Yesterday’s SCOTUS oral argument was a disheartening and scary glimpse into an autocratic future. But there still might be a narrow path forward to trial before the election.
They should have declined this case on its face, not look upon it as some golden opportunity to all of a sudden grant heretofore unneeded immunity.
The bumpy, awkward and obvious remanding to some fantasy court camp is utterly disrespectful of their position, a sneer to the framers and an obscene demonstration to and dismissal of we the people.
Yes, I agree - it seemed to me a lack of basic reasoned intelligence. I was appalled. These are the best judicial minds we have? Ketanji-Brown Jackson especially and the other women had much more lucid commentary.
Well, at least we now know for sure the identity of the 4 justices who made the unwise decision to take the case: the 4 justices this author characterizes as reactionaries & I as fascists.
Barrett is the justice I know least about. While she seems generally very much in line with the extremists, does she have a mind of her own? And for the first time she shows strong signs that she does indeed. She could be the savior in this case by making sure that justice is served in a timely fashion.
In the case that resulted in the Dobbs ruling, Barrett questioned whether women needed access to abortion AT ALL now that a woman can give up her baby at a fire station. Granted, one cannot know what is in her mind just by hearing her question. But, I believe it shows how tone deaf she is to the plight of pregnant women whose pregnancy becomes life threatening.
Of course, there are many reasons all women should be legally permitted to decide when, or if, they have children and not just when her pregnancy is life threatening. (I’ll not review the reasons here for brevity.) We trust women to raise children. We should trust women to decide when to have children. Or if they have them.
No one should be forced to give birth for any reason — and certainly not just because they can give away the baby after it’s born.
But it seems Justice ACB would force women to give birth, even if they suffer and do not quite die (that is, if the women are lucky and survive).
Frankly, the anti-abortion crowd, including ACB and the justices in the majority in the Dobbs decision, have shown no interest in protecting pregnant women. They are part of a group that self-describes as “pro-life” — a group that tells us the abortion bans are working “as intended”, even after hearing the same horror stories we have all heard.
We need to vet our candidates and vote out every single Republican who supports the draconian nonsense that harms pregnant people.
In reality, “pro-life” is just another way of saying “Let the women suffer and die.”
Why is it the Supreme Court and other courts can decide cases in lightning speed, like the hanging Chad in Florida that got W. elected but when it comes to something simple that they’ve already covered they take several months to review it again. This is a priority, although the cases should be cleared out of the docket
They are GRIFTERS. Just look at Clarence Thomas and the GIFTS $$$ he took. Nothing is being done about it. And his wife, Ginni, was involved in an ATTEMPTED US COUP. She helped plan and of course, Clarence knew and was probably involved as well. The entire system is in freefall.
The most likely possibility in this case is that the delay is the whole point; at least a few of the Justices are actively trying to help Trump avoid trial until after the election.
It’s not a “likely possibility“. It’s an obvious fact.
They’ve proven that by accepting this case rather than rejecting it outright. They’ve proven that by broadening their scope, as pointed out in this article, beyond the question that was actually posed to them. They’ve proven it in the questions they asked during oral arguments.
The goal of the reactionary, activist, traitorous conservative block on the Supreme Court is to delay things as long as possible, giving Trump the opportunity to get reelected and squash, the federal prosecution against him.
The answer is to make sure Trump loses the election. If he loses, all of the delays and the treason by the Supreme Court comes to nothing.
I have a question for some Constitutional scholar out there. If a blue wave puts the Democrats in control in November--House, Senate, and White House--could they bring a case of "ideological/political" corruption against all the "adventurous" members, citing a group of Supreme Court cases, arguing them as proof of consistent ideological/political corruption? I would think this group would include Citizens United, making implicit quid pro quo (smart bribery) legal, and also this case of Presidential immunity if it proceeds as it appears that it will. Each Justice's decision record would have to be considered separately of course, but there is group corruption here, and it looks like considering the group of decisions (and the arguments leading to them) together would make a stronger case of consistency. Does Congress have the Constitutional authority to evaluate Court members for consistent ideological/political corruption, and impeach on this ground for lack of “good behavior”? If they just went ahead and did it, could they use their Constitutional authority under Article III language to combat any case brought to support SCOTUS against this, telling them this action is outside their jurisdiction?
I found with research that my assumption that implicit quid pro quo was addressed by Citizens United was incorrect. The decided legality of implicit quid pro quo is usually included in a list of the fruits of the infamous trio: Buckley (1976), Bellotti (1979) and Citizens United (2010), but the only cases apparently addressing it, according to an online query, were McCormick (1991) and Evans (1992). Citizens United did establish that corporations have rights of free speech and that campaign contributions are free speech.
