WELCOME TO FASCIST AMERICA: PART 4

“What’s Past is Prologue…"

 

Neither Enigma Nor Nationalist:   

Clarence Thomas Is A Black Minstrel Theocrat, Raging Misogynist and A Venal Demagogic Rightwing Advocate in Servile Defense of White Supremacy and Global Capitalism...and He Always Was...

The Enigma of Clarence Thomas
by Corey Robin
Metropolitan Books, 2019

 

BOOK REVIEW 

by Kofi Natambu
June 25, 2022
The Panopticon Review

PHOTO: President George H.W. Bush and Clarence Thomas at the White House following Thomas's confirmation as a newly selected justice to the Supreme Court in 1991. President George H.W. Bush met with Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas on October 9, 1991 in the White House. Bush reaffirmed his "total confidence" in Thomas. J. David Ake/AFP/Getty Images


Corey Robin’s incredibly superficial, myopic, condescending, self serving, distorted, and utterly reductive “analysis” of the so-called “enigma” of Clarence Thomas--one of the most transparently reactionary and thoroughly far rightwing justices in the entire history of the Supreme Court--is essentially an intellectual and ideological cautionary tale in exactly how and why so many otherwise reasonably well informed and intellectually honest white American liberals and leftists have such an arrogantly boneheaded, patronizing, infantilized and wildly jejune perception/absurdly fuckedup ‘understanding’ of what the actual dynamics and complexities of the politics of ‘race and class’ (as well as gender) are in the United States. What’s even worse in Robin’s case is that a mind numbingly large cross-section of major white liberal/leftist publications and reactions by a disturbing number of individual pundits/public intellectuals are singing Robin’s praises as if he really knows what he’s talking about or has triumphantly unearthed some heretofore ‘hidden' deep and dirty secret about who and what Clarence Thomas “really is” beneath his bitter contempt for, pompous dismissal of and lazy indifference to not merely the masses of black people’s actual desires, needs, and expectations but I would strongly argue that of most white poor, working and even lower middle class Americans as well who in fact for example don’t make anywhere near the salaries say of the great majority of Trump voters and supporters whose median income nationally is $72,500. Even more significantly within the larger context of Thomas’s own ideological, philosophical, and doctrinal positions on law and its various relationships to political economy, labor, education, religion, and social status anyone who is paying serious attention to what Justice Thomas really thinks, believes, and thus acts on behalf of in his jurisprudence would notice that he is NOT an ideological or politically committed black nationalist of any kind whatsoever, conservative or progressive, and that he was ALWAYS a very carefully chosen, vetted, weaned, and rigorously trained figure who was clearly foisted upon the American public by the 41st President George H.W. Bush (known as 'Bushwhacker One’ to me and many others) to serve as a deeply committed rightwing reactionary replacement and ideological/juridical ‘alternative’ to the legendary black liberal and progressive justice Thurgood Marshall whom Bush’s White House and the entire GOP congressional caucus in the House and especially the Senate as well as conservative/reactionary justices like William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito absolutely loathed. Besides who in their right mind actually believes the ludicrous and absolutely absurd LIE that Clarence Thomas, a thoroughly rightwing HACK and groveling GOP apparatchik was in Robin’s words. a “conservative black nationalist”. HOW UTTERLY MINDLESS AND FALSE CAN ANY POSITION BE?​

Does Robin really think that Bush or any other American president would actually nominate a “black nationalist” to the Supreme Court? How idiotic! FOR THE RECORD: Louis Farrakhan is a “conservative black nationalist”, Elijah Muhammad, founder of the Nation of Islam was a “conservative black nationalist.” Hell, even MALCOLM X whom Robin and far too many other clueless white liberals and moderates still stupidly claim that Thomas is the way he is on the Supreme Court because he “admired Malcolm’s attitude toward white folks" in college, was actually a “conservative black nationalist” before he actively broke all ideological and political ties with Muhammad and the NOI and his own acolyte/protégé Farrakhan in 1963 and formed his own independent organization in March, 1964 known as the OAAU (Organization of Afro-American Unity) which in fact openly repudiated the views, positions, and stances of his former colleagues, as well as that of his own earlier black nationalist conservatism in the name of a new revolutionary anticapitalist and anti-imperialist position.

