in what is obviously a sham? Will they be fired if they ask any follow-up questions? Or fact check a ridiculous statement about helicopters? Are Trump sycophants the only ones who could afford a ticket to Florida in time?
Here is Lawrence O'Donnell's take on that "press conference" also shows the Harris/Walz address to the UAW - what a contrast!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/raw-video-harris-walz-address-200846911.html
I never knew how interesting all this could be, and I wouldn’t come close to the level of understanding that I have without you!
When I was young, I used to think that court cases basically STARTED with the trial - not ended with it.
Thanks for making it so a retired historian could understand it.
Joyce, thank you, as always, for helping me understand.
Have to say I've been outraged at the Supreme Court for its immunity decision (among other things!), and outraged on behalf of Jack Smith, Judge Chutkan, and others who are intending actual and lawful justice!
Perhaps all the nasty trump evidence comes out two weeks before election day, in the press, not the courtroom. Perhaps there’s several ways to hold trump to account, in the public square
We already know the Imperial Court will overturn any conviction, so why bother? Hoist him up where Alito et al have no sway
Dave: Wish Ds would do that but they’re just too nice. More likely that Christopher Wray pulls a Comey and releases something just before early voting starts.
Jason, that was the intent of my second paragraph but I probably could have done a better job of writing it
Maybe TRump will do something incredibly stupid when he loses the election in November and President Biden can use his powers of immunity for official acts to throw TRump behind bars for awhile, along with the corrupt Republican in Congress who've been aiding and abetting TRump all along. I can dream, can't I?!
Wish I could dream about that tonight!😃
Thank you for explaining what is happening, and how vital it is to get it right. Nothing about the defendant's conduct on January 6th should be construed as an "official act", in my opinion, unless inciting a riot to overthrow an election is somehow sanctioned by the Supreme Court, which may be the case. But it's outrageous. Far and fair is better than fast, but when I step back and look at the bigger picture, it's just ridiculous. But here we are.
https://x.com/ProfMMurray/status/1820116311935946923?t=iuOvQo1yTFm4xB9UzqCqIw&s=19
Women Lawyers for Harris
❤🤍💙
Love Melissa Murray and Jasmine Crockett!!
Everyone who spoke on the call was spectacular
Rep Katie Porter spoke also 😊
Thank you, as always! Frustrating, but as you say, three weeks is not that long, plus closer to the time people are voting. And better to go further together than fast alone.
In trying to understand the Supreme Court's rationale for its blanket decision that the President, acting within his Constitutional authority as President, cannot be criminally charged for any of his acts performed within the scope of his lawful authority.
For example, while President Obama ordered the execution of Osama bin Laden, I don't think that any reasonable American would doubt that he had the lawful authority within his Presidential duties under the Constitution to order the hit.
I think that the basic principle of the Court's ruling turns on whether the act or acts in question fall within the scope of the President's authority. If, for example, President Obama ordered the same fate for Donald Trump when Obama was President, the reasonable man would have concluded that such execution was outside the scope of President Obama's authority. The principle of conduct outside the scope of one'e authority is deeply embedded in our common law and is referred to as "ultra vires" acts.
I believe that the Supreme Court promulgated a general principle under the rubric of "Presidential immunity from prosecution" to apply to those acts that are within the scope of the President's Constitutional authority, explicitly rejecting those ultra vires acts, or acts outside the scope of the President's authority, as being protected by the immunity principle.
I further believe that in the regular practice of setting forth general principles of law, that the Court is leaving it up to the lower courts to apply this principle to cases before them, and, in doing so, create precedents, subject to higher court judicial review, to establish the legal application of this principle to the facts of the case.
My own opinion here is that the entirety of Trump's acts to quash the legitimate Electoral College vote amidst his provoked storming of the Capitol to create chaos and government disfunction along with his conspiracy to plant fake state Electors to replace the lawfully elected Electoral College Electors were committed not as the President of the United States but in his private capacity as a candidate running to be elected President of the United States for a second term.
That is, I believe that all of Trump's acts were committed by Donald J. Trump citizen, rather than Donald J. Trump President and that all such acts were outside the scope of his lawful authority as the President of the United States.
That seems the most logical take. Could one then also say that if Biden put a hit on Trump as a terrorist to protect the Constitution, that he is acting within his duties? It's a horrible scenario that would no doubt result in turmoil, but seems like one allowable outcome.
But it seems like someone said there was a "catch" in the SCOTUS ruling that made it just for Trump. Like Biden could not be immune.
True, but I believe some of the rationale was they were looking past the traitor in making this decision.
I think a more interesting outcome under presidential immunity would be President Biden or Harris finding that Thomas and Alito committed actual crimes and orders their immediate arrest.
What if the Special Counsel submits to Judge Chutkan that all four charges are based on the traitor acting outside his official duties. Would that not require then an evidentiary hearing where all the evidence is presented and becomes part of the public record. The Judge can rule what is or isn’t admissible but is still available to the public. He could then be tried in the court of public opinion.
That's what I thought.
I agree with you.
Thanks. Per your handle, it really is just a question of common sense.
Very well said. My thinking exactly.
Thanks.