If our democracy survives the next election, we can never again allow scotus (lower case intentional) to make these decisions that are unconstitutional, immoral, backward, knocking down the wall between church and state, and corrupt. There must be some recourse when they make these outrageous political and religious rulings. Major court reform is needed - and, despite what Injustice Alito thinks, the Constitution gives Congress the duty to decide how the court is run.
You may be right about the direction that SCOTUS will take on this, but I still feel it's premature to call. I see nothing wrong with the Justices exploring even the most extreme hypotheticals in order to test the outer boundaries of the idea of introducing immunity for the President. It doesn't necessarily prove that they support those positions. Obviously their track record is cause for concern, but I'd be inclined not to panic just yet.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to take cases based on hypotheticals, only actual cases. The fact that the right-wing justices weren’t interested in talking specifically about this case proves how broken the court is.
Excellent as usual. What a dictatorial Supreme Court. Perilous times...If Pierre Poilievre, #skinnyTrump, is elected in Canada, we will be in deep trouble as well...
I just skimmed Poilievre's 'pedia page and while he's a libertarian conservative who holds many positions I don't, he's a real, vetted politician who doesn't belong in the same category with the Ford brothers, let alone Trump. He's pro marijuana legalization, pro-choice and pro-immigration. He's also a bitcoin booster which doesn't thrill me and is anti-union, which thrills me less. So while if I were Canadian I'd never vote for him, I don't think he'd throw the country into chaos, either.
He's been called a populist, I guess for ambivalently cozying up to Canada's anti-"gender ideology" movement, but there's nothing in there implying he's a bigot.
I watched the YT vid of George Conway III explaining to Sarah Longwell how this wasn't that bad, and I was shaking my head that he was either willfully being deceitful, or he is truly delusional.
These arguments are bad, and there is no chance that Trump will be held accountable.
I listened to that pod as well. George Conway is a lawyer, not a polemicist. He's an extremely incisive Trump critic and was one of the founding members of The Lincoln Project. He introduced E Jean Carroll to Robbie Kaplan. And he argued successfully before the Supreme Court.
You don't have to agree with his take on that podcast. But to attack him personally for it is out of line, my friend. George Conway is neither being willfully deceitful nor is he truly delusional.
A compulsive doomscroller is just as bad as a compulsive pollyanna, just sayin'.
Conway believes that John Sauer's argument is so extreme -- orchestrating a coup and murdering rivals could be construed as "official acts" -- that in his view, even Thomas and Alito won't go along with it in its pure form. The argument in front of SCOTUS amounted to a dorm room bull session, with hypotheticals about rogue prosecutions on one side and Trump's actual conduct on the other. Conway allows that, without some form of explicit presidential immunity, if Trump were reelected he could sic his hand-picked DoJ on President Biden. You don't want Obama prosecuted because he droned an American citizen, when Anwar al-Awlaki was the spokesperson for al Qaeda and had sworn his allegiance to them. I don't think this concern should rule the day; there are other checks for rogue prosecutions. But I don't think anyone argues that there's _no_ immunity for official acts and that, of course, isn't the DoJ's position.
Since these hypotheticals are so context-specific, Conway argues that there's a decent chance (not a certainty, just a decent chance) that SCOTUS will take the path of least resistance in a 5-4 decision (the four women plus Roberts), reject Sauer's claim of absolute blanket immunity and send the case back to Chutkan without diving into what separates private from official acts (nobody on SCOTUS believes that private acts fall under presidential immunity). If they do that on the last day of their term in late June, Chutkan appends 81 days for the defense to catch up and the trial would start in September. There wouldn't likely be a verdict by Election Day, but the prosecution's entire case would have been laid out for the public by then.
If they decide to remand the case back to Chutkan to hammer out the differences between private and official acts (admittedly most likely), well, she can get right to work holding hearings on it which will keep the J6 case in the news. Not ideal, but not a nightmare, either.
Finally, Keith Olbermann noted a fallback position. Michael Dreeben seemed to signal that Jack Smith is ready to pare down his case to the unambiguously private acts and use the public acts _as evidence of intent,_ deferring prosecution on presidential acts until the courts straighten that out, which, yes, absolutely, could take years if SCOTUS decides to go that route.
This isn't a pollyanna analysis. Just a counterpoint to unrelenting pessimism.
There’s been considerable attention focused on the political rival hypothetical but little on the notion that a corrupt immoral president directs the Justice Department or military to take direct action against the judiciary including the Supreme Court itself based on trumped up criminal/national security related charges. The same action could be taken against federal and state legislators…
I am a lawyer. Before Thursday’s argument, I knew the Court’s right wing would not lift a finger to protect the rule of law from their party’s leader. But I held on to the belief that it would not actively work to undermine it. I was wrong, and I feel like such a fool.
You might appreciate this podcast:
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/4HrZcgzScJb
Shameless.
Providing the truth. Yes.
I sincerely hope that Biden wins. If he doesn’t, vocal people like Rick Wilson better have an exit strategy.
👺👺☠️THEY SURE AS FUKK ARE! ABORT THE COURT NOW!
If our democracy survives the next election, we can never again allow scotus (lower case intentional) to make these decisions that are unconstitutional, immoral, backward, knocking down the wall between church and state, and corrupt. There must be some recourse when they make these outrageous political and religious rulings. Major court reform is needed - and, despite what Injustice Alito thinks, the Constitution gives Congress the duty to decide how the court is run.
