US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      AOC launches effort to impeach Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

      by

      Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced articles of impeachment against the conservative US supreme court justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on Wednesday over the justices’ “pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court”.The articles of impeachment are unlikely to gain traction in the US House, which is controlled by Republicans. The effort follows calls from two US senators, Sheldon Whitehouse and Ron Wyden, for the US attorney general to appoint a special counsel to investigate potential criminal violations of federal ethics and tax laws by Thomas.“Justice Thomas and Alito’s repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law. And their refusal to recuse from the specific matters and cases before the court in which their benefactors and spouses are implicated represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis,” Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, said in a statement.The articles were supported by seven other Democrats in the House.Ocasio-Cortez continued: “The unchecked corruption crisis on the supreme court has now spiraled into a constitutional crisis threatening American democracy writ large.”Reporting by the news outlet ProPublica revealed that Thomas failed to disclose several luxury vacation trips that were paid for by Harlan Crow, a conservative megadonor. Thomas has also been pressed to recuse himself from cases involving the January 6 US Capitol attack and Donald Trump because his wife, Ginni, is involved with groups that were connected to the insurrection.The resolution filed against Thomas contains three articles of impeachment. The first focuses on his failure to disclose gifts from Crow. The second two involve his refusal to recuse himself from cases connected to his wife.Alito also took a vacation with and flew on a private jet chartered by Peter Singer, a Republican billionaire. Additionally, Alito refused to recuse himself from cases involving the attack on the US Capitol after it was reported that his wife, Martha-Ann, flew an upside-down American flag associated with the insurrection at their Virginia home. Further, the Alitos flew a flag associated with Christian nationalism at a beach home in New Jersey.Ocasio-Cortez filed two articles of impeachment against Alito. One focuses on his failure to disclose luxury travel and the other on his refusal to recuse himself from January 6 cases.Alito and Thomas were both part of a majority opinion earlier this month saying that former presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts, a major win for Trump. They both also were in the majority in a case narrowing the grounds under which January 6 participants can be criminally prosecuted.Supreme court justices have wide discretion over whether to recuse themselves from a given case – something that sets them apart from other justices. Facing pressure after ProPublica’s reporting, the court’s nine justices formalized a code of conduct last November, a move that was seen as a step in the right direction, but still weak. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump plans to block hearings in January 6 case before 2024 election

      by

      Donald Trump is expected to launch a new legal battle to suppress any damaging evidence from his 2020 election-subversion case from becoming public before the 2024 election, preparing to shut down the potency of any “mini-trials” where high-profile officials could testify against him.The plans come after the US supreme court last week in its ruling that broadly conferred immunity on former presidents opened the door for the US district judge Tanya Chutkan to hold evidentiary hearings – potentially with witnesses – to determine what acts in the indictment can survive.In the coming months, Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue that the judge can decide whether the conduct is immune based on legal arguments alone, negating the need for witnesses or multiple evidentiary hearings, the people said.If prosecutors with the special counsel Jack Smith press for witnesses such as former vice-president Mike Pence or White House officials to testify, Trump’s lawyers are expected to launch a flurry of executive privilege and other measures to block their appearances, the people said.The plans, which have not been previously reported, are aimed at having the triple effect of burying damaging testimony, making it harder for prosecutors to overcome the presumptive immunity for official acts, and injecting new delay into the case through protracted legal fights.Trump has already been enormously successful in delaying his criminal cases, including by succeeding in having the supreme court from taking the immunity appeal in the 2020 election subversion case in Washington, which was frozen while the court considered the matter.The delay strategy thus far has been aimed at pushing the cases until after the November election, in the hope that Trump would be re-elected and then appoint as attorney general a loyalist who would drop the charges.But now, even if Trump loses, his lawyers have coalesced on a legal strategy that could take months to resolve depending on how prosecutors choose to approach evidentiary hearings, adding to additional months of anticipated appeals over what Chutkan determines are official acts.A Trump spokesperson declined to comment on the legal strategy but claimed in a statement: “The entire January 6th case has always been just a desperate, un-constitutional attempt by the Biden Crime Family and their weaponized Department of Justice to interfere with the 2024 Presidential Election. The only thing imploding faster than the Biden campaign is Deranged Jack Smith’s partisan hoaxes.”View image in fullscreenTrump’s lawyers are not expected to make any moves until the start of August, the people said, when the case is finally returned to the jurisdiction of Chutkan after the conclusion of the supreme court’s 25-day waiting period and a further week for the judgement to formally be sent down.Once Chutkan regains control of the case, lawyers for Trump and for the special counsel have suggested privately that they think she will quickly rule on a number of motions that were briefed before the case was frozen when Trump filed his immunity appeal with the supreme court.That could include Trump’s pending motion to compel more discovery materials from prosecutors. If Chutkan grants the motion, Trump’s lawyers would insist on time to review the new materials before they started sorting through what acts in the indictment were immune, the people said.In the supreme court’s ruling on immunity, the justices laid out three categories for protection: core presidential functions that carry absolute immunity, official acts of the presidency that carry presumptive immunity, and unofficial acts that carry no immunity.Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue the maximalist position that they considered all of the charged conduct was Trump acting in his official capacity as president and therefore presumptively immune – and incumbent on prosecutors to prove otherwise, the people said.And Trump’s lawyers are expected to suggest that even though the supreme court contemplated evidentiary hearings to sort through the conduct, they are not necessary, and any disputes can be resolved purely on legal arguments, the people said.In doing so, Trump will try to foreclose witness testimony that could be politically damaging because it would cause evidence about his efforts to subvert the 2020 election that has polled poorly to be suppressed, and legally damaging because it could cause Chutkan to rule against Trump.Trump’s lawyers have privately suggested they expect at least some evidentiary hearings to take place, but they are also intent on challenging testimony from people like former vice president Mike Pence and other high-profile White House officials.For instance, if prosecutors try to call Pence or his chief of staff Marc Short to testify about meetings where Trump discussed stopping the January 6 certification, Trump would try to block that testimony by asserting executive privilege, and having Pence assert the speech or debate clause protection.Trump’s lawyers would argue to Chutkan that any privilege rulings during the investigation that forced them to testify to the grand jury were not binding and the factual record needed to be decided afresh.Meanwhile, witnesses such as former Trump lawyer John Eastman or former Trump campaign official Mike Roman would almost certainly be precluded from testifying because they have valid fifth amendment concerns of self-incrimination, as they have been separately charged with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results in Fulton county, Georgia. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      How might a rogue president use the US supreme court immunity ruling?