This correction doesn't change the thrust of my suggestion. However, the Congress should first pass legislation establishing a high bar with objective standards for persistent and consistent ideological/political corruption. This would be to forestall a frivolous tit-for-tat response at some future date when the Republicans might have control (as they arguably did with Presidential impeachment post-Nixon). On the basis of Marbury (1803) the Supreme Court, unilaterally and without any Constitutional mandate, established the Marbury Doctrine giving itself the power of judicial review over Congress. I am not suggesting a radical repudiation of the Marbury Doctrine. I am suggesting that a hedge against corruption and abuse following from that Doctrine needs to be established.
I agree with Elie Mystal on most of his suggestions on how to rein in the power that the court has garnered unto itself. One of those is Marbury.
I don’t think the court should have ever been allowed to get away with that power grab from Congress. We elect our representatives to make law, not the scotus. Congress needs to take that power back.
Becausr they are trying to pretend that they are not Politically inspired grifters totally in the tank for the ex President, and wanting to delay this trial until after the Election in November, hoping he will win, pardon himself, and shut down any other embarrassing criminal cases pending against him, thus relieving this Court of Frauds and Fakes of the responsibility of actually upholding the Constitution.
No, their priority is delaying things for Trump. They made that clear when they even accepted to hear this case rather than just rejecting it outright. They made it clear in the oral arguments.
Bush v Gore put the candidate from the party formely known as Republican in office. this case is against the candidate of that party. Simple, really. Push YOUR party, block the other. Party and ideology over country.
I’m fascinated with watching Barrett’s reactions to both this case and the ID EMTALA one. It’s like she’s having to confront the actual outcomes the legal movement she’s been in her whole career produces in real life. I’d love to be able to look inside her head and see what she’s thinking.
I’d like her to meet and get to know the families of women victims of the horrendous pregnancies complications her vote/decision resulted in. Then she needs to go to largest maternity ward in Texas and talk to the doctors and nurses, with no politicians or police around. Off the record. And then talk to some of the incest/rape victims that could not abort legally. And then?
But if you can read and write and Google you can find out what it was like. Someone in her position should have maximum curiosity about the world before acting like the constitution is a literal text and has no inherent meaning or intention. The 'originalist' approach is intellectually submental and a lame excuse for not caring about the consequences of your work on other people. No excuses for willful ignorance.
We can only hope the appaling things being said in the court now are peeling off the blinders of willful ignorance she's so clearly enjoyed with her previous life of privilege.
Absolutely. Don't want to read too much into a pair of oral arguments; but if Biden gets to replace Alito or Thomas there's a chance of Barrett becoming an O'Connor like swing vote.
And maybe she's young enough to care about the consequences? The old guys couldn't give a rats whatever because they won't be here to witness the fallout and the drift into their golden parachute days. She's stuck with whatever they do next.
So, these "conservative" justices are trying to rule on a question that is not before the court. The question is about absolute immunity. The answer should be obvious.
Even more interesting is how these "textualists" or "literalists" are trying to find another way to read the constitution to invent a new law that is not there - the immunity from prosecution for a president.
It is clearly not there and has clearly not been asked for until now. Even Nixon knew he was liable to be prosecuted which is why he gladly took the pardon that was offered.
Here's a hypothetical. The court largely decides in Trump's favor before Biden leaves office. He has the conservative justices arrested and jailed and maybe worse. He does something similar with Trump. Can he be held accountable for his "official" acts?
They've surely thought of that. They will delay decision till after the election. If Trump wins they will declare total immunity and set up the dictatorship. If Biden wins they will say no presidential immunity. They are too shrewd to give Biden the chance to take advantage.
If a dictatorship is set up...why would he need the Supremes any longer? They are signing their own layoff slip and they are too partisan to realize it. Do they actually think Trump would be grateful? Have they not observed what happens to everybody in Trump's orbit--even if they have given favor after favor???? Partisan Repubs are the stupidest people on Earth, I swear.
Dictators keep their "Supreme Courts" what ever they choose to call them to give the imprimatur of legitimacy to their actions. The judges are either beholden to, or under threat from, the dictator and so rubber stamp whatever they are told to.
