Supreme Court (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      America’s Gerontocracy Problem Goes Beyond the President

      by

      Whether or not Joe Biden persists in his run for president, America’s gerontocratic crisis will keep on worsening. But high-profile symptoms like Mr. Biden’s difficulties provide an opportunity to confront the issue — a social form of sclerosis that will persist unless and until more power is transferred from the wrinkled to the rest.Gerontocracy transcends government as a full-scale social phenomenon, in which older people accumulate power of different kinds, and then retain it.This form of power is both old and new. The term “gerontocracy” was popularized a century ago by the Scottish anthropologist J.G. Frazer to refer to a very early form of government, in which power reposed in councils of elders. Since premodern societies valued the past over the future, and the ancestral over the innovative, it was only natural to allocate authority to those with cumulative experience and nearer the realm of the honored dead.When the Constitution imposed an age minimum of 30 (and no maximum) on the Senate, that restriction alone excluded roughly three-quarters of the white population from serving. This set up the distant possibility of our present, in which Mr. Biden could become one of the youngest senators ever when he took his seat at age 30, while Dianne Feinstein (age 90), Robert Byrd (92) and Strom Thurmond (100) all either died in office or just months after retirement.The Supreme Court is also an outpost of elder rule. The Constitution gives federal judges life tenure, so it is entirely up to them when they finally depart, alive or dead. And it is not surprising when they die in the midst of opining on the law: Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 87, William Rehnquist at 80 and Antonin Scalia at 79. At least five federal judges have passed 100 years of age while on the bench.The Supreme Court was quasi-gerontocratic from the start, like the Senate, only more so. The popular and professional ideology of the judicial role emphasizes even more the association of age with wisdom. And the Supreme Court’s oracular purposes, priestly trappings and mystical rituals make it resemble, more than any other American political institution, gerontocratic clubs like the Roman Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Will Regret a Second Trump Term

      by

      Now is the summer of Republican content.The G.O.P. is confident and unified. Donald Trump has held a consistent and widening lead over President Biden in all the battleground states. Never Trumpers have been exiled, purged or converted. The Supreme Court has eased many of Trump’s legal travails while his felony convictions in New York seem to have inflicted only minimal political damage — if they didn’t actually help him.Best of all for Republicans, a diminished Joe Biden seems determined to stay in the race, leading a dispirited and divided party that thinks of its presumptive nominee as one might think of a colonoscopy: an unpleasant reminder of age. Even if Biden can be cajoled into quitting, his likeliest replacement is Vice President Kamala Harris, whose 37 percent approval rating is just around that of her boss. Do Democrats really think they can run on her non-handling of the border crisis, her reputation for managerial incompetence or her verbal gaffes?In short, Republicans have good reason to think they’ll be back in the White House next January. Only then will the regrets set in.Three in particular: First, Trump won’t slay the left; instead, he will re-energize and radicalize it. Second, Trump will be a down-ballot loser, leading to divided and paralyzed government. Third, Trump’s second-term personnel won’t be like the ones in his first. Instead, he will appoint his Trumpiest people and pursue his Trumpiest instincts. The results won’t be ones old-school Republicans want or expect.Begin with the left.Talk to most conservatives and even a few liberals, and they’ll tell you that Peak Woke — that is, the worst excesses of far-left activism and cancel culture — happened around 2020. In fact, Peak Woke, from the campus witch hunts to “abolish the police” and the “mostly peaceful” protests in cities like Portland, Ore., and Minneapolis that followed George Floyd’s murder, really coincided with the entirety of Trump’s presidency, then abated after Biden’s election.That’s no accident. What used to be called political correctness has been with us for a long time. But it grew to a fever pitch under Trump, most of all because he was precisely the kind of bigoted vulgarian and aspiring strongman that liberals always feared might come to power, and which they felt duty bound to “resist.” With his every tweet, Trump’s presidency felt like a diesel engine blowing black soot in the face of the country. That’s also surely how Trump wanted it, since it delighted his base, goaded his critics and left everyone else in a kind of blind stupor.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Marshal Shoots Man in Attempted Carjacking Near Sotomayor’s Home