      by

      “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK … It’s, like, incredible.”The ruling of the US supreme court in Trump v United States last week establishes that the president has immunity from prosecution for “official acts” taken while in office. The term “official acts” was not defined in the case, leaving it for lower courts and establishing a precedent that the president broadly cannot be held accountable for breaking the law except under narrow conditions, or by impeachment, which itself only removes him from office without further consequence.“The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a scathing dissent. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon for any president that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the nation”.The decision seems to grant nearly limitless power to the office. Any act a president takes in the “core” functions of the job, such as appointing judges or issuing pardons, have absolute immunity. Any act taken in the “periphery” of his powers, like directions made to his staff or announcements made through official channels to the public, are presumed to be immune from prosecution, barring the finding of a judge otherwise. Acts taken outside of his official duties are not immune, though again: a judge makes that determination using ill-defined terms.It is roughly equivalent to the “enabling acts” of Nazi Germany. Coupled with the power of pardon – which allows the president to immunize anyone he or she chooses from federal prosecution without review or challenge from the other branches of government – the president can instruct subordinates of his or her choosing to act without regard for legal consequences.The idea that the president might declare a political opponent an enemy of the state and have a military sniper kill that person was raised as a hypothetical during oral arguments, and the resulting decision, incredibly, does not categorically rule that act a prosecutable abuse of power.Instead, we’re left in a fuzzy legal space, with judges left to decide what is “presumptively” immune and what evidence can be allowed to prosecutors after the fact to challenge that presumption.What might have once been an academic or intellectual exercise, the stuff of Tom Clancy novels or Aaron Sorkin scripts, is rapidly resolving into focus as a meaningful real-world problem. As I hear people discussing the ruling – and random people are discussing it everywhere I go – that’s the first thing they reach for. But the implications of the ruling and its effect on executive power are farther reaching than this.In some ways we have always been in a fuzzy legal space with regard to executive power. The assassination of a US citizen ordered by the president is not without precedent. Consider that Barack Obama ordered drone strikes on Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2010. The then president did not face prosecution for this action.The question Trump v United States raises is whether he could have before now.How might a rogue president without political or moral constraint use the office for private gain, the punishment of political enemies, or to subvert the interest of justice and the public good?Start by looking at how executive power is exercised.The president has a set of delineated powers. Some require him to act in concert with others – the president signs treaties, but they must be ratified by the Senate. The president cannot draft a law unilaterally. Judicial appointments, ambassadorial appointments and appointments of cabinet members must be approved by the Senate.But much of executive authority is unilateral. The president can represent the US to foreign countries without constraint. The president commands the military, directs the activities of the CIA and FBI, directs the actions of executive branch employees, classifies or declassifies intelligence, and critically grants pardons without review.Consider each branch of executive authority, by department, and how a malevolent president might subvert the law.Department of StateThe constitution’s emoluments clause requires the president to refrain from accepting any gift, payment, or anything of value from a foreign state or its rulers. The state department maintains a protocol gift unit that makes sure the president or other federal employees don’t pocket anything from a foreign government worth more than a nominal amount, currently set at $480.Trump v United States establishes that the president cannot be prosecuted for this crime, even though it is black letter constitutional law. Receiving a gift from a head of state as president is almost certainly an “official act”, and if the president decides to steal that gift and deposit it in a bank account, or accepts the deed to a golf course in Dubai or a yacht that never makes port in the United States, there’s nothing that can be done about it, except to see if a federal prosecutor can introduce sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of immunity after the fact.The ruling opens up potential for a foreign government to bribe their way out of state sanctions, an embargo or diplomatic trouble from, say, murdering a journalist working for a US newspaper.Department of the TreasuryThere are many levers here that a corrupt president can pull, but I’d like to focus on impoundment; the act of withholding money allocated by Congress for a specific function. It was an act of