Naomi Klein: "Jews Must Raise Voices for Palestine, Oppose "False Idol of Zionism"
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/25/us/trump-immunity-supreme-court
Such a ruling in the case, on whether the former president is immune from prosecution, would probably send it back to a lower court and could delay any trial until after the November election.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday about Donald J. Trump’s claim that the federal charges accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election must be thrown out because he is immune from being prosecuted for any official act he took as president.
Here are some takeaways:
Although Mr. Trump’s claim of near-absolute immunity was seen as a long shot intended primarily to slow the proceedings, several members of the Republican-appointed majority seemed to indicate that some immunity was needed. Some of them expressed worry about the long-term consequences of leaving future former presidents open to prosecution for their official actions.
Among others, Justice Brett Kavanaugh compared the threat of prosecution for official acts to how a series of presidents were “hampered” by independent counsel investigations, criticizing a 1984 ruling that upheld a now-defunct law creating such prosecutors as one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized an appeals court ruling rejecting immunity for Mr. Trump, saying he was concerned that it “did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we are talking about or what documents we are talking about.”
The Democrat-appointed justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and
Ketanji Brown Jackson — asked questions indicating greater concern about
opening the door for presidents to commit official crimes with
impunity.
If the Supreme Court does place limits on the ability of prosecutors to charge Mr. Trump over his official actions, it could alter the shape of his trial.
A decision to send all or part of the case back to the lower courts could further slow progress toward a trial, increasing the odds that it does not start before Election Day.
Of the matters listed in the indictment, some — like working with private lawyers to gin up slates of fraudulent electors — seem like the private actions of a candidate. Others — like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do things — seem more like official acts he took in his role as president.
At one point, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that prosecutors could simply drop Mr. Trump’s arguably official actions from their case and proceed to a swift trial focused only on his private actions. And D. John Sauer, the lawyer for Mr. Trump, told the court that no evidence of Mr. Trump’s official actions should be allowed into the trial.
But Michael R. Dreeben, a Justice Department lawyer arguing on behalf of the special counsel’s office, said the indictment laid out an “integrated conspiracy” in which Mr. Trump took the official actions to bolster the chances that his other efforts to overturn the election would succeed.
He argued that even if the court holds that Mr. Trump has immunity from liability for his official actions, prosecutors should still be allowed to present evidence about them to the jury because the actions are relevant to assessing his larger knowledge and intentions — just as speech that is protected by the First Amendment can still be used as evidence in a conspiracy case.
Looming over the hearing was a sweeping moral question: What effect might executive immunity have on the future of American politics?
Not surprisingly, the two sides saw things very differently.
Mr. Sauer claimed that without immunity, all presidents would be paralyzed by the knowledge that once they were out of office, they could face an onslaught of charges from their rivals based on the tough calls they had to make while in power. He pictured a dystopian world of ceaseless tit-for-tat political prosecutions that would destroy the “presidency as we know it.”
Envisioning the opposite scenario, Mr. Dreeben worried that any form of blanket immunity would place presidents entirely outside of the rule of law and encourage them to commit crimes, including “bribery, treason, sedition, even murder,” with impunity.
“The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong,” he said.
Both sides found advocates for their positions on the court.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. clearly seemed worried that without some form of criminal immunity, former presidents would be vulnerable to partisan warfare as their successors used the courts to go after them once they were out of office. And that, he added, could lead to endless cycles of retribution that would be a risk to “stable, democratic society.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared more concerned that if presidents were in fact shielded by immunity, they would be unbounded by the law and could turn the Oval Office into what she described as “the seat of criminality.”
There did not seem to be a lot of urgency among the justices — especially the conservative ones — to ensure that the immunity question was resolved quickly. That left open the possibility that Mr. Trump could avoid being tried on charges of plotting to overturn the last election until well after voters went to the polls to decide whether to choose him as president in this election.
And if he is elected, any trial could be put off while he is in office, or he could order the charges against him dropped.
It could take some time for the court to do its own analysis of what presidential acts should qualify for the protections of immunity. And even if the justices determine that at least some of the allegations against Mr. Trump are fair game for prosecution, if they do not issue a ruling until late June or early July, it could be difficult to hold a trial before November.
That would become all but impossible if the court took a different route and sent the analysis back to the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan. If Judge Chutkan were ordered to hold further hearings on which of the indictment’s numerous allegations were official acts of Mr. Trump’s presidency and which were private acts he took as a candidate for office, the process could take months and last well into 2025.
