- To enshrine in the Constitution that abortion is legal across the United States of America.
- To enshrine in the Constitution that no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.
- To enshrine in the Constitution that the winner of the Office of President of the United States will be determined by majority vote on a nationwide basis. (The Electoral College is to be eliminated.)
- To enshrine in the Constitution the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
- To enshrine in the Constitution a complete separation of Church and State.
- To enshrine in the Constitution that any form of racial gerrymandering is illegal.
- To enshrine in the Constitution that any Supreme Court Justice found guilty of accepting gratuities, gifts or bribes from anyone is subject to immediate dismissal from the Supreme Court.
- To enshrine in the Constitution that anyone convicted of a felony is forever ineligible to run for the Office of President of the United States.
Expand the Number of Justices on the Supreme Court to 13.
Democrats would be better off passing most of these as laws. It sucks but is the reality. The United States has the hardest constitution in the world to amend. Oops. So an expanded and reformed Supreme Court that better aligns with the American population. Who can then begin work in tandem to begin to heal the damage.
Democrats also should make DC a state, which has a larger population than two states, and Puerto Rico a state, which has a larger population than twenty states.
No, not at all necessary. You only need 51 votes to modify the 60 votes filibuster rule and then simple majority rule is enough to pass the laws. Democrats were 2 votes short of modifying the 60 votes filibuster rule, after all. Manchin and Sinema refused. They are both leaving January 3. Congress passed transformative laws with a slim majority in both Chambers.
More lawmakers would be better, for sure. But it isn’t required.
As for amending the Constitution, making an amendment for reforming how amendments become enshrined into the Constitution and eliminating the electoral college for the presidency vote both should be priorities ahead of everything else because those are the two pain points for the Constitution that are choking any progress that could be made.
This is already a heavy lift with so many red state Democrats up for re-election, like Tester and Brown. I am hopeful Cruz and Hawley might lose their seats to Allred and Kunce, and Gallego beat Lake. These are all critical, because DINO Manchin will be replaced by a MAGA Republican in WV. We need at least 50 real Democrats in the Senate. The transformative laws passed under Biden were seeded with carve outs to get Manchin and Sinema on board, protecting Energy and other Big Money interests.
We don’t need a super majority if there are 50 Dem Senators willing to kill the filibuster. Unless the Constitution demands a super majority, a simple majority would be enough. The VP has the 51st vote.
One of the things Congress DOES have power over is the jurisdiction of the courts. It can actually withdraw jurisdiction for some kinds of cases. It would have to be VERY carefully crafted, since even though the power of appellate review isn't actually IN the constitution, we don't want to abandon it.
This is the correct take - I love his wish list, but that quantity of amendments would absolutely require a Constitutional Convention - which, no thank you. Pandora's box would appear too be a collection of the most benign of kerfuffles by comparison.
Why are Americans bowing to SCOTUS patently unconstitutional ruling? First we defied a king, now we must defy this ruling. We are in a constitutional crisis. Biden is wrong to affirm the legitimacy of this ruling. The SCOTUS 6 are so pleased we are falling for their gambit.
The founders thought that men of good character would be in Congress, on the high court, and in the presidency. The PRESUMPTION of good character is a flimsy foundation for a nation. Many in the past 20 years at least have demonstrated bad character.
That sure looks like that “liberal wish list” those Republican Congress members talk about....and I agree with most of its goals. BUT...how do you get three quarters of states to agree to any of this in today’s world?
For any of these to have a chance, the prerequisite is to create a new filibuster rule that makes it much harder for a narrowly divided chamber to be obstructed, without completely eliminating the practice, if possible.
I favor a bold action to bring about Democratic restoration...
Arrest the most corrupted justices (Alito and Thomas), vacate their seats immediately by Executive order, and replace them with two qualified candidates to restore a balance that the Heritage Society Supreme Court has destroyed. Schumer can follow McConnell’s lead on getting ACB seated in record time. Then, next session, bring cases allowing the newly constituted Court to reverse the worst precedents the HSSC has created...CU, Shelby, Rucho, Heller, Dobbs, and Trump v. USA, etc. Expect a lot of 5-4 decisions!