impoundment that led to Trump’s first impeachment and an issue that Steve Bannon repeatedly returns to when discussing executive power. Congress made impoundment a crime in 1974 after the abuses of Richard Nixon. The supreme court’s ruling affirms that the only remedy to this “high crime” is impeachment.Consider what would happen if the treasury department impounded funds directed toward any other government agency that wasn’t being cooperative. Medicare and Medicaid. HUD. The EPA. A compliant Treasury official could simply stop sending the Department of Education funding, which would prevent the issuance of new federally-backed student loans for college.There are other broader avenues for misconduct, however. Consider what would happen if the president instructed the secretary of the treasury to unilaterally withhold payment on bonds issued by the US government to specific creditors, all questions about the full faith and credit clause be damned. Consider how the IRS might target political opponents, a touchstone for conservative critics of the federal government and the investigation of church abuse of exempt tax status.Even the implied threat of regulation of financial instruments like cryptocurrencies can create changes in the market. A self-interested president who had not placed his or her personal investments in a blind trust could engage in wide market manipulation to his or herown benefit through regulatory action taken by treasury officials.And then there’s treasury’s role as the overseer of financial sanctions on entities like Russian oligarchs, Israeli settlers, Chinese government agents and international terror groups. A pliant or compromised president could redirect resources away from enforcement.Again, the legal question becomes one of presumptive immunity, as these areas are in the “periphery” of the president’s authority. Note that justices ruled that official acts cannot be used in evidence to support the prosecution of a crime committed in the president’s personal capacity, a complication which renders the practical prosecution of crimes of fraud, the use of public office for private gain or market manipulation difficult.Department of DefenseMilitary officers in the United States have maintained the armed services as an objectively apolitical institution stretching back to America’s founding. Its general officers have resisted attempts to change that. The approach of Project 2025 is to reduce the number of general officers because it is easier to find people who will place their loyalty – and their career prospects – inTrump’s hands.The military has about 1,000 men and women serving in the ranks of generals and admirals. Approximately 40,000 people serve at the rank of 0-5 or higher – that is a lieutenant colonel in the US army, air force, marines or space force, or a commander in the navy. Promotion of an officer to this rank requires approval by the Senate.But the president can fire an officer more or less at will. This is certainly true for removing general officers from command “in a time of war”. The statute does not define what a time of war means; it does not contain language requiring congress to declare war.A president intent on launching military action that is illegal or immoral – calling a Seal Team 6 operator to kill an American overseas, or perhaps someone within the United States – today can be expected to face a refusal to obey an unlawful order and a report to Congress. But a malevolent president can simply fire any officer who refuses the order, working through the ranks until he finds one willing to obey an illegal order, offering a presidential pardon that would immunize whoever obeys the order from the consequences of a court martial.This logic extends to orders for the military to violate posse comitatus – the mobilization of military force domestically, a violation of federal law. It could also extend to the use of nuclear arms, with a president serially firing officers who refuse to arm and launch a nuclear weapon.The president’s management of the military is a “core” function of the president; it is described in article II of the US constitution. Thus, the president likely enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution here.The functions of military intelligence, the CIA and the Department of Justice are separated by a wall of laws meant to protect US citizens from the government’s vast capacity for foreign military surveillance. After discovering abuses within the intelligence community in the Nixon era, Congress established a foreign intelligence surveillance court to review the work of the CIA and ensure that spies were not illegally surveilling US citizens.A president unconcerned with the law could simply walk intelligence gathered from one agency to another, with orders to act on it.Department of JusticeMuch of the constraint on abuses by the attorney general’s office are a matter of custom, not law. A set of internal policy guidelines governs the conduct of US attorneys. Surprisingly, the supreme court decision last month overturning the Chevron doctrine or the principle of legal deference to agency rule-making, may have done as much harm as Trump v United States in this regard. Justice department rules constraining federal investigators from targeting people for their politics – or targeting politicians who aren’t voting the right way – can be challenged on this basis by a politically-motivated appointee. More

