Vance's Dilemma

Yesterday's news rocked the political world as Biden pulled out of the 2024 presidential race and the Democratic Party immediately coalesced around VP Harris as the presumptive nominee. The angles on what this means for November are endless, but one take that I've found interesting was captured by Michael McFaul on Twitter. 

Judge leaders by how they treat the subordinates and staff. Compare Trumps treatment of Pence and Bidens treatment of Harris.

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) July 22, 2024

As you know, Trump said that the January 6th insurrectionists were justified in their chants of "hang Mike Pence." On the other end of the spectrum, Biden bowed out and passed the torch to his vice president. The contrast couldn't be more clear. 

But all of that reminds me that Trump's current running mate, J.D. Vance, is going to have to walk a very fine line. That's because, even before it became clear that the former president is suffering from dementia, he was clearly diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (among other things). 

Way back in 2016, Richard Greene wrote about what it means to deal with someone who has NPD (emphasis mine).

There are only two ways to deal with someone with NPD, and they are both dangerous. There is no healthy way of interacting with someone with this affliction. If you criticize them they will lash out at you and if they have a great deal of power, that can be consequential. If you compliment them it only acts to increase the delusional and grandiose reality the sufferer has created, causing him to be even more reliant on constant and endless compliments and unwavering support.

Vance has already shown that he's willing to bite the bullet and feed Trump's delusion with loyalty and praise. His dilemma is going to come from elsewhere. What Greene didn't mention is that people with NPD not only demand total loyalty (which Pence wasn't willing to give when it meant participation in a coup), they also need to demonstrate their dominance over everyone around them. 

J.D. Vance is a very smart guy with ambitions and his own ego to support. Folks are already claiming he's won the battle to be the next GOP leader. But Trump will turn on him in a hot minute if the VP candidate even comes close to out-shinning the guy at the top of the ticket. 

So Vance has to walk the fine line of bowing to Trump's dominance while not coming off as too weak and submissive to be the next MAGA leader. He'll get no sympathy from me for having to maneuver that minefield. It's what the entire GOP has brought on itself by turning a political party into a cult of personality.

"With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

My title is how Justice Sonia Sotomayor concluded her dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court case granting presidents criminal immunity for "official acts." Here's the context:

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

You might not have seen this coming if you'd watched the confirmation hearings for the six justices who ruled in favor of presidential immunity. At least three of them made statements that no one - not even the president - is above the law.

Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” (Sept. 2005) pic.twitter.com/DzxIXOJotW

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in January 2006:

“There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.” pic.twitter.com/Zpx2CQhgFn

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in September 2018:

“Under the Constitution, the president is not above the law. No one is above the law…The president remains subject to the law.” pic.twitter.com/wx6VcHr4VV

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024

Why the change all of the sudden? Josh Marshall nailed it. 

What's most notable to me in this decision is how much of it seems to come from a realization that if your team's going to have a President who's a big time criminal he's going to need some big time immunity.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) July 1, 2024

Because the GOP has been overtaken by a criminal, it is now time to give their leader immunity. 

I believe that Sotomayor's words in response will go down as one of the most consequential moments in our history as a country. But in her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took things a bit further and identified the root of the problem.

Ultimately, the majority’s model simply sets the criminal law to one side when it comes to crimes allegedly committed by the President. Before accountability can be sought or rendered, the Judiciary serves as a newfound special gatekeeper, charged not merely with interpreting the law but with policing whether it applies to the President at all...

In short, America has traditionally relied on the law to keep its Presidents in line. Starting today, however, Americans must rely on the courts to determine when (if at all) the criminal laws that their representatives have enacted to promote individual and collective security will operate as speedbumps to Presidential action or reaction...The potential for great harm to American institutions and Americans themselves is obvious...because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent.

In other words, the six extremists on the court gave themselves the power to decide when/if a president can be held accountable for criminal acts. Over time this isn't so much about making the president a king as it is about taking power away from the legislative and executive branches and giving it to the courts. It continues what the court ruled just three days prior.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo fully consolidates the Court’s dominance over federal agencies within the executive branch of government. It is a radical reordering of the US separation of powers, giving the one unelected branch of government all of its own power, plus much of the power that Congress has vested in the executive branch.

What we see unfolding is that the one unelected branch of government with lifetime appointments has decided that they have the power to overturn rulings by previous courts (Roe vs Wade), decide when a president can be held accountable, and discard expert analysis by federal employees - directing policy based on their own beliefs.

None of this is an accident. Two men in particular have been focused on elevating the power of the court over the other (more democratic) branches of government: Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell. Recognizing that the GOP was moving into minority status when it comes to elections, they have been working on this for years. Their dream of neutering the legislative and executive branches of government to set up a country ruled by a majority of extremist judges is unfolding right before our eyes. Sotomayor issued the correct warning when she concluded her dissent by expressing fear for our democracy.