If a few more states pass an NPVIC bill, the EC will cease to determine presidential elections.
Items like the Electoral College and every state having two senators were intended to appease the wealthy among the founders. The filibuster is a sabotage for legislation most often used by the far right, no matter whether they called themselves Democrats or Republicans.
Yes, but it is prized by some who see the pendulum swing of alternating leadership, and has been effective for both parties restricting the other. But I agree it has to go now in order to clear the way for progress against the coup that is under way by the Right. If Americans really want a dictatorship, a Christian theocracy, and accelerating planetary decline due to climate change after that, then all the dystopian sci-fi novels’ prognostications await.
That is a matter of concern in 3 areas. Getting any Amendment enacted (you can’t), calling a Constitutional Convention (I hope we don’t), and the failure of any presidential candidate to win 270 electoral votes (No!). Which were you thinking of?
They specifically stated the ruling applies to all Presidents past, future, and how can the exclude the present? The House will impeach Biden but so what?
All that’s needed for the House to impeach is a simple majority. If Biden moved boldly to unseat the most corrupt pair of Justices by EO, the House would impeach him. But the Senate couldn’t convict him, needing 10 Democrats to vote that way. This is also why impeaching Thomas and Alito is a dead end road to nowhere, accomplishing nothing. They must be removed, stripped of their judgeships and replaced. It won’t be pretty, but beats the alternatives.
How? The Executive has the power to act decisively and face no legal consequences according to the new standard set in Trump v. USA, or so I am given to understand. Our system of government is under threat from within, and the malefactors are readily identifiable. They can be given due process later, after their seats are occupied by uncorrupted jurists.
Certainly - but you may be sure that any case that gets to this SCOTUS will get much stricter scrutiny for any Democrat than for any MAGAt. It is no longer a disinterested arbiter of law; it is a political arm of the Republican Party.
I think SCOTUS will get exhausted and implode as they change ruling after ruling when a dem using their rulings must be redefined. I can see the smoke rising from their machines as they continue to turn and turn again.
A convicted felon is not allowed to join the US Army or the US Navy or the US Air Force or the US Marines . . . . Why is a convicted felon allowed to apply to be Commander-In-Chief of all four branches of our military ? . . . . He would also be in control of several thousand million tons of THERMO NUCLEAR WEAPONS (again) ! . . . . Understand that means 'HYDROGEN BOMBS' and each one is hundreds or thousands of times more powerful than all the bombs dropped in World War Two ! . . . . . gasp . . . . Please think of your grandchildren ! . . . . .
Why are Americans bowing to SCOTUS patently unconstitutional ruling? First we defied a king, now we must defy this ruling. We are in a constitutional crisis. Biden is wrong to affirm the legitimacy of this ruling. The SCOTUS 6 are so pleased we are falling for their gambit.
The law about no one being above the law should just be a reiteration of the impeachment clause that noted any gov official is still subject to criminal law regardless of impeachment. Define, reinforce and clarify so scotus cannot.
The quote from the fascist president of the heritage foundation:
"And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."
We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be? That sounds like a threat to kill people on the left if we don't comply.
I just cancelled finally my subscription to the NY Times. So mad that the entire top section has been covered with Biden step down op-eds and articles while Rome is burning. And now I know the new horse race will take up that space while the ever emboldened criminals continue their spree.
I sent a "tip" to the NYT just now and this is the response I got:
"Thank you for emailing The New York Times tips line. As of Friday, June 9, this email address will no longer be monitored. For a list of ways to submit a tip, please visit www.nytimes.com/tips."
That would be June 9th, 2023 - Last year! When I clicked on the tips link it takes me there but you can't send a tip unless you subscribe. What a fucking joke they are.
They want to stay on Trump's 'good' side, and seem blind to the fact that he has no loyalty whatsoever, and a long, long, memory for grudges. He'll probably do his damndest to put them out of business if he is elected.