    • 263 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      How the US supreme court shredded the Constitution and what can be done to repair it | Laurence H Tribe

      by

      On 1 July 2024, the US supreme court, after an unconscionable half-year delay that it laughably described as “expedited” treatment, handed down Trump v United States, the immunity ruling placing American presidents above the law by deeming the president a “branch of government … unlike anyone else.” The court’s delay guaranteed that Donald Trump would face the electorate in 2024 without first confronting a jury of his peers instructed to decide, and thus inform voters, whether he was guilty of trying to overthrow the 2020 election.Famously, the English immigrant Thomas Paine advocated that we revolt against the Crown to form an independent country and frame a constitution to prevent the rise of a dictator “who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented … [and] sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge”. To that end, Paine asked: “Where … is the King of America?” And he replied: “In America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”In the court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice John G Roberts, Jr betrayed that promise and the Constitution that embodied it. He pretended that granting lifelong immunity from accountability to the nation’s criminal laws didn’t place the president “above the law”. In majestic circularity, he announced that the “President is not above the law” because it is the law itself that implicitly contains that immunity, to preserve “the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives”.But the idea that we need an unbounded chief executive to make the separation of powers work is grounded neither in theory nor in experience and contradicts the axioms of checks and balances. Worse still, the court’s decision delivers not a genuinely unbounded executive but one bound by whatever limits the court itself invents as it fills in the gray areas in its anything but black-and-white ruling. So it’s an imperial judiciary this court delivers in the guise of an imperial executive, not surprising for a court that just last week dismantled the administrative state by substituting itself for the panoply of expert executive agencies in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo.The three dissenting justices objected, without rebuttal by the majority, that no prior president has needed this novel immunity from generally applicable criminal laws to operate as “an energetic, independent executive”, an objective the court placed above all else. The majority professed worry about “an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next”. But it said nothing to justify that worry – or to explain how the newly concocted less-than-absolute shield of presidential immunity could hope to solve the problem it conjured. After all, if we elect presidents unprincipled enough to direct their attorneys general to persecute their predecessors on trumped-up charges of abusing their official powers, there’s nothing to stop them from fabricating purely private – and, under the court’s new rule, non-immune – crimes by those predecessors.Beyond those glaring flaws in the majority’s reasoning, Roberts snidely accused the three dissenting justices of “fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals” that neither the majority opinion nor either of the two concurring opinions troubled to refute.What to make of the majority’s confusing instructions to the court trying Trump for the federal crimes through which he is alleged to have sought to overturn the 2020 election and the lawful transfer of power for the first time in our history? Only Justice Amy Coney Barrett, partly concurring and partly dissenting, wrote in no uncertain terms what the majority should have made clear but didn’t: “The President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors … is private and therefore not entitled to protection … While Congress has a limited role in that process, see Art II, §1, cls 3-4, the President has none. In short, a President has no legal authority – and thus no official capacity – to influence how the States appoint their electors.” The majority should’ve endorsed Barrett’s brisk conclusion: “I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.”The majority also offered no cogent reason to disagree with Barrett that, “beyond the limits afforded by executive privilege”, the US constitution doesn’t “limit the introduction of protected conduct as evidence in a criminal prosecution of a President”. As she and the three dissenters persuasively argued, the constitution “does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable” even if it does immunize them from prosecution on the basis of those circumstances. Bribery, a federal crime, makes the point perfectly. It’s nonsensical to hold, as the majority does, that a president who performs an official act like issuing a pardon in return for a bribe may be prosecuted for the bribe but may prevent the jury from learning about the backroom presidential conversations surrounding the pardon. The majority’s rejoinder that the pardon itself may be introduced in evidence as an official record is no answer at all.Indeed, the whole journey on which the majority embarks is misdirected. As dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued, it’s “cold comfort” to learn that “the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity … like anyone else”, because the “official-versus-unofficial act distinction” is both “arbitrary and irrational, for it … is when the President commits crimes using his unparalleled official powers that the risks of abuse and autocracy will be most dire”. She is right that vesting the president with uniquely sweeping powers and duties “actually underscores, rather than undermines, the grim stakes of setting the criminal law to the side when the President flexes these very powers”.I’ll let others sort through the tangled puzzles the court has left in its wake absent meaningful guidelines for distinguishing between the various categories of presidential conduct it enumerates. My main takeaways from this shameful decision are three: first, there is a compelling need for supreme court reform, including a plan to impose an enforceable ethics code and term limits and possibly create several added seats to offset the way Trump as president stacked the court to favor his Maga agenda; second, we should start planning for a constitutional amendment of the sort I have advocated in the New York Times to create a federal prosecutorial arm structurally independent of the presidency; and third, we need a constitutional amendment adding to Article I, Section 9’s ban on titles of nobility and foreign emoluments a provision expressly stating that nothing in the constitution may be construed to confer any immunity from criminal prosecution by reason of a defendant’s having held any office under the United States – and a provision forbidding use of the pardon power to encourage the person pardoned to commit a crime that the president is unable to commit personally.Amending the constitution to address problems the supreme court creates needn’t take long. When the court prevented Congress from lowering the voting age to 18 in state along with federal elections in Oregon v Mitchell, it took under seven months for us to adopt the 26th amendment to repair that blunder. And the court can overturn its own egregiously wrong decisions quickly, as it did in 1943 when it overturned a 1940 ruling letting states force children to salute the flag against their religious convictions in West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette. As Justice Felix Frankfurter once wrote: “Wisdom too often never comes, so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.” Trump v United States isn’t just unwise. It’s a betrayal of the constitution. Overturning it should be an issue in this November’s election.
      Laurence H Tribe is the Carl M Loeb University professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats in disarray as Trump immunity ruling raises stakes