      by

      The marshal was sitting in an unmarked federal vehicle near the Supreme Court justice’s home when a man approached the vehicle and pointed a handgun at him through the driver’s side window.A U.S. marshal on a Supreme Court security detail shot and wounded an armed man who tried to carjack him early Friday near Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s home in northwest Washington, according to court documents.The marshal was sitting in an unmarked federal vehicle when a silver Toyota minivan pulled over next to him, according to court documents. A man, identified in the documents as Kentrell Flowers, 18, exited the van, approached the marshal and pointed a handgun at him through the driver’s side window.The marshal drew his gun and fired at Mr. Flowers through the window four times, hitting him in the mouth, according to the court documents. A second U.S. marshal from another vehicle also responded and fired his weapon, according to the Metropolitan Police Department.The first marshal provided first aid to Mr. Flowers, who was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. Mr. Flowers was charged with armed carjacking, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a large-capacity ammunition-feeding device.The driver of the minivan, which had been carjacked, fled the scene. The Metropolitan Police Department opened an investigation into the episode, which occurred in the Shaw neighborhood.The marshals “involved in the shooting incident were part of the unit protecting the residences of U.S. Supreme Court justices,” a spokeswoman for the U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement. “As a general practice, the U.S. Marshals don’t discuss specifics of protective details.”Carjackings are down nearly 50 percent this year compared with the same period last year, according to the crime data from the Metropolitan Police Department. Following a national trend, the overall crime rate in the District of Columbia is down 17 percent compared with last year. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Seek Criminal Investigation of Justice Thomas Over Travel and Gifts

      by

      The senators said the Supreme Court justice’s failure to disclose lavish gifts and luxury travel showed a “willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws.”Two top Democratic senators have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation of Justice Clarence Thomas for possible violations of federal ethics and tax laws.Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Ron Wyden of Oregon sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland last week asking that he appoint a special counsel to investigate Justice Thomas’s failure to disclose lavish gifts, luxury travel, a loan for a recreational vehicle and other perks given to him by wealthy friends.The request further intensified efforts by Senate Democrats to scrutinize Justice Thomas’s conduct at a time when they are trying to force Supreme Court justices to comply with stricter ethics and financial disclosure rules.“We do not make this request lightly,” the senators wrote in a joint statement. “Supreme Court justices are properly expected to obey laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety and to comply with the federal tax code.”“No government official should be above the law,” they added.Specifically, the senators asked that a special counsel investigate whether Justice Thomas violated federal ethics and tax laws by failing to disclose as income the $267,000 he received in forgiven debt for a luxury R.V.The senators wrote that Justice Thomas had “repeated opportunities” to explain his failure to disclose the gifts to the Senate Finance Committee, of which Mr. Wyden is the chairman, as well as the Judiciary Committee’s panel on federal courts, which Mr. Whitehouse leads.They also accused Justice Thomas of showing a “willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws,” behavior that they said surpassed that of other government officials who have been investigated by the Justice Department for “similar violations.”A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Independent Streak Marked Supreme Court Term

      by

      The junior member of the court’s six-justice conservative supermajority often questioned its approach and wrote important dissents joined by liberal justices.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, 52, is the youngest member of the Supreme Court and the junior member of its conservative supermajority. Last week, she completed what was only her third full term.Yet she has already emerged as a distinctive force on the court, issuing opinions that her admirers say are characterized by intellectual seriousness, independence, caution and a welcome measure of common sense.In the term that ended last week, she delivered a series of concurring opinions questioning and honing the majority’s methods and conclusions.She wrote notable dissents, joined by liberal justices, from decisions limiting the tools prosecutors can use in cases against members of the Jan. 6 mob and blocking a Biden administration plan to combat air pollution. And she voted with the court’s three-member liberal wing in March, saying the majority had ruled too broadly in restoring former President Donald J. Trump to the Colorado ballot.The bottom line: Justice Barrett was the Republican appointee most likely to vote for a liberal result in the last term.That does not make her a liberal, said Irv Gornstein, the executive director of Georgetown University’s Supreme Court Institute.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Stumbles Over His Words as He Tries to Steady Re-Election Campaign