I think Jeff Tiedrich many have a correct take on this “Here’s how this is most likely to play out. Five of the the GOP-appointed Justices are totally in the tank for Trump (Amy Coney Barrett was actually a voice of reason yesterday), but they can’t grant him complete immunity, because that would mean that Sleepy Brandon could sic Seal Team Six on his adversaries, too — including them — and they don’t want that. They want special treatment for only Trump. So what they’ll probably do is grant Trump limited immunity — they’ll split the baby and say that presidents have immunity for political acts but don’t have immunity for personal acts, and then send the case back to Judge Chutkan and tell her that it’s her job to figure on which side of the immunity line insurrecting falls. And when she sensibly rules against Trump, he’ll go crying back to the Appeals Court, and then up to the Supreme Court, and we’ll be right back where were are now.”
The good news would be sending it back to Judge C and telling her to sort it out during the trial. If they remand for those findings first, he’ll be tried in two years.
Such a remand to make the judge decide such things means they are ORDERING a judge to make a decision when there are no facts in evidence on which he can decide. How the hell can someone decide whether an act is personal or official without looking at facts that might make it personal?
So if the court grants immunity, can Biden unilaterally put Trump in prison, just for the hell of it? I'm sure he wouldn't, but can he?
And if they grant full immunity, what's to stop Trump, if "re-elected", from going full Jeffrey Epstein and maintaining a harem of underage girls at the White House, which is probably on his bucket list?
Sounds crazy, I know. But isn't full immunity just as crazy? This is beyond insane. Would these nefarious weasels really overturn a unanimous decision by the appeals court? They're out of control.
It sadly doesn't sound crazy - well, if one considers anything Trump has done all his life. It all scares me. I want to think that something in this country might work as it was intended.
They won’t grant full immunity. They’ll just carve out some protections for him.
The men on the court are so corrupted at this point. Roberts still has to be CJ, however, so his questions in oral argument don’t always predict his decision.
Roberts is still laboring under the delusion that his Court will have a Legacy other than being a 21st Century Dred Scott . That boat sank about the time they affirmed Citizens United, and burned with the reversal of Roe.
The Court is a lost cause unless we are lucky enough to lose Thomas in Biden’s second term. I don’t think Roberts is under ANY delusions. He didn’t write with the majority on Dobbs, and he rejected the ISL argument.
I’d be happy if Thomas went to live with God and we got another liberal and the ACB who showed up yesterday showed up more often. I just want a centrist and impartial Court. Dobbs was a terrible, brutal decision. It would not have resulted from the Court I describe, not because of ACB, who will NEVER come over, but a compromise decision would have left it to the states after fifteen weeks and mandated exception. Roberts would have signed off on that, along with the mystery liberal.
Abortion will be back. “Leave it to the states” won’t survive as a standalone. Let’s see how the FDA mifepristone case shakes out and it will be easier to see the impact of an additional liberal.
If we're really lucky we'll lose Thomas in THIS term. I'd like to see the poetic justice of Schumer pushing through his replacement sometime in October.
Yes. So what happens to Clarence Thomas's marriage then? (I know you were referring to same-sex marriage but I've also heard talk of interracial marriage. Welcome to the 19th century.)
I'm sorry to say this, but I don't know that he considers Dobbs a loss from a history standpoint. Possibly the opposite. Which is why people need to vote in Roevember.
Do despots care about immunity? Don ain't bright. But even he can figure out that if he gets Presidential power again, he can do whatever he wants. Including having judges he doesn't like mysteriously fall out of windows. Who needs immunity if you control the courts?
Well, I think he'd be a vegetable by the time he took office, but the people behind him would just sit him in a chair and raise his arm in the air like Weekend at Bernie's, use him as a figurehead, and create the authoritarian state governed by Sharia law that they've been working on for 40 years.
It seems clear enough that the four Reactionary activist Associate Justices, (at least one should have recused himself and yes, I'm looking at YOU, Clarence Thomas, you grasping, greedy, grifting son of a batch) and the other three have received their instructions and payments from Lennie Leo. It is utterly sickening that they cannot simply rule on the matter in front of them...but oh no, "we are making rules for the ages". (Alito, the Ass....ociate Justice)
Huh. Is that so. Well, if Roe can be over-turned, so too can this potential disaster of a ruling. And Biden should get his ducks in a row and line up some decent candidates, pronto. We citizenry have to hustle butt and make sure Biden has the majority in both the House and the Senate to get this Stench Court out of the toilet and and on a less fascist standing.
I simply can't believe how the Justices can dismiss the inevitable outcome of setting ANY President--but most especially Trump--free from almost all legal or criminal responsibility. The Stenchy Justices will no longer be needed--hey, even THEY could become targets of assassination, right? This is all so very stupid, I can't even believe I'm seeing this unfold in real time.