People don't know this is the plan? I have no doubt there will be blood spilled if things don't go their way. I just wonder to what degree. What do you think their fervor over the 2nd amendment is all about? I live amongst these folks in Idaho and some are my family. It's not uncommon to hear and see calls to intimidate and eve do harm to "libs". I am no longer a registered Democrat because of it. This is their civil war and arms are likely to be taken up if they don't get their way.
Thank you for giving us the legal angle on Trump's ongoing cases.
We are indeed in a new world when the term "official" applied to an action gets precedence over "criminal." There is strong evidence that the prosecution for the January 6th case has been ready to proceed for some time with prosecuting Trump only on the "unofficial" actions. Before the Supreme Court intervened and then sat on it, the appellate court asked the prosecutor presenting the case if he would be willing to proceed only on the actions that were clearly "unofficial." The answer she received had no hemming or hawing in it, simply an immediate "Yes."
This is an aside, but given Joe Biden's newly acquired immunity I wonder if the DOJ could arrest a judge for obstruction of justice? Any judge so accused could cool their heels in confinement, spend their hard earned cash on legal representation, await trial like one of the hoi polloi, and contemplate the philosophical notion that actions have consequences, sometimes unintended ones.
- Personal residences of the 6 Supreme Court Justices who just made one of the most disgusting, disgraceful, detestable decisions in the history of the United States of America.
Amen. And it’s more fact-based than “he’s the devil and SCOTUS are his minions” and so forth which feel good (to me:-) but don’t get the cows milked or the hogs fed.
Is there precedent for judges refusing to comply with this absurd presidential immunity ruling?
Presidents are not kings and Supreme Court justices are not legislators. When parties would not desegregate, the Feds acted, but in this case, no way the White House will enforce.
Or, in the case I referenced yesterday below, SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts four years ago wrote this decision, same plaintiff, same issue of Presidential Immunity but a different take on evidence. I think he should be held to the first decision for the cases where the alleged crimes, investigations and warranted indictments occurred prior to this new ruling. Especially since they framed the new BS ruling on "future" Presidents being able to perform their duties without burden etc.
The opinion he wrote in '20 tRump v Vance included this;
In our judicial system, “the public has a right to every man’s evidence.”1 Since the earliest days of the Republic, “every man” has included the President of the United States.
I'm hoping that someone with access to DOJ can bring it to their attention for consideration, if for no other reason than to highlight their hypocrisy and lack of credibility, for twisting this latest decision to benefit a convicted felon.
Gratuity is currently taxed, hope they remember to claim it on their taxes, will go out on a limb and bet they didn't split the tip with the full bench.
Jay, are you familiar with the documentary „The Sixth“? It is a recently released account of Jan 6– powerful and visceral. It has inexplicably gone unprompted by its distributor (A24)— there are a couple of articles about that if you look (I think one was in Variety). Eyeballs on this could do the job the media will not prior to the election. Just wanted to put it on your radar.
Thank you so much for this detailed explanation of how these cases might move forward, because I was really losing hope. I truly appreciate your precision and clarity in describing these legal matters!
Isn't there an ethics arm of the Bar Association? Would they sit back if this were a law firm and not the s* court?? I don't know but I wonder if The Bar Association, who puts a rubber stamp on nearly all practicing attorneys, ought to jump into the ring.
Unfortunately, these things move through the system at a glacial pace. This is not constitutional jurisprudence, this is part of the same power grab as January 6.
Thank you for this excellent and detailed write-up. We need cool heads and solid information more than ever right now. We should still be worried, but this can help keep us from falling into despair.
Thanks Jay, I'm curious about the definition of "official acts". There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a defined role of the president is to get re-elected. How can anything related to re-election including conversations with other government officials about strategies and methods be considered "official acts"? Thanks for all you do.
This is the a big area where this will play out. Judges have been holding that removal of the Georgia case to federal court is improper where there was no evidence of people acting within their official capacities, rather than as mouthpieces for candidate Trump. It will be interesting to see what happens when that case goes up to the Supreme Court.
Conversations with the DOJ are automatically official acts because the Constitution says that talking to DOJ is the presidents job. Doesn't matter if the conversation was 1000% illegal and unrelated to actual DOJ duties.