Now THINK!: Would ANY of these individuals or any other “black nationalists" with a formal legal education and background be even remotely considered for a position as a Supreme Court justice by a man (Bushwhacker #1) who was not only President but had also served in his utterly elitist 40 year political career as Vice President, Senator, Congressman, and head of the CIA? The same man who gave us the vile Willie Horton debacle and whose leading domestic policy advisor was the late despicable Lee Atwater, and who actively recruited, cultivated, and worked with such moral and political reprobates as Roger Stone and Paul Manafort?​

And finally: Who has ever heard of a black nationalist--conservative or otherwise!--who would have married a white woman who also happened to be a dangerous and maniacal far rightwing extremist and Trump cultist like Thomas’s wife of 34 years, Virginia (“Ginni”) Lamp?. The entire thesis of Robin’s book is not merely wrongheaded and wildly distorted but ultimately moronic.​

Furthermore, Robin’s entire dumbass argument in this book (and I would strongly suggest elsewhere as well) is in fact deeply racist itself because its ludicrous and intellectually insulting as well as deeply patronizing assumptions and pseudo analytical assertions about not only Thomas himself but black Americans generally blinds Robin to actually examining who and what Thomas really is and has always been both ideologically and politically and the major guiding role that religion has always played in Thomas life and jurisprudence—which in his case and that of a number of his fellow rightwing colleagues in the Supreme Court is informed by a deeply conservative and openly reactionary Catholic conservatism. Thus this explains to a great and disturbing degree not only the fundamental white supremacist roots of Thomas’s juridicial and social philosophy but its deeply misogynist and patriarchal attitudes, values, and behavior as well. In this ugly historical context does the real meaning of the agonizing public ordeal and humiliation suffered by Anita Hill finally ring a bell at this very late date Mr. Robin?

Finally: GET REAL Corey Robin and please take at least a few postgraduate courses in AFRICAN AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY, 20th CENTURY AMERICAN POLITICS and CRITICAL THEORY writ large because on the basis of this absurdly ill-informed, deeply dishonest, bizarrely argued, and brazenly shallow book it appears that regardless of your vaunted Ivy League Princeton education YOU REALLY NEED IT…

WELCOME TO FASCIST AMERICA: PART 3

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/opinion/supreme-court-presidential-immunity.html

Opinion

 
Mr. President, Your Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card Is Ready

 

Photo Credit: Damon Winter/The New York Times
 

by Jamelle Bouie
July 2, 2024
New York Times

In 1977, nearly three years after leaving office in disgrace, President Richard Nixon gave a series of interviews to David Frost, a British journalist. Of their hourslong conversations, only one part would enter history.

“When the president does it,” Nixon told Frost, defending the conduct that ended his presidency, “that means that it is not illegal.” He went on to add that if “the president approves an action because of the national security — or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude — then the president’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law.” Otherwise, Nixon concluded, “they’re in an impossible position.”

Yesterday, in a 6-to-3 decision along partisan lines, the Supreme Court affirmed Nixon’s bold assertion of presidential immunity. Ruling on the federal prosecution of Donald Trump for his role in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the president has “absolute immunity” for “official acts” when those acts relate to the core powers of the office.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” Roberts writes. “At least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity.”

The majority divides official conduct from unofficial conduct, which is still liable for prosecution. But it doesn’t define the scope of unofficial conduct and places strict limits on how courts and prosecutors might try to prove the illegality of a president’s unofficial acts. “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives,” Roberts writes. “Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.” In other words, the why of a president’s actions cannot be held as evidence against him, even if they’re plainly illegitimate.