Alito has been pushing that ridiculous "unitary executive" theory for years. I went back to school in 2006, wrote a paper on the subject then, and he was a central figure in my discussion. And that theory leads inevitably to dictatorship.
Thank you, Jay for the thoughtful analysis without which I would not have known what to make of what. My stomach churns and I'm scared, but the thought of even a possible hopeful outcome helps. Damn Trump to the dust bin of history. It is amazing the damage one man can do.
It's lawyering. I always point to a Robert Heinlein quote from "Stranger in a Strange Land": (speaking as Jubal Harshaw) "Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is a required course in law school." Bending logic and precedent to the needs of the moment is what lawyers do.
I think it’s quite evident how the witch burner, seat stealer and double dose of sexual deviants want to rule and what offends me the most is how utterly corrupt and shameless they were about telegraphing their perceived patriarchal superiority.
That’s why we’re here today asking if the Court’s handmaiden who was literally groomed to submit to conservative male authority can save us from the hateful whims of conservative male authority.
All I have to say is that we’d better stop effing around as a populace and vote for Biden.
Nailed it in a SUPER SUMMARY, Auntie Shay! Thanks…I’m feeling better empowered with your very proper description of the “perceived patriarchal superiority!”
Jay, I appreciate the hope; but I gave up on this case being heard before the election when the SCOTUS waited until the LAST DAY of oral arguments for this session to finally hear the case. They may even do what Barrett suggested, yes Roberts could "do the right thing." Great! But this court has now shown it's hand, so what happens in November when trump is trying to throw out votes from swing states he narrowly lost? Last time they didn't take up any of trumps appeals, but this time? On top of that Roberts did something very telling when it came to the female justices. During the Idaho abortion hearing it was reported that Roberts admonished Kagan to let the lawyer representing Idaho respond. From what I understand about these hearings Justices are normally allowed to hammer the lawyers without interference, and the people there reporting on it don't remember it EVER happening before. This whole situation is terrifying.
And I, a true "cockeyed optimist"* have this wee bit of hope tho' the point made about whether or not there could be an assassination attempt and it be Kosher, made me squirm.
*Just finished reading Randy Rainbow's book and realized I have begun to quote film and stage lyrics. Sing along if you'd like.
I used to watch Randy Rainbow all the time and he fell off my radar. Then he started showing up in my YouTube feed. It was like running into an old friend.
Laughing. As we digress further, I hope he'll do one on the hearings. To what song might he? His website allows suggestions for songs and topics. After reading "Playing With Myself", my sense of him is greater and my appreciation even more so.
Jay Kuo: Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for so clearly and thoroughly walking us through the maze and clearing the thorns of the bramble on the mess the menacing "Conservative" MALE justices inflicted upon us. And I am increasingly liking Justice Amy Coney Barrett, even as I respectfully disagree with much of her rulings or opinions in other cases.
I’m sorry but you are starting to like Barrett? She lied to get on SCROTUS. She helped take down Roe. I can not like an insane person just because they are little less insane other crazies on the court.
Ok, a small window for hope. But hope is not a plan. Getting out the vote 💙 in October/November IS a plan, and we here must commit 100% toward that goal. Onward, fellow democracy warriors!!
Meh.
They should have declined this case on its face, not look upon it as some golden opportunity to all of a sudden grant heretofore unneeded immunity.
The bumpy, awkward and obvious remanding to some fantasy court camp is utterly disrespectful of their position, a sneer to the framers and an obscene demonstration to and dismissal of we the people.
Yes, I agree - it seemed to me a lack of basic reasoned intelligence. I was appalled. These are the best judicial minds we have? Ketanji-Brown Jackson especially and the other women had much more lucid commentary.
I think the late and unlamented Scalia would have referred to the questions by the konservative wing of SCOTUS yesterday as "Argle Bargle".
Reread Bush v. Gore and you'll change your mind.
Well, at least we now know for sure the identity of the 4 justices who made the unwise decision to take the case: the 4 justices this author characterizes as reactionaries & I as fascists.
Barrett is the justice I know least about. While she seems generally very much in line with the extremists, does she have a mind of her own? And for the first time she shows strong signs that she does indeed. She could be the savior in this case by making sure that justice is served in a timely fashion.
In the case that resulted in the Dobbs ruling, Barrett questioned whether women needed access to abortion AT ALL now that a woman can give up her baby at a fire station. Granted, one cannot know what is in her mind just by hearing her question. But, I believe it shows how tone deaf she is to the plight of pregnant women whose pregnancy becomes life threatening.