      by

      “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” So wrote the supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor in a minority opinion this week. She was far from alone in the view that, with Donald Trump threatening an “imperial presidency”, American democracy is at a moment of maximum peril.Millions are pinning their hopes on the Democratic party as the last wall of defence. Surely, they believed, Democrats would field their best and brightest led by a dynamic presidential candidate and demagogue slayer. Instead the party is offering 81-year-old Joe Biden and an internal civil war.Biden’s career-worst debate performance against Trump last month has triggered acrimony, angst and panic among Democrats just four months from election day. There are growing calls for oldest president in US history to step aside in favour of Vice-President Kamala Harris – or someone else. But Biden has so far dug in and vowed to fight on.It would be a hugely consequential decision for any party at any moment, but the one thing that Democrats agree on is the stakes are uniquely high. America’s highest court has shifted right, thanks to three Trump appointees, and could indulge his authoritarian impulses should he be elected. A Trump victory would also have dramatic implications for Ukraine and other US allies.“American democracy is facing a category 5 disaster here,” said Charlie Sykes, a conservative political commentator and Trump critic. “Not just the election but the court. Unfortunately the Democratic party feels like it’s paralysed and refusing to acknowledge reality.”Debate viewers were shocked because Democrats had created an alternate reality bubble, Sykes added. “It reminds me a little bit of what what the Republican bubble felt like a few years ago where people will say one thing in private but they won’t say it in public. In private people know that they have a real problem with Joe Biden, that it was a disaster, that it might not get better, but they’re unwilling to say that in public and right now that’s an untenable solution.”America celebrated its 248th birthday this week with its customary barbecues, fireworks and flag-waving, but its democracy has been ailing for some time. The Watergate scandal, which led to Richard Nixon’s resignation, and the Ronald Reagan era helped sow distrust in government, while the the 2008 financial crisis fuelled a sense that the system was failing to deliver.View image in fullscreenThe supreme court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 opened the floodgates for special interests to pour money into elections. Republicans have mounted voter suppression efforts. Gerrymandering, the process whereby a party redraws district boundaries for electoral advantage, has fuelled polarisation and often means the loudest and most extreme voices are rewarded in party primaries.Structural flaws have been brutally exposed. The Senate, where states have an equal voice irrespective of their population size, has become unrepresentative and calcified by procedural rules such as the filibuster. Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote only once in the past 36 years, yet both George W Bush and Trump gained the White House via the electoral college.That means five of the nine supreme court justices were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Trust in the court is now an all-time low. Along with corruption scandals, the justices have defied public opinion with decisions such as the overturning of Roe v Wade, a precedented that enshrined the constitutional right to abortion.In the past two weeks, the court’s rightwing majority delivered a big blow to the regulatory powers of federal agencies and ruled that officials can accept cash or gifts from people they have assisted: they only count as bribes if given before the favour. Then, most consequentially of all, came its decision to expand presidential power.In a 6-3 decision, the court said former presidents have absolute immunity from investigation or prosecution for official acts that fall within their core functions. They are also presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for private actions.The ruling was a major victory for Trump, who stands accused of orchestrating the deadly January 2021 insurrection but will now almost certainly not face trial in Washington ahead of the election in November. Sentencing for Trump’s hush money convictions was also postponed until at least September as the judge agreed to weigh the possible impact of the decision.The dissenting opinion, written by Sotomayor, was scathing as she considered what a president can now do. “Orders the navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune … In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”There was condemnation of the ruling across the political spectrum. Sykes, author of How the Right Lost Its Mind, warned: “The supreme court decision raises the stakes because just imagine unleashing an absolutely immune Donald Trump on the nation, knowing that he can break the law at least in some respects with impunity.“That to me is the breathtaking part of it. It’s not some abstract where you’re talking about Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George HW Bush. It’s Donald fucking Trump that you are basically saying should be above the law.”Paul Begala, a scholar at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics and former adviser to Bill Clinton, told the Guardian’s Politics Weekly America podcast: “We had a good run. We go back to June 15, 1215: your country creates the Magna Carta. So we had 809 years of believing that no king, no president was above the law and that’s come to an end.