A president could tell someone in the DOJ that they murdered a man and buried his body in the woods. And it could be true. And that conversation would still be inadmissable as evidence
I hope you are correct and news is hitting in September and October to at least put the Trump trial stories more front and center (looking at you CNN and NYT)
It’s so glad you’re a law geek, Jay. And especially because you brought me that eye-popping footnote. I just wish that Amy had joined the dissent wholeheartedly.
This is good to hear, and I trust your analysis, but the gutting thing about this ruling is that they are saying, as explicitly as they can, that they will do literally anything for (checks notes) the host of The Apprentice. They made this ruling out of thin air and conservative blog posts, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t continue to do so.
VOTE ONLY FOR DEMOCRATS IN NOVEMBER 2024!
- We must win the Office of President
- We must retain control of the Senate
- We must take back control of the House
OUR PLATFORM:
Amend the Constitution:
- To enshrine in the Constitution that abortion is legal across the United States of America.
- To enshrine in the Constitution that no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.
- To enshrine in the Constitution that the winner of the Office of President of the United States will be determined by majority vote on a nationwide basis. (The Electoral College is to be eliminated.)
- To enshrine in the Constitution the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
- To enshrine in the Constitution a complete separation of Church and State.
- To enshrine in the Constitution that any form of racial gerrymandering is illegal.
- To enshrine in the Constitution that any Supreme Court Justice found guilty of accepting gratuities, gifts or bribes from anyone is subject to immediate dismissal from the Supreme Court.
- To enshrine in the Constitution that anyone convicted of a felony is forever ineligible to run for the Office of President of the United States.
Expand the Number of Justices on the Supreme Court to 13.
Democrats would be better off passing most of these as laws. It sucks but is the reality. The United States has the hardest constitution in the world to amend. Oops. So an expanded and reformed Supreme Court that better aligns with the American population. Who can then begin work in tandem to begin to heal the damage.
Democrats also should make DC a state, which has a larger population than two states, and Puerto Rico a state, which has a larger population than twenty states.
And key to all this is gaining supermajorities in House and Senate.
No, not at all necessary. You only need 51 votes to modify the 60 votes filibuster rule and then simple majority rule is enough to pass the laws. Democrats were 2 votes short of modifying the 60 votes filibuster rule, after all. Manchin and Sinema refused. They are both leaving January 3. Congress passed transformative laws with a slim majority in both Chambers.
More lawmakers would be better, for sure. But it isn’t required.
As for amending the Constitution, making an amendment for reforming how amendments become enshrined into the Constitution and eliminating the electoral college for the presidency vote both should be priorities ahead of everything else because those are the two pain points for the Constitution that are choking any progress that could be made.
This is already a heavy lift with so many red state Democrats up for re-election, like Tester and Brown. I am hopeful Cruz and Hawley might lose their seats to Allred and Kunce, and Gallego beat Lake. These are all critical, because DINO Manchin will be replaced by a MAGA Republican in WV. We need at least 50 real Democrats in the Senate. The transformative laws passed under Biden were seeded with carve outs to get Manchin and Sinema on board, protecting Energy and other Big Money interests.
I hope they ALL lose. Radical votes all around!
Thanks for that insight!
We don’t need a super majority if there are 50 Dem Senators willing to kill the filibuster. Unless the Constitution demands a super majority, a simple majority would be enough. The VP has the 51st vote.
Definitely need to kill the filibuster ‼️‼️‼️
I agree stack the court
I’ve never liked that term….reminds me of “stacking the deck” against or for someone; isn’t expanding the court really what we mean?
True dat
REBALANCE the court
Best wording yet!
One of the things Congress DOES have power over is the jurisdiction of the courts. It can actually withdraw jurisdiction for some kinds of cases. It would have to be VERY carefully crafted, since even though the power of appellate review isn't actually IN the constitution, we don't want to abandon it.
This is the correct take - I love his wish list, but that quantity of amendments would absolutely require a Constitutional Convention - which, no thank you. Pandora's box would appear too be a collection of the most benign of kerfuffles by comparison.