Of course, there are many reasons all women should be legally permitted to decide when, or if, they have children and not just when her pregnancy is life threatening. (I’ll not review the reasons here for brevity.) We trust women to raise children. We should trust women to decide when to have children. Or if they have them.
No one should be forced to give birth for any reason — and certainly not just because they can give away the baby after it’s born.
But it seems Justice ACB would force women to give birth, even if they suffer and do not quite die (that is, if the women are lucky and survive).
Frankly, the anti-abortion crowd, including ACB and the justices in the majority in the Dobbs decision, have shown no interest in protecting pregnant women. They are part of a group that self-describes as “pro-life” — a group that tells us the abortion bans are working “as intended”, even after hearing the same horror stories we have all heard.
We need to vet our candidates and vote out every single Republican who supports the draconian nonsense that harms pregnant people.
In reality, “pro-life” is just another way of saying “Let the women suffer and die.”
Make no mistake. Donald Trump did this.
Why is it the Supreme Court and other courts can decide cases in lightning speed, like the hanging Chad in Florida that got W. elected but when it comes to something simple that they’ve already covered they take several months to review it again. This is a priority, although the cases should be cleared out of the docket
They are GRIFTERS. Just look at Clarence Thomas and the GIFTS $$$ he took. Nothing is being done about it. And his wife, Ginni, was involved in an ATTEMPTED US COUP. She helped plan and of course, Clarence knew and was probably involved as well. The entire system is in freefall.
The most likely possibility in this case is that the delay is the whole point; at least a few of the Justices are actively trying to help Trump avoid trial until after the election.
It’s not a “likely possibility“. It’s an obvious fact.
They’ve proven that by accepting this case rather than rejecting it outright. They’ve proven that by broadening their scope, as pointed out in this article, beyond the question that was actually posed to them. They’ve proven it in the questions they asked during oral arguments.
The goal of the reactionary, activist, traitorous conservative block on the Supreme Court is to delay things as long as possible, giving Trump the opportunity to get reelected and squash, the federal prosecution against him.
The answer is to make sure Trump loses the election. If he loses, all of the delays and the treason by the Supreme Court comes to nothing.
I have a question for some Constitutional scholar out there. If a blue wave puts the Democrats in control in November--House, Senate, and White House--could they bring a case of "ideological/political" corruption against all the "adventurous" members, citing a group of Supreme Court cases, arguing them as proof of consistent ideological/political corruption? I would think this group would include Citizens United, making implicit quid pro quo (smart bribery) legal, and also this case of Presidential immunity if it proceeds as it appears that it will. Each Justice's decision record would have to be considered separately of course, but there is group corruption here, and it looks like considering the group of decisions (and the arguments leading to them) together would make a stronger case of consistency. Does Congress have the Constitutional authority to evaluate Court members for consistent ideological/political corruption, and impeach on this ground for lack of “good behavior”? If they just went ahead and did it, could they use their Constitutional authority under Article III language to combat any case brought to support SCOTUS against this, telling them this action is outside their jurisdiction?
I would love to see them do that, imo they certainly have grounds to do it.
Thomas & Alito absolutely need to be impeached for taking bribes.
I am so frustrated & angry with the conservative activists on this court, given their seats by presidents elected by a minority of citizens.
They are just blatantly political & corrupt.
This country is going to be hearing from a lot of very pissed off women this Roevember
I found with research that my assumption that implicit quid pro quo was addressed by Citizens United was incorrect. The decided legality of implicit quid pro quo is usually included in a list of the fruits of the infamous trio: Buckley (1976), Bellotti (1979) and Citizens United (2010), but the only cases apparently addressing it, according to an online query, were McCormick (1991) and Evans (1992). Citizens United did establish that corporations have rights of free speech and that campaign contributions are free speech.
This correction doesn't change the thrust of my suggestion. However, the Congress should first pass legislation establishing a high bar with objective standards for persistent and consistent ideological/political corruption. This would be to forestall a frivolous tit-for-tat response at some future date when the Republicans might have control (as they arguably did with Presidential impeachment post-Nixon). On the basis of Marbury (1803) the Supreme Court, unilaterally and without any Constitutional mandate, established the Marbury Doctrine giving itself the power of judicial review over Congress. I am not suggesting a radical repudiation of the Marbury Doctrine. I am suggesting that a hedge against corruption and abuse following from that Doctrine needs to be established.
I agree with Elie Mystal on most of his suggestions on how to rein in the power that the court has garnered unto itself. One of those is Marbury.
I don’t think the court should have ever been allowed to get away with that power grab from Congress. We elect our representatives to make law, not the scotus. Congress needs to take that power back.
They also must expand the court, period.