Roberts tries to apply this new, seemingly extraconstitutional standard to the facts of the case against the former president. He says that the president “has ‘exclusive authority and absolute discretion’ to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime,” and may “discuss potential investigations and prosecutions” with Justice Department officials, effectively neutering the idea of independent federal law enforcement. Turning to Trump’s attempt to pressure Mike Pence into delaying certification of the Electoral College vote, Roberts says that this, too, was an official act.

Having made this distinction between official and unofficial conduct, Roberts remands the case to a Federal District Court so that it can re-examine the facts and decide whether any conduct described in the indictment against Trump is prosecutable.

The upshot of this decision is that it will delay the former president’s trial past the election. And if Trump wins, he can quash the case, rendering it moot. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has, in other words, successfully kept the American people from learning in a court of law the truth of Trump’s involvement on Jan. 6.

But more troubling than the court’s interference in the democratic process are the disturbing implications of the majority’s decision, which undermines the foundations of republican government at the same time that it purports to be a strike in defense of the constitutional order.

Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution does not exist in the Constitution, Justice Sonia Sotomayor observes in her dissent. The historical evidence, she writes, “cuts decisively against it.” By definition, the president was bound by law. He was, first and foremost, not a king. He was a servant of the public, and the framers believed he, like any other servant, was subject to criminal prosecution if he broke the law.

And while the majority might say here that the president is still subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts, Sotomayor aptly notes that the chief justice has created a standard that effectively renders nearly every act official if it can be tied in some way, however tenuously, to the president’s core powers.

If the president takes official action whenever he acts in ways that are “not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority” and if “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives,” then, Sotomayor writes, “Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune.”

A president who sells cabinet positions to the highest bidder is immune. A president who directs his I.R.S. to harass and investigate his political rivals is immune. A president who gives his military illegal orders to suppress protesters is immune.

These examples only scratch the surface of allowable conduct under the majority’s decision. “The court,” Sotomayor writes, “effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.” When he uses his official powers in any way, she continues, “he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. 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.”

The bottom line, Sotomayor concludes, is that “the relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”

If the president is a king, then we are subjects whose lives and livelihoods are safe only insofar as we don’t incur the wrath of the executive. And if we find ourselves outside the light of his favor, then we find ourselves, in effect, outside the protection of the law.

Roberts says that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is necessary to preserve the separation of powers and protect the “energy” of the executive. But the aim of the separation of powers was not merely to create exclusive spheres of action for each branch — if this were true, the Senate, which ratifies treaties and confirms executive branch appointments, would not exist in its current form — but to prevent the emergence of unchecked authority. Roberts has reversed this. Now separation of powers requires the absolute power of the executive to act without checks, without balances and without limits.

In their relentless drive to protect a Republican president and secure his power for a future administration, the conservative majority has issued a fundamentally anti-republican opinion. In doing so, it has made a mockery of the American constitutional tradition.

By the end of his time in the White House, Nixon was a disgrace. But to the conservative movement, he was something of a hero — hounded out of office by a merciless liberal establishment. One way to tell the story of the Republican Party after Nixon is as the struggle to build a world in which a future Nixon could act unimpeded by law.

Roberts has done more than score a victory for Trump. He has scored a victory for the conservative legal project of a unitary executive of immense power. Besides Trump, he has vindicated the lawlessness of Republican presidents from Nixon to George W. Bush. The Nixonian theory of presidential power is now enshrined as constitutional law.

This time when the president does it, it really won’t be illegal.