Why are Americans bowing to SCOTUS patently unconstitutional ruling? First we defied a king, now we must defy this ruling. We are in a constitutional crisis. Biden is wrong to affirm the legitimacy of this ruling. The SCOTUS 6 are so pleased we are falling for their gambit.
We have been rudely shown the the leaks in our hose, and now it's time to plug them for good!
The founders thought that men of good character would be in Congress, on the high court, and in the presidency. The PRESUMPTION of good character is a flimsy foundation for a nation. Many in the past 20 years at least have demonstrated bad character.
That sure looks like that “liberal wish list” those Republican Congress members talk about....and I agree with most of its goals. BUT...how do you get three quarters of states to agree to any of this in today’s world?
For any of these to have a chance, the prerequisite is to create a new filibuster rule that makes it much harder for a narrowly divided chamber to be obstructed, without completely eliminating the practice, if possible.
I favor a bold action to bring about Democratic restoration...
Arrest the most corrupted justices (Alito and Thomas), vacate their seats immediately by Executive order, and replace them with two qualified candidates to restore a balance that the Heritage Society Supreme Court has destroyed. Schumer can follow McConnell’s lead on getting ACB seated in record time. Then, next session, bring cases allowing the newly constituted Court to reverse the worst precedents the HSSC has created...CU, Shelby, Rucho, Heller, Dobbs, and Trump v. USA, etc. Expect a lot of 5-4 decisions!
If a few more states pass an NPVIC bill, the EC will cease to determine presidential elections.
I think the main problem is that most state legislatitures are controlled by Republicans via gerrymandering.
Items like the Electoral College and every state having two senators were intended to appease the wealthy among the founders. The filibuster is a sabotage for legislation most often used by the far right, no matter whether they called themselves Democrats or Republicans.
Yes, but it is prized by some who see the pendulum swing of alternating leadership, and has been effective for both parties restricting the other. But I agree it has to go now in order to clear the way for progress against the coup that is under way by the Right. If Americans really want a dictatorship, a Christian theocracy, and accelerating planetary decline due to climate change after that, then all the dystopian sci-fi novels’ prognostications await.
That is a matter of concern in 3 areas. Getting any Amendment enacted (you can’t), calling a Constitutional Convention (I hope we don’t), and the failure of any presidential candidate to win 270 electoral votes (No!). Which were you thinking of?
How can this be done?
They specifically stated the ruling applies to all Presidents past, future, and how can the exclude the present? The House will impeach Biden but so what?
Yes! How can they?
All that’s needed for the House to impeach is a simple majority. If Biden moved boldly to unseat the most corrupt pair of Justices by EO, the House would impeach him. But the Senate couldn’t convict him, needing 10 Democrats to vote that way. This is also why impeaching Thomas and Alito is a dead end road to nowhere, accomplishing nothing. They must be removed, stripped of their judgeships and replaced. It won’t be pretty, but beats the alternatives.
How? The Executive has the power to act decisively and face no legal consequences according to the new standard set in Trump v. USA, or so I am given to understand. Our system of government is under threat from within, and the malefactors are readily identifiable. They can be given due process later, after their seats are occupied by uncorrupted jurists.
Yes!!! I haven't read this all through yet but does the Supreme Court's ruling grant the same immunity to Biden?
Certainly - but you may be sure that any case that gets to this SCOTUS will get much stricter scrutiny for any Democrat than for any MAGAt. It is no longer a disinterested arbiter of law; it is a political arm of the Republican Party.
I think SCOTUS will get exhausted and implode as they change ruling after ruling when a dem using their rulings must be redefined. I can see the smoke rising from their machines as they continue to turn and turn again.
And add term limits to the Supreme Court...maybe 10-12 years and an ENFORCEABLE code of ethics.
Thanks, Beki, I will add that to my list.
I totally agree.
YES to everything here!!!!
To infinity and beyond!