P.J., Thanks for the reference to Elie Mystal. I just put his "Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution" in my Amazon cart.
Becausr they are trying to pretend that they are not Politically inspired grifters totally in the tank for the ex President, and wanting to delay this trial until after the Election in November, hoping he will win, pardon himself, and shut down any other embarrassing criminal cases pending against him, thus relieving this Court of Frauds and Fakes of the responsibility of actually upholding the Constitution.
No, their priority is delaying things for Trump. They made that clear when they even accepted to hear this case rather than just rejecting it outright. They made it clear in the oral arguments.
Bush v Gore put the candidate from the party formely known as Republican in office. this case is against the candidate of that party. Simple, really. Push YOUR party, block the other. Party and ideology over country.
I’m fascinated with watching Barrett’s reactions to both this case and the ID EMTALA one. It’s like she’s having to confront the actual outcomes the legal movement she’s been in her whole career produces in real life. I’d love to be able to look inside her head and see what she’s thinking.
I’d like her to meet and get to know the families of women victims of the horrendous pregnancies complications her vote/decision resulted in. Then she needs to go to largest maternity ward in Texas and talk to the doctors and nurses, with no politicians or police around. Off the record. And then talk to some of the incest/rape victims that could not abort legally. And then?
I think she had an epiphany in the Idaho/Emtala case, when the IDF lawyer basically said women didn't matter.
I agree. She’s too young to know what it was like pre-Roe.
But if you can read and write and Google you can find out what it was like. Someone in her position should have maximum curiosity about the world before acting like the constitution is a literal text and has no inherent meaning or intention. The 'originalist' approach is intellectually submental and a lame excuse for not caring about the consequences of your work on other people. No excuses for willful ignorance.
We can only hope the appaling things being said in the court now are peeling off the blinders of willful ignorance she's so clearly enjoyed with her previous life of privilege.
Absolutely. Don't want to read too much into a pair of oral arguments; but if Biden gets to replace Alito or Thomas there's a chance of Barrett becoming an O'Connor like swing vote.
If only.
And maybe she's young enough to care about the consequences? The old guys couldn't give a rats whatever because they won't be here to witness the fallout and the drift into their golden parachute days. She's stuck with whatever they do next.
She has female children.
And that didn't stop her from overturning rvw? Wow.
So, these "conservative" justices are trying to rule on a question that is not before the court. The question is about absolute immunity. The answer should be obvious.
Even more interesting is how these "textualists" or "literalists" are trying to find another way to read the constitution to invent a new law that is not there - the immunity from prosecution for a president.
It is clearly not there and has clearly not been asked for until now. Even Nixon knew he was liable to be prosecuted which is why he gladly took the pardon that was offered.
They are trying to change that, but only for repubs.
And Republicans used to complain about the Supreme Court “making laws”. Now these un-elected justices are re-writing the Constitution.
Here's a hypothetical. The court largely decides in Trump's favor before Biden leaves office. He has the conservative justices arrested and jailed and maybe worse. He does something similar with Trump. Can he be held accountable for his "official" acts?
They've surely thought of that. They will delay decision till after the election. If Trump wins they will declare total immunity and set up the dictatorship. If Biden wins they will say no presidential immunity. They are too shrewd to give Biden the chance to take advantage.
If a dictatorship is set up...why would he need the Supremes any longer? They are signing their own layoff slip and they are too partisan to realize it. Do they actually think Trump would be grateful? Have they not observed what happens to everybody in Trump's orbit--even if they have given favor after favor???? Partisan Repubs are the stupidest people on Earth, I swear.
Dictators keep their "Supreme Courts" what ever they choose to call them to give the imprimatur of legitimacy to their actions. The judges are either beholden to, or under threat from, the dictator and so rubber stamp whatever they are told to.
In that case, our corrupt, bought and paid for Supreme Court is perfectly placed.
Gee, do you suppose the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation had *anything* to do with this??
Only everything...
🎯Yup, the conservatives think they are too important! Are they in for a surprise.
Sounds like a banana republic. The United States of a Banana Republic. 😡
I think Jeff Tiedrich many have a correct take on this “Here’s how this is most likely to play out. Five of the the GOP-appointed Justices are totally in the tank for Trump (Amy Coney Barrett was actually a voice of reason yesterday), but they can’t grant him complete immunity, because that would mean that Sleepy Brandon could sic Seal Team Six on his adversaries, too — including them — and they don’t want that. They want special treatment for only Trump. So what they’ll probably do is grant Trump limited immunity — they’ll split the baby and say that presidents have immunity for political acts but don’t have immunity for personal acts, and then send the case back to Judge Chutkan and tell her that it’s her job to figure on which side of the immunity line insurrecting falls. And when she sensibly rules against Trump, he’ll go crying back to the Appeals Court, and then up to the Supreme Court, and we’ll be right back where were are now.”
