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:
— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024
“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
Why the change all of the sudden? Josh Marshall nailed it.Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in September 2018:
— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024
“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
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.
Leo & McConnell are the endgame players of the GOP, but they are not the ones who started that party's descent toward authoritarianism. Instead, it started with Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell's memo to the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce in 1971. This memo is the genesis of the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, & ALEC among many other conservative organizations. Through these and many other organizations, the U.S. has been creeping towards inverted totalitarianism for years. Now thanks to the Supreme Court's decision on Trump V. U.S., we're almost there!
ReplyDeleteRemember, all a society needs to become authoritarian/totalitarian is 3 things: a.) a dictator with a cult following, b.) a court system who sides with the dictator, and c.) a military that aligns with said dictator. Good luck U.S.A.! You're going to need it!
Anonymous (above) has the entire situation in a nutshell. I'm afraid that there is a fourth element to add: an apathetic electorate that is either too lazy to learn what is happening, or is too much of a cult to recognize the damning dangers until it's too late.
ReplyDeleteGood addition Celui! It's the reason why our Founding Fathers, but especially Jefferson, put a premium on education. An educated populace is less likely to be apathetic or induced to cult-thinking/ emotional brainwashing. As you know, this is why the Republicans have been defunding/underfunding education for more than 40 years. The GOP's plan, as I mentioned in my first post, has been hiding in plain sight for years....if only people would catch, as you say, before it's too late.
DeleteSorry Celui, but I think you (and , indeed, a vast number of other people) are being much to simplistic in saying that voters are "too lazy" or "in a cult." Those appellations can certainly be applied to people, I'd never dispute that. But the reality we all live in is complex.
ReplyDeleteWho will you vote for?
(I don't mean President, because lasting change in a democracy requires a multitude and takes time. Senators, Representatives, all the various people employed in government who actually research and write legislation for them to debate, and the President to finalize and sign it, assuming any sort of law is going to be passed that might try to, say, rein in the Supreme Court, for example. After all, we are not (yet) an autocracy where one person dictates the law).
All government is local. But what do you do when your Congressional District is essentially dominated and locked in by one political party, and has been for decades?
Any random person can't just step in as a challenger. Going into politics takes a plan, time, effort, and money to do, if you are serious. Or the result is do-nothing attention-grasping kooks elected, like MTG in the House is.
Many voters likely feel stuck, powerless. Even those who feel they and their vote matters, probably have no idea what to do or how to truly change things, so they do what is familiar, voting in the Senator or Representative they know. Fear of change can be strong, and many people shy away from that.
"Get out the Vote." is not enough.
I don't have an answer to your (valid) questions above; the current system has been entrenched for years and tends to result in the re-election of the same crowd to the same offices and --wait for it!-- get the same results.
DeleteI wish I knew the answer too. Obama had given many people hope, while, by his existence as the first Black President, terrifying others.
DeleteHope is necessary, of course, but reforming the current decades-entrenched system takes more than hope.
It might require that our Constitution truly become a "Living Document" in other words, be updated as times change. But amendments to the Constitution require either 2/3s voting to amend in both Houses of Congress, or 2/3s of State Legislatures request an amendment and then 3/4s of State Legislatures then ratify it. That's not going to happen. The power imbalance in our country has grown so great that the only way to resolve it is for those with power to willingly give up power to those without. And that's not going to happen.
I truly don't see a way out of this impasse any time soon. I hope for peaceful resolution and just, lasting change, but fear the other option might be more likely, people being people...
Heh.
DeleteAs I recall, one definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and believe there will be a different result.