Reporting from Washington
Just as the Supreme Court began considering on Thursday morning whether former President Donald J. Trump was entitled to absolute immunity, rap music started blaring outside the court.
The lyrics, laced with expletives, denounced Mr. Trump, and several dozen demonstrators began chanting, “Trump is not above the law!”
Mr. Trump was not in Washington on Thursday morning — in fact, he was in another courtroom, in New York. But the spectacle that pierced the relative tranquillity outside the court was typical of events that involve him: demonstrations, homemade signs, police, news media, and lots and lots of curious onlookers.
One man, Stephen Parlato, a retired mental health counselor from Boulder, Colo., held a roughly 6-foot-long sign with a blown-up photo of Mr. Trump scowling that read, “Toxic loser.” The back of the sign featured the famous painting by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge of dogs playing poker, adorned with the words, “Faith erodes … in a court with no binding ethics code.” He made the sign at FedEx, he said.
The Supreme Court’s decision to even hear the case, which has delayed Mr. Trump’s election interference trial, was “absurd,” he said.
“I’m a child of the late ’60s and early ’70s and the Vietnam War,” said Mr. Parlato, dressed in a leather jacket and cowboy hat. “I remember protesting that while in high school. But this is very different. I’m here because I’m terrified of the possibility of a second Trump presidency.”
Inside the court, Jack Smith sat to the far right of the lawyer arguing on behalf of his team of prosecutors, Michael R. Dreeben, a leading expert in criminal law who has worked for another special counsel who investigated Mr. Trump, Robert S. Mueller III.
Among those in attendance were Jane Sullivan Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, who is married to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
In an orderly line outside along the side of the court, people were calmly waiting to listen to the arguments from the court’s public gallery. More than 100 people, many of them supporters of Mr. Trump, were in line as of 8:30 a.m. Reagan Pendarvis, 19, who had been waiting there since the middle of the night, said the first person in line had gotten there more than a day before the arguments began.
Mr. Pendarvis, a sophomore at the University of California, San Diego who is living in Washington for the spring semester, was wearing a black suit and bright red bow tie. He said he had been struggling to keep warm since he took his place in line.
Mr. Pendarvis, a supporter of Mr. Trump, said he thought that the cases brought against the former president were an uneven application of the law.
“I think a lot of the cases, especially that happen for Donald Trump, don’t really happen for Democrats on the other side,” he said. “That’s just my take on it.”
David Bolls, 42, and his brother, Jonathan, 43, both of Springfield, Va., also in line for the arguments, also contended that the prosecutions against Mr. Trump were an abuse of judicial power.
“For me, I want to see an even application of justice,” David Bolls said.
For others in line, the Supreme Court’s deliberations were not the main draw. Ellen Murphy, a longtime Washington resident, was trying to sell buttons she designs, though she acknowledged that it was unlikely she would be allowed in with all of her merchandise.
Dozens of the buttons, which said, “Immunize democracy now” and “Trump is toast” over a toaster with two slices of bread, were pinned to a green apron she was wearing.
“We lose our democracy,” Ms. Murphy said, “if the president can do whatever he wants just because he’s president.”
Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting.
Reporting from Washington
The justices heard arguments in the immunity case at a special session, the day after what had been the last scheduled argument of its term. Arguments heard in late April almost always yield decisions near the end of the court’s term, in late June or early July.
But a ruling in early summer, even if it categorically rejected Mr. Trump’s position, would make it hard to complete his trial before the election. Should Mr. Trump win at the polls, there is every reason to think he would scuttle the prosecution.
In cases that directly affected elections — in which the mechanisms of voting were at issue — the court has sometimes acted with unusual speed.
In 2000, in Bush v. Gore, the court issued its decision handing the presidency to George W. Bush the day after the justices heard arguments.
In a recent case concerning Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s primary ballot, the justices moved more slowly, but still at a relatively brisk pace. The court granted Mr. Trump’s petition seeking review just two days after he filed it, scheduled arguments for about a month later and issued its decision in his favor about a month after that.
In United States v. Nixon, the 1974 decision that ordered President Richard M. Nixon to comply with a subpoena for audiotapes of conversations with aides in the White House, the court also moved quickly, granting the special prosecutor’s request to bypass the appeals court a week after it was filed.