Which gives Trump the gigantic delay he wants. No trial before the election and if he wins? His DOJ nixes the whole thing.
The good news would be sending it back to Judge C and telling her to sort it out during the trial. If they remand for those findings first, he’ll be tried in two years.
Such a remand to make the judge decide such things means they are ORDERING a judge to make a decision when there are no facts in evidence on which he can decide. How the hell can someone decide whether an act is personal or official without looking at facts that might make it personal?
So if the court grants immunity, can Biden unilaterally put Trump in prison, just for the hell of it? I'm sure he wouldn't, but can he?
And if they grant full immunity, what's to stop Trump, if "re-elected", from going full Jeffrey Epstein and maintaining a harem of underage girls at the White House, which is probably on his bucket list?
Sounds crazy, I know. But isn't full immunity just as crazy? This is beyond insane. Would these nefarious weasels really overturn a unanimous decision by the appeals court? They're out of control.
It sadly doesn't sound crazy - well, if one considers anything Trump has done all his life. It all scares me. I want to think that something in this country might work as it was intended.
They won’t grant full immunity. They’ll just carve out some protections for him.
The men on the court are so corrupted at this point. Roberts still has to be CJ, however, so his questions in oral argument don’t always predict his decision.
Roberts is still laboring under the delusion that his Court will have a Legacy other than being a 21st Century Dred Scott . That boat sank about the time they affirmed Citizens United, and burned with the reversal of Roe.
The Court is a lost cause unless we are lucky enough to lose Thomas in Biden’s second term. I don’t think Roberts is under ANY delusions. He didn’t write with the majority on Dobbs, and he rejected the ISL argument.
I’d be happy if Thomas went to live with God and we got another liberal and the ACB who showed up yesterday showed up more often. I just want a centrist and impartial Court. Dobbs was a terrible, brutal decision. It would not have resulted from the Court I describe, not because of ACB, who will NEVER come over, but a compromise decision would have left it to the states after fifteen weeks and mandated exception. Roberts would have signed off on that, along with the mystery liberal.
Abortion will be back. “Leave it to the states” won’t survive as a standalone. Let’s see how the FDA mifepristone case shakes out and it will be easier to see the impact of an additional liberal.
If we're really lucky we'll lose Thomas in THIS term. I'd like to see the poetic justice of Schumer pushing through his replacement sometime in October.
I wish for coronary artery disease on 2-3 people to issue justice for women before Roevember
It is hard for me to imagine a Chief Justice wishing his legacy to be immunity of any kind. History won't look kindly on that.
Mr. Bastille, I agree. I can't even begin to fathom what, if anything beyond their next grift, is on the greedy little minds of Alito and Thomas.
We already know. An end to birth control.
And equal marriage laws.
Yes. So what happens to Clarence Thomas's marriage then? (I know you were referring to same-sex marriage but I've also heard talk of interracial marriage. Welcome to the 19th century.)
He’s already lost history. Dobbs made him Roger Taney. All he can do is pull together some shreds of dignity in this life.
I'm sorry to say this, but I don't know that he considers Dobbs a loss from a history standpoint. Possibly the opposite. Which is why people need to vote in Roevember.
Remember that he did not agree, at all, with the Dobbs majority. The CJ pays the price for stupid decisions of the rest of those clowns.
Thanks for the reminder. No, I did not remember that.
Do despots care about immunity? Don ain't bright. But even he can figure out that if he gets Presidential power again, he can do whatever he wants. Including having judges he doesn't like mysteriously fall out of windows. Who needs immunity if you control the courts?
Well, I think he'd be a vegetable by the time he took office, but the people behind him would just sit him in a chair and raise his arm in the air like Weekend at Bernie's, use him as a figurehead, and create the authoritarian state governed by Sharia law that they've been working on for 40 years.
I think they are counting on it, in fact.
The Unman.
It seems clear enough that the four Reactionary activist Associate Justices, (at least one should have recused himself and yes, I'm looking at YOU, Clarence Thomas, you grasping, greedy, grifting son of a batch) and the other three have received their instructions and payments from Lennie Leo. It is utterly sickening that they cannot simply rule on the matter in front of them...but oh no, "we are making rules for the ages". (Alito, the Ass....ociate Justice)
Huh. Is that so. Well, if Roe can be over-turned, so too can this potential disaster of a ruling. And Biden should get his ducks in a row and line up some decent candidates, pronto. We citizenry have to hustle butt and make sure Biden has the majority in both the House and the Senate to get this Stench Court out of the toilet and and on a less fascist standing.