A convicted felon is not allowed to join the US Army or the US Navy or the US Air Force or the US Marines . . . . Why is a convicted felon allowed to apply to be Commander-In-Chief of all four branches of our military ? . . . . He would also be in control of several thousand million tons of THERMO NUCLEAR WEAPONS (again) ! . . . . Understand that means 'HYDROGEN BOMBS' and each one is hundreds or thousands of times more powerful than all the bombs dropped in World War Two ! . . . . . gasp . . . . Please think of your grandchildren ! . . . . .
Why are Americans bowing to SCOTUS patently unconstitutional ruling? First we defied a king, now we must defy this ruling. We are in a constitutional crisis. Biden is wrong to affirm the legitimacy of this ruling. The SCOTUS 6 are so pleased we are falling for their gambit.
The law about no one being above the law should just be a reiteration of the impeachment clause that noted any gov official is still subject to criminal law regardless of impeachment. Define, reinforce and clarify so scotus cannot.
I like the way you think
wishful thinking but I like it!
👏🔨💥
This is all good news Jay, truly it is. But I need to share a link with you, and everyone here. Because I'm terrified.
https://www.mediamatters.org/project-2025/heritage-foundation-president-celebrates-supreme-court-immunity-decision-we-are
The quote from the fascist president of the heritage foundation:
"And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."
We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be? That sounds like a threat to kill people on the left if we don't comply.
I just cancelled finally my subscription to the NY Times. So mad that the entire top section has been covered with Biden step down op-eds and articles while Rome is burning. And now I know the new horse race will take up that space while the ever emboldened criminals continue their spree.
Yeah, I cancelled mine months ago. I hope more people do it, then they might get the message.
Canceled mine last week!
I’m going to cancel mine too - but I can’t imagine they are going to care or change their politics at all.
I sent a "tip" to the NYT just now and this is the response I got:
"Thank you for emailing The New York Times tips line. As of Friday, June 9, this email address will no longer be monitored. For a list of ways to submit a tip, please visit www.nytimes.com/tips."
That would be June 9th, 2023 - Last year! When I clicked on the tips link it takes me there but you can't send a tip unless you subscribe. What a fucking joke they are.
Everyone should cancel-we need to roar. I don't subscribe never have never will.
Sadly, I’m sure you are correct.
Cancelled mine as well. I'd been a subscriber since John Kerry ran for President. No more.
I dropped mine as well. The NY Times has been doing a poor job of representing the truth.
They want to stay on Trump's 'good' side, and seem blind to the fact that he has no loyalty whatsoever, and a long, long, memory for grudges. He'll probably do his damndest to put them out of business if he is elected.
They need to remember just who it was that called the press "the enemy of the people."
Canceled my subscription yesterday
It is all about Wall Street and that is where we can bring this down. Shares go down, it collapses.
I cancelled mine a couple of weeks ago! Enough!
He (the heritage fk) needs to be arrested on charges of terrorisim, right now, put an end to this chit!
At the very least, he needs to be fired from his position for his statement and attitude.
Um... he is saying out loud exactly what his organization's objectives have been since Goldwater got smoked in '64.
Sadly, I don't think it would put and end to this shit.
I saw that and shared it on social media.
Thank you, I'm scared the "media" won't cover it. I sent it as far and wide as I could.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." (JFK)
We knew this already, but despite knowing, the inevitable keeps creeping closer.
Who are you kidding? The Democratic party has the revolutionary potential of a drunk slug.
There is no threat here. Trump can do what he wants, to whoever he wants, and the weak will lie down and let him do it.
How do you think tragedies happen in history? They happen like this. People don't prevent them.
Go ahead; underestimate us. It'll be fun.
You think I'm opposed to you?
I'd sooner cut off my own hand than use it to vote for Trump.
However, I'm not underestimating the Democratic party.
It has lost almost all its vitality. The past 3 years have hollowed it out, and shown both its politicians and its voters to be utterly powerless.
I will do nothing to harm you, but the sad truth is that you don't have a winning hand.
People don't know this is the plan? I have no doubt there will be blood spilled if things don't go their way. I just wonder to what degree. What do you think their fervor over the 2nd amendment is all about? I live amongst these folks in Idaho and some are my family. It's not uncommon to hear and see calls to intimidate and eve do harm to "libs". I am no longer a registered Democrat because of it. This is their civil war and arms are likely to be taken up if they don't get their way.