“I’m sorry to sound cynical about it but it’s that dire because we’re about to put that power, potentially, in the hands of someone who we know from past experience will blow through any guideline, regulation and now he’s been given carte blanche by the supreme court.”View image in fullscreenTrump, 78, who is running a vengance-driven campaign and has expressed admiration for strongmen, has already quipped that he would be dictator on “day one” as president. His agenda for a second term is more extreme than the first – and better organised. The cabinet, congress and courts are likely to be more loyal and compliant, with fewer guardrails in place and fewer dissenters mounting resistance.Informed by policy documents such as the conservative thinktank Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025”, Trump has made no secret of his plans to purge the federal government of thousands of civil servants deemed disloyal, weaponise the justice department against perceived political foes, slap 10% tariffs on thousands of imported goods and open detention camps to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn this context, Biden is carrying the weight of the world on his frail shoulders: the 2024 election is a must win. But his raspy-voiced debate performance in Atlanta – losing his train of thought, stumbling over words, failing to combat Trump’s lies – revived anxieties over his fitness of office. Having identified him as the right man at the right time for the pandemic election of 2020, Democrats are now tormented by the possibility that they chose the wrong candidate for 2024.Questions swirled over whether Biden’s inner circle had been concealing his weaknesses from public scrutiny for some time. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, 84, a former speaker of the House of Representatives, wondered on the MSNBC network: “Is this an episode, or is this a condition? It’s legitimate – of both candidates.”After huddling with advisers and family members, Biden acknowledged that he nearly “fell asleep on the stage” during his poor debate showing, blaming it on a cold and jetlag, even though he had returned from Europe 12 days earlier. He told an all-staff campaign call: “I am running. I’m the nominee of the Democratic party. No one’s pushing me out. I’m not leaving.”The Biden campaign dug in its heels and dismissed the critics as “bed-wetters”, a dismissive attitude that disgusted some senior Democrats and made the situation worse. There was also frustration that Biden waited several days to do direct damage control with senior members of his own party. Some said the response had been worse than the debate performance itself.Two Democratic members of Congress called for Biden to quit the race and discontent on Capitol Hill is said to run much deeper, with many Democrats fearing that Biden could also cost the party the House and Senate. A major Democratic donor, Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, also called on the president to step aside.Norman Solomon, national director of RootsAction.org, sponsor of the Step Aside Joe! campaign, said: “The train wreck around the bend is clear if he’s still the nominee, if he’s still the candidate. There’s an emergency cord that can be pulled.”View image in fullscreenSolomon warned: “The last days have brought powerful signs that the threat to democracy has become greater than ever. It’s a one-two punch. The obvious, clear evidence that Biden isn’t up to the job either to defeat Trump or to be president if he were to be re-elected.“Then this supreme court decision and it all underscores that the rather solipsistic fixations of the top of the Biden clan jeopardise democracy in a way that is a dream for the extreme right wing in the United States. The Biden performance was a gift-wrapped present to the Maga Republicans. It was everything but unwrapping the bow and taking off the wrapping paper.”The latest polls are fuelling alarm. A New York Times / Siena College survey found Trump leading Biden 49% to 43% among likely voters nationally, a three-point swing toward the Republican from before the debate. A Wall Street Journal poll found that 80% of voters think Biden is too old to run for a second term. A survey by Our Revolution, a political organising group, found that two in three progressives want Biden to suspend his campaign.But time is short to make a change. The Democratic National Committee announced weeks ago that it would hold a virtual roll call for a formal nomination before the party’s national convention, which begins on 19 August. Harris is emerging as the favourite to replace Biden if he were to withdraw, although governors Gavin Newsom of California and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan remain viable alternatives.A messy, divisive convention – where protests over the war in Gaza are already expected – would only reinforce the suspicion that, with American democracy hanging by a thread, the Democratic party is failing to meet the moment.Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said: “American democracy and the force of the conservative movement that we’re seeing in the supreme court lacks a coherent, energetic counterpoint. The Democratic party is simply not up for the fight. The conservatives are marching ahead and the Democrats are flailing.”Jacobs added: “It’s reasonable to ask, why did it come to this with regards to Biden? Why weren’t party leaders intervening a year and a half ago to to usher off Biden to bring in genuine competition? Instead they leave it for a debate which realistic leaders could anticipate how it was going to turn out.“The fact that Trump was lying and bullying was known going in and Biden seemed so incapable of responding and so surprised by it. It was a very powerful signal of his infirmity but also of the infirmity party in moving past him. Joe Biden almost certainly can’t win, and the party seems incapable of processing that and taking action.” More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court utterly distorted the true threat to American democracy | Lawrence Douglas