I simply can't believe how the Justices can dismiss the inevitable outcome of setting ANY President--but most especially Trump--free from almost all legal or criminal responsibility. The Stenchy Justices will no longer be needed--hey, even THEY could become targets of assassination, right? This is all so very stupid, I can't even believe I'm seeing this unfold in real time.
Alito has been pushing that ridiculous "unitary executive" theory for years. I went back to school in 2006, wrote a paper on the subject then, and he was a central figure in my discussion. And that theory leads inevitably to dictatorship.
Thank you, Jay for the thoughtful analysis without which I would not have known what to make of what. My stomach churns and I'm scared, but the thought of even a possible hopeful outcome helps. Damn Trump to the dust bin of history. It is amazing the damage one man can do.
How is it possible that the task of "faithfully executing the laws of the nation" would require violating the laws of the nation?
It's lawyering. I always point to a Robert Heinlein quote from "Stranger in a Strange Land": (speaking as Jubal Harshaw) "Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is a required course in law school." Bending logic and precedent to the needs of the moment is what lawyers do.
I think it’s quite evident how the witch burner, seat stealer and double dose of sexual deviants want to rule and what offends me the most is how utterly corrupt and shameless they were about telegraphing their perceived patriarchal superiority.
That’s why we’re here today asking if the Court’s handmaiden who was literally groomed to submit to conservative male authority can save us from the hateful whims of conservative male authority.
All I have to say is that we’d better stop effing around as a populace and vote for Biden.
Your first line... it is magnificent!
Nailed it in a SUPER SUMMARY, Auntie Shay! Thanks…I’m feeling better empowered with your very proper description of the “perceived patriarchal superiority!”
Thank you for continually blowing away the fog & clarifying things for us!
Jay, I appreciate the hope; but I gave up on this case being heard before the election when the SCOTUS waited until the LAST DAY of oral arguments for this session to finally hear the case. They may even do what Barrett suggested, yes Roberts could "do the right thing." Great! But this court has now shown it's hand, so what happens in November when trump is trying to throw out votes from swing states he narrowly lost? Last time they didn't take up any of trumps appeals, but this time? On top of that Roberts did something very telling when it came to the female justices. During the Idaho abortion hearing it was reported that Roberts admonished Kagan to let the lawyer representing Idaho respond. From what I understand about these hearings Justices are normally allowed to hammer the lawyers without interference, and the people there reporting on it don't remember it EVER happening before. This whole situation is terrifying.
Yeah they’re not even pretending anymore.
Bring out the white sheets and pointy hats.
White sheets and pointy hats would be great, but they are hiding behind judicial robes.
I want to believe there's a path, but I am going to admit that I can't squint that hard
It’s hard to see it. I nearly missed it, too, so like I said, narrow.
And I, a true "cockeyed optimist"* have this wee bit of hope tho' the point made about whether or not there could be an assassination attempt and it be Kosher, made me squirm.
*Just finished reading Randy Rainbow's book and realized I have begun to quote film and stage lyrics. Sing along if you'd like.
The fact that a bar certified lawyer made that case, twice, really makes me squirm
Sauro is actually an excellent lawyer, truly.
Unfortunately, you try the case you’ve got. He’s at the “pounding the table” stage.
I used to watch Randy Rainbow all the time and he fell off my radar. Then he started showing up in my YouTube feed. It was like running into an old friend.
Laughing. As we digress further, I hope he'll do one on the hearings. To what song might he? His website allows suggestions for songs and topics. After reading "Playing With Myself", my sense of him is greater and my appreciation even more so.
Jay Kuo: Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for so clearly and thoroughly walking us through the maze and clearing the thorns of the bramble on the mess the menacing "Conservative" MALE justices inflicted upon us. And I am increasingly liking Justice Amy Coney Barrett, even as I respectfully disagree with much of her rulings or opinions in other cases.
I’m sorry but you are starting to like Barrett? She lied to get on SCROTUS. She helped take down Roe. I can not like an insane person just because they are little less insane other crazies on the court.
Point taken.
NAILED IT!
Ok, a small window for hope. But hope is not a plan. Getting out the vote 💙 in October/November IS a plan, and we here must commit 100% toward that goal. Onward, fellow democracy warriors!!
Not a plan, agreed. Just a light.
Indeed, Jay. You keep us sane.