Thank you for giving us the legal angle on Trump's ongoing cases.
We are indeed in a new world when the term "official" applied to an action gets precedence over "criminal." There is strong evidence that the prosecution for the January 6th case has been ready to proceed for some time with prosecuting Trump only on the "unofficial" actions. Before the Supreme Court intervened and then sat on it, the appellate court asked the prosecutor presenting the case if he would be willing to proceed only on the actions that were clearly "unofficial." The answer she received had no hemming or hawing in it, simply an immediate "Yes."
This is an aside, but given Joe Biden's newly acquired immunity I wonder if the DOJ could arrest a judge for obstruction of justice? Any judge so accused could cool their heels in confinement, spend their hard earned cash on legal representation, await trial like one of the hoi polloi, and contemplate the philosophical notion that actions have consequences, sometimes unintended ones.
Sounds very much like sedition to me.
THE
-No.
-One.
-Is.
-Above.
-The.
-Law.
MARCH!
WHEN:
Saturday July 13th and Sunday July 14th
WHERE:
- Personal residences of the 6 Supreme Court Justices who just made one of the most disgusting, disgraceful, detestable decisions in the history of the United States of America.
- And the National Mall in Washington, DC
No Kings or Queens in America!
I love it. Get some crowns from the costume shop and show up.
Jay, your legal analysis has given me tremendous hope that #45 will get his cumuppings after all, hopefully in tandem with 6 SCOTUS criminals!
Caveat: I’m still hopelessly nauseous!
You give me hope Jay.
Amen. And it’s more fact-based than “he’s the devil and SCOTUS are his minions” and so forth which feel good (to me:-) but don’t get the cows milked or the hogs fed.
Is there precedent for judges refusing to comply with this absurd presidential immunity ruling?
Presidents are not kings and Supreme Court justices are not legislators. When parties would not desegregate, the Feds acted, but in this case, no way the White House will enforce.
Or, in the case I referenced yesterday below, SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts four years ago wrote this decision, same plaintiff, same issue of Presidential Immunity but a different take on evidence. I think he should be held to the first decision for the cases where the alleged crimes, investigations and warranted indictments occurred prior to this new ruling. Especially since they framed the new BS ruling on "future" Presidents being able to perform their duties without burden etc.
The opinion he wrote in '20 tRump v Vance included this;
In our judicial system, “the public has a right to every man’s evidence.”1 Since the earliest days of the Republic, “every man” has included the President of the United States.
law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-635
Wow. So he contradicted himself. Is there any remedy for this?
I'm hoping that someone with access to DOJ can bring it to their attention for consideration, if for no other reason than to highlight their hypocrisy and lack of credibility, for twisting this latest decision to benefit a convicted felon.
No because someone payed him money which they made legal.
Gratuity is currently taxed, hope they remember to claim it on their taxes, will go out on a limb and bet they didn't split the tip with the full bench.
Jay, are you familiar with the documentary „The Sixth“? It is a recently released account of Jan 6– powerful and visceral. It has inexplicably gone unprompted by its distributor (A24)— there are a couple of articles about that if you look (I think one was in Variety). Eyeballs on this could do the job the media will not prior to the election. Just wanted to put it on your radar.
Where can we watch The Sixth?
https://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Congressman-Jamie-Raskin/dp/B0CYXG8TQC/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=1NNP62EX7VH5S&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.38Ev1Ec3LJelUj5OaTX30WG_NZ0ufUb7yprHWW1KnuHf2dcxxOnUy42bWFDUVFztyVSypqpqpv4cEaP0we_s0YRXe_SG-jjt-H6cnQ3bjVi8jwp66OGo8jSJ2OTEkWiSsdNW6ZatXoWncIbR-DUIt8O7eAJdFJ2OBTbLf-0Fqq_J7K6q-jmzDyKZphXDEP_GUrDb_Lld49Zi0RwZO7LD9A.65kygKnMASTfq-AWFW9N6ueVjqI_b22Q9Y_mTlEWEQ4&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+sixth&qid=1720022749&sprefix=the+sixth%2Caps%2C199&sr=8-1
It’s available for rent on Amazon and in the iTunes Store or whatever it’s called now. I’ll look for a link.