You may be right about the direction that SCOTUS will take on this, but I still feel it's premature to call. I see nothing wrong with the Justices exploring even the most extreme hypotheticals in order to test the outer boundaries of the idea of introducing immunity for the President. It doesn't necessarily prove that they support those positions. Obviously their track record is cause for concern, but I'd be inclined not to panic just yet.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to take cases based on hypotheticals, only actual cases. The fact that the right-wing justices weren’t interested in talking specifically about this case proves how broken the court is.
This whole situation makes me feel ill. How the everything fuck did we get HERE?
Beschloss noted The prosecutor in Arizona won by a few hundred votes out of millions.
Really, being held to account for criminal behavior as a Republican seditionist is almost non existent in this country.
Excellent as usual. What a dictatorial Supreme Court. Perilous times...If Pierre Poilievre, #skinnyTrump, is elected in Canada, we will be in deep trouble as well...
I just skimmed Poilievre's 'pedia page and while he's a libertarian conservative who holds many positions I don't, he's a real, vetted politician who doesn't belong in the same category with the Ford brothers, let alone Trump. He's pro marijuana legalization, pro-choice and pro-immigration. He's also a bitcoin booster which doesn't thrill me and is anti-union, which thrills me less. So while if I were Canadian I'd never vote for him, I don't think he'd throw the country into chaos, either.
He's been called a populist, I guess for ambivalently cozying up to Canada's anti-"gender ideology" movement, but there's nothing in there implying he's a bigot.
I watched the YT vid of George Conway III explaining to Sarah Longwell how this wasn't that bad, and I was shaking my head that he was either willfully being deceitful, or he is truly delusional.
These arguments are bad, and there is no chance that Trump will be held accountable.
Your read is what I was thinking when I listened.
No bueno amigo.
I listened to that pod as well. George Conway is a lawyer, not a polemicist. He's an extremely incisive Trump critic and was one of the founding members of The Lincoln Project. He introduced E Jean Carroll to Robbie Kaplan. And he argued successfully before the Supreme Court.
You don't have to agree with his take on that podcast. But to attack him personally for it is out of line, my friend. George Conway is neither being willfully deceitful nor is he truly delusional.
A compulsive doomscroller is just as bad as a compulsive pollyanna, just sayin'.
Conway believes that John Sauer's argument is so extreme -- orchestrating a coup and murdering rivals could be construed as "official acts" -- that in his view, even Thomas and Alito won't go along with it in its pure form. The argument in front of SCOTUS amounted to a dorm room bull session, with hypotheticals about rogue prosecutions on one side and Trump's actual conduct on the other. Conway allows that, without some form of explicit presidential immunity, if Trump were reelected he could sic his hand-picked DoJ on President Biden. You don't want Obama prosecuted because he droned an American citizen, when Anwar al-Awlaki was the spokesperson for al Qaeda and had sworn his allegiance to them. I don't think this concern should rule the day; there are other checks for rogue prosecutions. But I don't think anyone argues that there's _no_ immunity for official acts and that, of course, isn't the DoJ's position.
Since these hypotheticals are so context-specific, Conway argues that there's a decent chance (not a certainty, just a decent chance) that SCOTUS will take the path of least resistance in a 5-4 decision (the four women plus Roberts), reject Sauer's claim of absolute blanket immunity and send the case back to Chutkan without diving into what separates private from official acts (nobody on SCOTUS believes that private acts fall under presidential immunity). If they do that on the last day of their term in late June, Chutkan appends 81 days for the defense to catch up and the trial would start in September. There wouldn't likely be a verdict by Election Day, but the prosecution's entire case would have been laid out for the public by then.
If they decide to remand the case back to Chutkan to hammer out the differences between private and official acts (admittedly most likely), well, she can get right to work holding hearings on it which will keep the J6 case in the news. Not ideal, but not a nightmare, either.
Finally, Keith Olbermann noted a fallback position. Michael Dreeben seemed to signal that Jack Smith is ready to pare down his case to the unambiguously private acts and use the public acts _as evidence of intent,_ deferring prosecution on presidential acts until the courts straighten that out, which, yes, absolutely, could take years if SCOTUS decides to go that route.
This isn't a pollyanna analysis. Just a counterpoint to unrelenting pessimism.
There’s been considerable attention focused on the political rival hypothetical but little on the notion that a corrupt immoral president directs the Justice Department or military to take direct action against the judiciary including the Supreme Court itself based on trumped up criminal/national security related charges. The same action could be taken against federal and state legislators…
SCOTUS will betray us, and the calvary's not coming, either. VOTE. BLUE.
Are they waiting for after the election to rule on absolute immunity?If they don’t Biden should execute the 5 for the good of the country.
As Keith Olbermann sez, Alito should wake up tomorrow in Gitmo.
I am a lawyer. Before Thursday’s argument, I knew the Court’s right wing would not lift a finger to protect the rule of law from their party’s leader. But I held on to the belief that it would not actively work to undermine it. I was wrong, and I feel like such a fool.
Jesus. What a shocking disgrace. Our highest court has lost its way. Thank you to Rick for incisive summary.
One fly in the oinment so to speak , is these hacks will not be needed in a dicktatorship ....
By a bloated, starch infested tater dick.
I have seen the letter Lord Acton wrote to Bishop Crichton. In it Lord Acton says, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."