More on presidential immunity:


Opinion | Laurence H. Tribe
The Trump Decision Reveals Deep Rot in the System
July 1, 2024


Opinion | The Editorial Board
The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents
July 1, 2024


Opinion | Kate Shaw
The Supreme Court Creates a Lawless Presidency
July 2, 2024

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va., and Washington. @jbouie

WELCOME TO FASCIST AMERICA: PART 2

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/inside-project-2025s-plan-to-reprogram-the-government/

Quotations from Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership, with silhouette of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. Images: Wikimedia Commons / Gage Skidmore

Law, Politics

Democracy

Inside Project 2025

Backed by the Heritage Foundation, the initiative seeks to undermine longstanding safeguards against abuses of executive power.

by James Goodwin
July 1, 2024
Boston Review

The week after taking office in 2017, Donald Trump announced his administration’s signature policy on the administrative state—the constellation of agencies, institutions, and procedures that Congress has created to help the president implement the laws it passes—when he signed Executive Order 13771. The directive purported to create a “regulatory budget” scheme that prohibited agencies from issuing a new rule unless they first repealed two existing rules and ensured that the resulting cost savings offset any costs the new rule might impose.

In the years since Steve Bannon called for the “deconstruction of the administrative state,” the conservative movement has come to embrace it—for archconservative ends.

The effort failed. While federal agencies reduced their regulatory output during the Trump administration, they made little lasting progress in repealing existing rules. The Administrative Procedure Act, which governs much of how the administrative state operates, makes it hard to do so. Most of the Trump administration’s repeal attempts were met with rejection by federal courts for failing to abide by basic procedural requirements.

Still, Executive Order 13771 perfectly encapsulated conservative thinking about regulatory policy at the time. The goal was to bring about the “deconstruction of the administrative state,” as former Trump advisor Steve Bannon famously put it. This view was in keeping with decades of conservative hostility for this arm of government, which the right has long tarred as an economic and constitutional disaster.

But that was then. In the years since, the conservative movement has coalesced around a very different way of thinking about the administrative state—one that sees it as a vehicle for advancing the conservative movement’s agenda, particularly on social issues, and thus embraces policy changes that would strengthen many aspects of its governing apparatus. There’s still plenty of room for deconstruction in this vision, particularly when it comes to issues like worker rights and environmental protection. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s conservatives demonstrated their continued commitment to the deconstruction project with their decision last week striking down the four-decade-old Chevron deference doctrine—a move that will make it easier for conservative federal judges to strike down rules they oppose on ideological grounds. But these goals are now presented alongside calls for things like enhanced agency enforcement capacity and strategies for evading congressional oversight—priorities that would have been unthinkable for a conservative regulatory agenda just a few years ago.

The best example of this shift is Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation–led “presidential transition” attack plan that would guide a second Trump administration should he win this November. The effort was spearheaded by Heritage president Kevin Roberts in 2022; a 920-page document called Mandate for Leadership, published in April last year, sets out a comprehensive blueprint in technocratic detail. The product of a broad coalition of ultra-right-wing think tanks and advocacy organizations, the plan has contributions from the Center for Renewing America (an organization committed to promoting Christian nationalism), Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (a prominent group fighting reproductive rights), and FreedomWorks (the Koch-founded organization responsible for mainstreaming the Tea Party agenda, which has since dissolved but nevertheless helped lay the foundation for the conservative movement’s evolution in thinking on matters of regulatory policy). It covers nearly every policy issue you can think of, from defense budgets to bank regulation to highway construction. (For his part, Bannon has expressed general support for the initiative, but it is unclear whether he appreciates—or even cares about—the shift it represents.)

Project 2025 is candid about its ultimate goal: to reprogram the U.S. administrative state to support and sustain archconservative rule for decades to come. The distinguishing features of this regime would include a far more politicized bureaucracy, immunity against meaningful public or congressional oversight, abusive deployment of agency enforcement capabilities as a tool of political retribution, and aggressive manipulation of federal program implementation in the image of Christian nationalism, white supremacy, and economic inequality.

---

One of the Mandate’s prevailing themes is that the administrative state has become a major platform from which the radical left is able to smuggle its “woke” agenda into nearly every nook and cranny of our society. In light of this alleged shift, Project 2025 concludes that deconstruction is no longer the right strategy. Instead, the administrative state must be aggressively harnessed and then redirected. This is not a brand-new idea; conservatives have weaponized the administrative state to fight culture wars in the past, including putting arbitrary regulations on abortion clinics and introducing stringent eligibility requirements for food assistance programs. But these experiments have largely been episodic and disjointed. Project 2025’s novelty lies in the fact that it wants to make them, for the first time, into a comprehensive strategy.