Available to rent or buy on YouTube. https://youtu.be/CpGZbt5jYl0?si=jE8Izbh_7Zy2ecMI
Also available on AppleTV, but for $5 or rent for $6.
https://tv.apple.com/us/movie/the-sixth/umc.cmc.5encji8tzz11b99wg1ua5140z
Very suspicious it’s disappeared. And NO US distribution for the apprentice documentary?
I believe the Apprentice movie was fictionalized and Dan Snyder who financed it is interfering w distribution
Yes, it was very powerful.
I hadn't even heard about this! How did you know about it?
Thank you so much for this detailed explanation of how these cases might move forward, because I was really losing hope. I truly appreciate your precision and clarity in describing these legal matters!
Me, too!
Isn't there an ethics arm of the Bar Association? Would they sit back if this were a law firm and not the s* court?? I don't know but I wonder if The Bar Association, who puts a rubber stamp on nearly all practicing attorneys, ought to jump into the ring.
Great thought, because, for example, Rudy Giuliani was just disbarred in the state of New York, and there are other cases pending for trump’s lawyers.
Unfortunately, these things move through the system at a glacial pace. This is not constitutional jurisprudence, this is part of the same power grab as January 6.
Everything in government is glacial.
Pretty sure judges don't have to be on the bar. ESPECIALLY supreme court justices. They just need Senate consent, as far as I know.
Thank you for this excellent and detailed write-up. We need cool heads and solid information more than ever right now. We should still be worried, but this can help keep us from falling into despair.
"To my mind, that keeps these cases very much alive and of continued high risk to Trump."
Yes, as long as he is kept out of the White House; otherwise, he holds pretty much all the cards, and they all say "get out of jail, free."
If he wins again, we are in very big trouble. Far beyond ending these cases against him.
I think you’re right about that. No one is gonna save us, but us. We gotta vote. 😎
Not exactly free. Those legal bills are astronomical. (Insert joke about likelihood of him stiffing the lawyers)
Thanks Jay, I'm curious about the definition of "official acts". There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a defined role of the president is to get re-elected. How can anything related to re-election including conversations with other government officials about strategies and methods be considered "official acts"? Thanks for all you do.
This is the a big area where this will play out. Judges have been holding that removal of the Georgia case to federal court is improper where there was no evidence of people acting within their official capacities, rather than as mouthpieces for candidate Trump. It will be interesting to see what happens when that case goes up to the Supreme Court.
And, since when is inciting an insurrection a presidential duty????
Conversations with the DOJ are automatically official acts because the Constitution says that talking to DOJ is the presidents job. Doesn't matter if the conversation was 1000% illegal and unrelated to actual DOJ duties.
A president could tell someone in the DOJ that they murdered a man and buried his body in the woods. And it could be true. And that conversation would still be inadmissable as evidence
It seems like that could get whittled down, if one was reasonable, to the subject of the conversation as opposed to just who it was with.
I hope you are correct and news is hitting in September and October to at least put the Trump trial stories more front and center (looking at you CNN and NYT)
Forget NYT. They’ve gone to the Dark Side.
It’s so glad you’re a law geek, Jay. And especially because you brought me that eye-popping footnote. I just wish that Amy had joined the dissent wholeheartedly.
Agreed!
Wow. I needed this. I’ll try not to eat all the potato chips in my hand right now. Thanks, Jay.
As for tomorrow July 4 I think we should all fly our flags at half staff. Maybe upside down, too.
This is good to hear, and I trust your analysis, but the gutting thing about this ruling is that they are saying, as explicitly as they can, that they will do literally anything for (checks notes) the host of The Apprentice. They made this ruling out of thin air and conservative blog posts, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t continue to do so.
It is appalling. I don’t know what law they will teach in law school now.
It certainly won’t be Constitutional Law!