The court heard arguments about five weeks later — compared with some eight weeks in Mr. Trump’s immunity case. It issued its decision 16 days after the argument, and the trial was not delayed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/us/usc-cancels-graduation-campus-protests.html
U.S.C. Cancels Its Main Graduation Ceremony, Citing Security Concerns
There have been student protests and arrests, as well as controversy over the school’s decision to cancel the speech of its valedictorian.
Officers from the Los Angeles Police Department at the University of Southern California on Wednesday. Credit: Philip Cheung for The New York Times
by Stephanie Saul
April 25, 2024
New York Times
The University of Southern California announced on Thursday that it has canceled its main-stage graduation ceremony for students, a move that follows campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war and a controversy over its selection of a class valedictorian.
The university said that it could not host the ceremony, which was scheduled for May 10, because of new safety measures that would have increased the amount of time needed on the day to process the 65,000 students and guests who usually attend.
This week, the university has been rocked by turmoil by pro-Palestinian protesters, resulting in the arrests of more than 90 people.
It was the continuation of controversy on the Los Angeles campus that began in early April, when the university selected a Muslim valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, a biomedical engineering major from Chino Hills, Calif.
Following complaints from several Jewish organizations that Ms. Tabassum, who is of South Asian descent, had posted a social media link to a controversial pro-Palestinian organization, the university informed her that she would not be delivering the traditional valedictorian speech.
The university said the decision was based on a barrage of communications threatening to disrupt the graduation ceremony. But, in a statement, Ms. Tabassum voiced skepticism about the university’s motivation.
In making the announcement Thursday about the main stage cancellation, the university emphasized that other graduation events celebrating individual schools would continue. In those ceremonies, students cross the stage, are awarded their degrees and are photographed.
“We understand that this is disappointing,” the announcement said, “however, we are adding many new activities and celebrations to make this commencement academically meaningful.”
That did not appease many students.
“The cancellation of commencement? I think it’s cowardly,” said Layla MoheyEldin, a senior majoring in international relations and Middle East studies. Her high school graduation was scaled down because of the pandemic, and now she is losing her main college ceremony.
Last week, the university announced that speakers and honorees who had been scheduled to attend the main stage graduation, including the “Crazy Rich Asians” director Jon M. Chu and the tennis star Billie Jean King, would not be present.
Past speakers at the main ceremonies have included the actor Will Ferrell and the author Siddhartha Mukherjee.
Jonathan Wolfe contributed reporting.
A correction was made on
April 25, 2024
An earlier version of this article included a picture that was published in error. It showed the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles, not the University of Southern California.
When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know at nytnews@nytimes.com.Learn more
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Stephanie Saul reports on colleges and universities, with a recent focus on the dramatic changes in college admissions and the debate around diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education. More about Stephanie Saul
A version of this article appears in print on April 28, 2024, Section A, Page 17 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S.C. Cancels Graduation Ceremony for 65,000 People, Citing Security Concerns. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper
I Just Keep Talking: A Life in Essays
by Nell Irvin Painter
Doubleday, 2024
[Publication date: April 23, 2024]
In this collection of conversations, Dr. Horne confronts the history of settler colonialism and fighting fascism while giving dazzling insights on Jazz, Claude Barnett, Paul Robeson, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Shirley Graham Du Bois, while delivering deeper insights into the histories of Kenya, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. Chris Steele's curiosity as an interviewer creates dialogues where Dr. Horne often braids his journeys into the archives with his scholarship often opening up into his own personal narrative. Part history, part radical memoir, Acknowledging Radical Histories displays the power of conversation, solidarity, and coming together for a better future.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Dr. Horne holds the Moores Professorship of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston. His research, scholarship, and writing has addressed issues of racism in a variety of relations involving labor, politics, civil rights, international relations and war. He has also written extensively about the film industry. Dr. Horne received his Ph.D. in history from Columbia University his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and his B.A. from Princeton University. Dr. Horne is the author of more than 35 books and one hundred scholarly articles and reviews.
Despite arrests at Columbia last week, protests continued on campus on Monday. Credit: C.S. Muncy for The New York Times
Students protesters occupied an intersection near the campus of Yale University on Monday. Credit: Adrian Martinez Chavez for The New York Times
Protesters outside of New York University, before police arrived. Credit: Adam Gray for The New York Times
“Students, students, hold your ground!” protesters roared. “N.Y.U., back down!” Credit: Adam Gray for The New York Times
Some faculty members said support for Dr. Shafik was eroding. Credit: CS Muncy for The New York Times
At Columbia, many Jewish students stayed away from campus for Passover. Credit: Bing Guan for The New York Times