      by

      In its extraordinarily disturbing decision earlier this week granting presidents wide-ranging immunity from criminal prosecution, the US supreme court dramatically mis-weighed a competing set of risks to our constitutional democracy.On the one side of the scale, the court placed the possibility that a future rogue prosecutor will seek to settle political scores by indicting a former president for “insufficiently enforcing … environmental laws”.On the other side of the scale, we can place the possibility that a former president, having previously been charged with subverting the peaceful succession of power, returns to the White House, where he demands the prosecution of all those who tried to hold him to account.Or consider a related set of risks. On one side, the court imagines a president who is so fearful of the theoretical prospect of being prosecuted after leaving office that he fails to perform his duties in a “vigorous” and “energetic” manner. “Enfeebled” by the threat of future prosecution, the president is “chilled from taking the ‘bold and unhesitating action’ required of an independent Executive”.On the other side, we can imagine that a former president, having already successfully dodged any legal reckoning for his attempt to subvert the results of fair democratic election, now finds himself back in the White House and, cloaked with a blanket of immunity for all his “official actions”, grossly abuses that power.What are we to make of the fact that the court has clearly perceived the risks posed by a rogue prosecutor to far outweigh those posed by a rogue president – this notwithstanding the fact the dangers posed by the former are entirely speculative while those posed by the latter are all too real? In defense of the six-person majority one might argue that the court must fashion principles that apply generally to future cases – it cannot shape a remedy to address the particular threat posed by Donald Trump.Only that’s not true. The court could have limited itself to the matter at hand – whether Trump enjoyed immunity for his alleged acts of election interference as charged in the federal indictment. It could have held off to another day the larger question or scope of presidential immunity. And it could have reached this narrow decision months ago, thus affording the American people a trial court’s judgment concerning Trump’s most serious attack on American constitutional democracy, prior to the 2024 election.A simpler, and less savory, explanation of the court’s decision is that it’s stocked with Trump supporters. Three members of the six-person majority owe their positions on the court directly to Trump and they are not even the justices most obviously sympathetic to the former president. (That would be Clarence Thomas, the rigid ideologue with a Maga wife, and Samuel Alito, whose understanding of the Constitution seems driven by a prickly sense of grievance – who also evidently has a Maga wife.)And while I have a hard time believing – call me naive – that Chief Justice Roberts isn’t keenly aware of the dangers posed by Trump, his majority opinion is astonishingly purblind to those dangers. Take, for example, the court’s conclusion that because the constitution vests the president with the “core” duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, Trump enjoys absolute immunity for his dealings with the justice department – including his appeal to justice department officials, after Biden’s 2020 victory, to “just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me … ”The court’s logic is oxymoronic: because the constitution demands the president faithfully execute the law, he is immunized for his attempt to corrupt and subvert that very law.Let’s also bear in mind that hours before the court handed down its tardy decision, Trump reposted messages on Truth Social, his personal social media platform, calling for the prosecution and imprisonment of his declared political enemies. Among those targeted were the former representative Liz Cheney (“guilty of treason” – a capital offense), the former vice-president Mike Pence, senators Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell, representatives Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin, the vice-president Kamala Harris, and president Joe Biden.In his presidential campaign, Trump has been remarkably vague about his policy goals, but has openly and repeatedly declared his intention to use the justice department as a tool of personal vengeance. Now he can do so with impunity. At the very least, the court’s decision might shield Biden from Trump’s wrath – the others are all fair game.By way of trying to settle the nation’s nerves, the court reminds us that presidential immunity does not extend to private acts. Never mind that the court fails to offer a bright-line test between official and private acts while embracing a capacious understanding of the “official”. Still, we may rightfully ask what worries us more: the prospect that the president will rob a convenience store or that he will grossly abuse the very office that makes him the most powerful human on the planet?Back in the day of George W Bush’s misbegotten “war on terror”, John Yoo, at the time a lawyer in the office of legal counsel, wrote a notorious memo opining that the federal law criminalizing torture would be unconstitutional if applied to the president in times of war. This ominous claim led the senator Patrick Leahy to ask the then attorney teneral Alberto Gonzales, during a congressional hearing, whether the president could legally order genocide. At the time, Gonzales refused to answer, dismissing the question as hypothetical. Now the supreme court has offered a clear and shocking answer to the senator’s question.
      Lawrence Douglas is the author, most recently, of Will He Go? Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020. He is a contributing opinion writer for the Guardian US and teaches at Amherst College More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden in trouble as Supreme Court hands Trump another big win – podcast

