W. Niederhut Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) From the distinguished, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, James Risen... The Supreme Court Wants a Dictator The right-wing court is engaged in a radical revolution to upend U.S. democracy. James Risen July 1 2024, 4:38 p.m. MONDAY’S SUPREME COURT ruling granting far-reaching presidential immunity gives the lie to decades of right-wing propaganda about the real purpose of the long conservative campaign to take over the court. Generations of conservative pseudointellectuals have argued that the mission of the Federalist Society, the powerful conservative legal group that has seeded the Supreme Court with its zombie-like members, was to bring the court back to its original mandate under the Constitution. The right-wing pundits who promoted the Federalist Society were always a little vague on what their version of “originalism” really entailed, which led to widespread suspicions that it just meant whatever was politically beneficial to conservatives. The ruling on presidential immunity is just the latest piece of evidence that shows that originalism was just a confidence game by the right to gain power. The court’s conservative majority has revealed itself to be a corrupt political machine with both short- and long-term goals. Today, the court is determined to protect Donald Trump and the Republican Party; longer-term, its mandate is to protect and defend the powers of those who will enable white minority rule in America for years to come. The court’s immunity ruling is nearly a blank check for Donald Trump. The court’s immunity ruling is nearly a blank check for Trump, a brazen attempt to protect him from his ongoing criminal cases and to grant him virtually unlimited power if he gets back into the White House. With its ruling, the Supreme Court’s right-wing block has made it clear: They are tired of democracy. The justices want a dictator. But they only want a right-wing dictator. It is not hard to imagine how differently the justices would have ruled if the question of presidential immunity had come before them in a case involving a Democratic president. The right-wing court is engaged in a radical revolution, and its objective is to rewrite modern American history. Through their rulings, the conservative justices are revealing what the American right has until recently tried to keep quiet, which is that the right doesn’t accept any of the major changes that have happened in American society since World War II. They have in their minds a fantasy version of 1940s America, even though almost none of them were alive at the time. What they yearn for is a nation before integration and civil rights, before women’s rights and reproductive rights, before gay rights, before the modern expansions of free speech and press freedom. Above all, they want a return to a less diverse America, a nation in which white male power was unquestioned. They want it so badly that they are willing to abandon democracy to get it. The radicalized court, with the Federalist Society’s approval, are in the process of demolishing the landmark Supreme Court rulings of the post-World War II era. In order to get confirmed, Trump’s appointees to the court lied to the Senate by claiming that they saw Roe v. Wade as settled law; they ripped it up as soon as they consolidated their power on the court. In quick succession, they have gone after voting rights, affirmative action, gun control, environmental regulations, while sending out the word that now is a good time for conservative lawyers to bring their most extreme lawsuits to the court in order to create more right-wing precedents. This court could ban access to contraceptives next; another target could be a reversal on the legalization of gay marriage. The court is now so radical that it would not be surprising to see it go after Brown versus Board of Education, the historic Supreme Court ruling that declared that separate but equal schools were unconstitutional and which helped formed the basis for integration. This court will be remembered like the justices behind the Dredd Scott decision, the worst ruling by the Supreme Court in American history. Their robes don’t hide their naked grab for political power. Edited 6 hours ago by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 3 Author Share Posted July 3 A Decision of Surpassing Recklessness in Dangerous Times | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 30 Author Share Posted July 30 The Inside Story of Trump’s Immunity Win July 30, 2024 at 9:14 am EDT By Taegan Goddard “The Supreme Court’s toughest cases during Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure have often generated internal suspense, with shifting votes, last-minute switches and the chief’s own push toward compromises that would lessen the appearance of politics,” CNN reports. “Not so this spring, when the six Republican-appointed conservatives established a far-reaching immunity from prosecution for former President Donald Trump.” “Sources familiar with the negotiations told CNN there was an immediate and clear 6-3 split, as the justices met in private in the oak-paneled conference room that adjoins the chief justice’s chambers.” “Roberts made no serious effort to entice the three liberal justices for even a modicum of the cross-ideological agreement that distinguished such presidential-powers cases in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted August 1 Author Share Posted August 1 Schumer Tries to Strip Trump Immunity Ruling August 1, 2024 at 9:28 am EDT By Taegan Goddard “Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is trying to effectively reverse the controversial Supreme Court decision that handed presidents legal immunity,” Axios reports. “Legislation that will be unveiled by Schumer on Thursday elevates the Democratic Party’s argument that the fate of democracy is at stake in the November elections.” “Schumer will introduce legislation that would reaffirm that presidents and vice presidents do not have legal immunity from actions that violate federal criminal law.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 W. I appreciate and applaud your efforts to contribute to this tread even though it is relegated to relative obscurity. But Schumer's efforts are largely symbolic. The Dems have the Senate but not the House and with so many seats coming up, the chances are right now they'll lose the Senate! About a similar disenfranchising issue with campaign reform in a battleground state. Wisconsin had a very good Senator Russ Feingold who partnered with John Mc Cain in the campaign finance Mc Cain/Feingold bill. How did Wisconites reward him? They booted him out of office for tall Swede Ron Johnson! Then after 4 years of Johnson saying crazy sh-t, Feingold tried to retake the seat and Johnson defeated him again! Then remember we had Governor Jim Thompson , who at one time was early on was leading the Repub race in early 2016 with 11% to go down to 1% with national exposure after the first 2 primaries! And who can forget Paul Ryan? Biden should have started this Supreme Court thing after Dodd. The Clarence Thomas improprieties were public knowledge by that time. But the chances were also limited without both houses. . 