      by

      President Biden sought to steady his re-election campaign by talking with two Black radio hosts for interviews broadcast on Thursday, but he spoke haltingly at points during one interview and struggled to find the right phrase in the other, saying that he was proud to have been “the first Black woman to serve with a Black president.”He also stumbled over his words during a four-minute Fourth of July speech to military families at the White House, beginning a story about former President Donald J. Trump, calling him “one of our colleagues, the former president” and then adding, “probably shouldn’t say, at any rate” before abruptly ending the story and moving on.Mr. Biden made the mistake on WURD radio, based in Philadelphia, as he tried to deliver a line that he has repeated before about having pride in serving as vice president for President Barack Obama. Earlier in the interview, he boasted about appointing the first Black woman to the Supreme Court and picking the first Black woman to be vice president.The president also made a mistake earlier in the interview when he asserted that he had been the first president elected statewide in Delaware. He appeared to mean that he was the first Catholic in the state to be elected statewide, going on to speak admiringly of John F. Kennedy, a Catholic.Mr. Biden and his top aides have said the president’s activities in the coming days are part of a series of campaign efforts designed to prove to voters, donors and activists that the president’s debate debacle was nothing more than what he has called “a bad night.”Ammar Moussa, a spokesman for Mr. Biden’s campaign, criticized the news media for making note of the president’s stumbles.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Qué sigue para Trump tras el fallo de la Corte Suprema sobre la inmunidad presidencial?

      by

      Analistas y observadores ya preveían, a grandes rasgos, la decisión que establece que los presidentes merecen protección considerable por sus actos oficiales. Trump lo proclamó como una victoria.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Un sistema jurídico que le ha propinado golpes dolorosos a Donald Trump en los últimos seis meses le acaba de dar una de las mejores noticias que ha recibido desde que empezó su campaña.El lunes, la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos, cuya mayoría calificada conservadora se consolidó con los magistrados nominados por Trump, le concedió al expresidente inmunidad parcial ante procedimientos judiciales ahora que intenta eludir una acusación formal del fiscal especial Jack Smith en relación con sus esfuerzos para impedir la transferencia de poder tras las elecciones de 2020.Desde hace meses, tanto analistas políticos como observadores de la corte ya esperaban, a grandes rasgos, este fallo: que los presidentes tienen derecho a una protección considerable por sus actos oficiales. Sin embargo, Trump lo proclamó como una victoria.“Este es un gran triunfo para nuestra Constitución y democracia. ¡Estoy orgulloso de ser estadounidense!”, escribió Trump en puras mayúsculas en su plataforma Truth Social.La decisión implica que es casi una certeza que un juicio sobre el caso se postergue hasta después de las elecciones de noviembre, y si Trump gana, es casi seguro que el Departamento de Justicia descarte el caso, según personas cercanas al exmandatario.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Escalates Long Rise of Presidential Power

      by

      Beyond Donald J. Trump, the decision adds to the seemingly one-way ratchet of executive authority.The Supreme Court’s decision to bestow presidents with immunity from prosecution over official actions is an extraordinary expansion of executive power that will reverberate long after Donald J. Trump is gone.Beyond its immediate implications for the election subversion case against Mr. Trump and the prospect that he may feel less constrained by law if he returns to power, the ruling also adds to the nearly relentless rise of presidential power since the mid-20th century.It had seemed like a constitutional truism in recent years when more than one lower-court opinion addressing novel legal issues raised by Mr. Trump’s norm-breaking behavior observed that presidents are not kings. But suddenly, they do enjoy a kind of monarchical prerogative.“The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in an outraged dissent joined by the court’s other two liberals. “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”Dismissing those worries, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, argued that presidents stand apart from regular people, so protecting them from prosecution if they are accused of abusing their powers to commit official crimes is necessary.“Unlike anyone else,” he wrote, “the president is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More