      by

      As Americans celebrate Independence Day, Democrats are scrambling after a pretty disastrous week for the party – and arguably US-democracy.
      On Monday, the US supreme court handed Donald Trump a victory by ruling that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution. Stemming from this, the judge overseeing the former president’s criminal case in New York postponed his sentencing from next week to 18 September.
      This falls against the backdrop of Joe Biden trying to convince the public and members of his party that he is still fit to run for president. This week, Jonathan Freedland and Paul Begala, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, discuss how the Democrats can regroup

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Trump and presidential immunity: the return of the king | Editorial

      by

      The supreme court’s ruling on presidential immunity combines a tectonic constitutional shift and immediate political repercussions to devastating effect. It allows one man to stand above the law. It slows and appears to gut the 2020 election-subversion case against Donald Trump, though it does not necessarily end it. No one believes a trial can be held before November’s election, although court hearings could still offer a detailed airing of the evidence this autumn.There could hardly have been a better week for Mr Trump, who saw his rival stumble so badly in last Thursday’s debate that Joe Biden faces growing calls to quit four months from election day. Anyone who doubts how consequential a second Trump administration term would be for the United States and the world need only look to the supreme court, now ruled by a conservative supermajority thanks to three Trump-appointed justices.Monday’s majority ruling, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a disingenuous, bloodless discussion which pompously warns that “we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies”. The minority opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is screaming to the people to wake up: the city on a hill is on fire. A twice-impeached convicted felon who attempted to overturn the people’s verdict, reveres authoritarians and pledges to be a dictator (only “on day one”) could soon be re-elected. This is not about exigencies; this is an emergency.Justice Sotomayor outlined the new limits for a president: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune … In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”The court’s ruling grants complete immunity from criminal prosecution to core presidential powers. But it also grants presumptive immunity to other “official acts” – and these are extraordinarily widely drawn. Pressuring Mike Pence not to certify the 2020 election results would probably enjoy immunity, Chief Justice Roberts writes, because if the president and vice-president are discussing official duties, this is official conduct; and presiding over the results is a constitutional responsibility of the vice-president.The bar for overturning presumption looks sky-high, as Justice Sotomayor notes – doing so must pose no danger of intrusion whatsoever on presidential authority. The president’s motives cannot be examined. Nor can official acts be used in criminal cases relating to unofficial acts. The resulting scope is so great that any politician or official would surely balk at granting it to the other side – unless they were certain they could hold on to power indefinitely.This ruling will almost certainly, as it should, further lower declining support for a court now mired in scandal, thanks to the Republican-appointed Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Other majority rulings in recent days have delivered a major blow to the regulatory powers of federal agencies and, extraordinarily, said that officials can accept cash or gifts from people they have assisted: they only count as bribes if given before the favour. This is a court for the rich and powerful, and it is making them more so. The founders intended the supreme court to be part of the solution to the tyranny of European kings. Mr Trump, and the court’s conservative justices, have made it part of the problem. More