3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Schumer Tries to Strip Trump Immunity Ruling August 1, 2024 at 9:28 am EDT By Taegan Goddard “Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is trying to effectively reverse the controversial Supreme Court decision that handed presidents legal immunity,” Axios reports. “Legislation that will be unveiled by Schumer on Thursday elevates the Democratic Party’s argument that the fate of democracy is at stake in the November elections.” “Schumer will introduce legislation that would reaffirm that presidents and vice presidents do not have legal immunity from actions that violate federal criminal law.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 (edited) William, politely, what does this have to do with the Kennedy case? Oh I see, it was in Political discussions. Edited August 1 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted August 9 Author Share Posted August 9 'Boy is that an open door': Experts warn of Supreme Court 'power grab' in Trump ruling https://www.rawstory.com/news/supreme-court-2668935323/ August 9, 2024 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted 6 hours ago Author Share Posted 6 hours ago New academic article published today at The Conversation, from the University of Virginia. Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States would have given Nixon immunity for Watergate crimes — but 50 years ago he needed a presidential pardon to avoid prison Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States would have given Nixon immunity for Watergate crimes — but 50 years ago he needed a presidential pardon to avoid prison (theconversation.com) by Ken Hughes September 12, 2024 Gerald Ford knew Richard Nixon could be prosecuted for crimes he committed as president. That was simply a fact, when President Ford gave his predecessor “a full, free, and absolute pardon” 50 years ago this week. Former presidents did not enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution until July 1, 2024, when six members of the Supreme Court created that privilege in Trump v. United States. In 1974, when Nixon’s resignation seemed likely to lead to prosecution for his role in many of the crimes of Watergate, Republicans in the White House and Congress took their cue from the Constitution. Article II, Section 4 established that former presidents had criminal liability, not criminal immunity. Even after impeachment, conviction and removal, “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ford faced that fact squarely in his pardon proclamation: “As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States.” Nixon had a right to a fair trial, Ford said. The Constitution guarantees that to all. But Ford raised doubts about whether America would be able to give Nixon a fair trial until months, perhaps years, elapsed. That was his justification for pardoning Nixon. It wasn’t good enough for most Americans. From anger to respect Only 26% of Americans supported the pardon in one poll, with 59% opposed. Reporters interviewed outraged citizens. “What about the others in his administration who are being tried?” asked John Dawdy, a Vietnam veteran and law student. After all, Nixon’s co-conspirators, including a former attorney general and former White House chief of staff, received fair trials. Joseph Hickel, a refugee from Czechoslovakia, saw “a danger of future crimes” by presidents if Nixon’s went unpunished. Ann Robinson of Cerritos, California, said, “Giving that pardon makes it seem that the man in office is a king.” Opinion shifted as Watergate receded in memory, and by 1986, one poll found only 39% opposed to the Nixon pardon and 54% in favor. Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a critic of the pardon in 1974, later concluded that Ford was right and gave him a Profile in Courage Award in 2001 for taking an unpopular but conscientious stand. During the Donald Trump administration, when another president was under investigation for impeachable and indictable offenses, public opinion of the Nixon pardon shifted again, with Americans perfectly polarized: 38% in favor, 38% against. In light of the Trump experience, some historians looked back and saw the Nixon pardon in a new light: as a damaging precedent establishing presidential impunity. No one above the law This year, Americans face a new consequence of the pardon. Because Ford’s decision deprived the country of a precedent for prosecuting a former president, the six Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court were able to fill the void with what I see as a radical revision of the Constitution. The court majority’s ruling that presidents are immune from prosecution for their “official acts” would have absolved most of Nixon’s Watergate crimes. Nixon used the CIA to obstruct the FBI’s Watergate investigation; created an illegal, unconstitutional secret police unit; sicced the IRS on political adversaries; commuted former Teamster president Jimmy Hoffa’s sentence for jury tampering and pension fund fraud in return for union support; and shook down campaign contributors in return for government favors. Under Trump v. United States, Nixon wouldn’t have had to worry about a pardon. He could have explained away all of these crimes as “official acts” he took using the powers of the presidency. The Supreme Court’s conservative justices, who see themselves as “originalists” and pride themselves on sticking to the literal text of the Constitution and original intent of its framers, have ironically provided a perfect example of the dangers of allowing justices to rewrite the Constitution to suit their current preferences. The Watergate break-in occurred in the same year that Joe Biden entered national politics as a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from Delaware. The newly elected Sen. Biden criticized the pardon the day after Ford issued it, saying, “It puts one man above the law.” Biden couldn’t have known that 50 years later, during his last year in national politics, the Supreme Court would grant presidents license to commit Nixonian crimes – or worse – with the powers of their office and without any fear of punishment. As part of his legacy, Biden has proposed a constitutional amendment to undo the damage done by Trump v. United States. Its name reflects the principle Biden invoked 50 years ago. It’s called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would strip presidents of immunity from prosecution for crimes committed as “official acts.” As a soon-to-be-former president, Biden could have much to lose from the adoption of his own amendment. This year’s Republican nominee has often expressed eagerness to prosecute Biden despite a lack of evidence of criminality. Under Trump v. United States, Biden enjoys broad immunity. Under the No One Is Above the Law Amendment, he would lose that privilege. The amendment is not only an example of Biden putting the country before himself, it’s a profile in courage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now