Russell Vought, Trump’s former Director of the Office of Management Budget (OMB), succinctly describes this new strategy in a chapter he wrote for Mandate for Leadership: “The great challenge confronting a conservative President is the existential need for aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch to return power—including power currently held by the executive branch—to the American people.” Doing so, the Mandate argues, requires giving a second Trump administration nearly unchecked power over the machinery by which the administrative state operates: the institutions, the procedures, the resources, and the personnel.

Project 2025 is clearly designed to avoid the pitfalls that doomed Executive Order 13771. In many ways, Mandate for Leadership can be read as an instruction manual for undermining the safeguards meant to prevent governing officials from engaging in the abuses of power Project 2025 wants to encourage. Replete with methodical detail and technocratic jargon, it offers future political leadership across all the federal administrative agencies a full taxonomy of tactics they can deploy to either exploit the weak points in these safeguards or bypass them altogether.

One of the Mandate’s central tactics concerns rules around staffing. Currently, agencies hire professional career staff with specialized training and expertise. All must swear an oath to follow the Constitution in carrying out their duties—even and especially if that means disobeying the orders of someone higher up in the bureaucratic hierarchy. As such, these career staff provide perhaps the most important line of defense against an autocratic presidential regime. But through a policy called Schedule F, the Mandate seeks to sideline or even purge them. Derived from another of Trump’s executive orders, the proposal would reclassify the thousands of career government employees who play some role in policy formation outside of the competitive service—the federal personnel category that includes rigorous, merit-based requirements for hiring, firing, and promotion decisions. Stripped of these basic protections, which have been in place for over 140 years, many employees would become “at will,” fireable for any reason—or no reason at all. The intent is obvious: to encourage public servants to obey their political bosses, even when that means going against the law and their own expertise. Were it to take effect, workers who refuse to toe the line could be summarily terminated.

And to buttress the effect of Schedule F, Mandate for Leadership includes several more targeted methods for isolating recalcitrant public servants. Its chapter on the intelligence community, for instance, describes policy changes that would make it easier to suspend or revoke security clearances for career staff at national security–related agencies. Without their security clearances, these individuals would no longer be able to perform their jobs—and that, of course, is the point. Other sections contemplate taking similarly hostile actions against members of the Senior Executive Service, a special band within the civil service created to serve as a bridge between political appointees and lower-line career staff by providing management support and expertise. Members who step out of line might find themselves being relocated to far-flung geographic locations or reassigned to positions unrelated to their area of expertise.

---

The flip side of silencing or firing career public servants is to empower extremists and amplify outlier viewpoints—a move Mandate for Leadership has plenty of ideas about how to accomplish. One of these is simply to point Schedule F and security clearance abuses in the opposite direction. Unburdened by the competitive hiring process, agencies could hire whomever they wanted for career civil service positions. Project 2025 makes clear that unquestioned loyalty to the president, as opposed to professionalism and expertise, is the only real qualification that matters. Similarly, political appointees would have a freer hand to assign security clearances, ensuring loyal voices are heard loud and clear when it comes to conducting intelligence assessments to inform national security decisions.

Mandate for Leadership at times even directly requires consideration of outlier views. One of its recommendations to “improve” the President’s Daily Briefing (PDB) on national security issues is to create a mechanism that ensures the inclusion of “properly channeled dissent.” Mandate fails to specify what constitutes a proper channel, but the broader context of the recommendation indicates a hostility toward the independent viewpoints of career intelligence officers as well as a desire to transform these documents from objective analyses into advocacy documents.

Another group of proposed tactics builds on the longstanding conservative tradition of outsourcing critical government functions to the private sector. Even here, though, the goal isn’t simply to shrink government but to advance Project 2025’s broader ideological agenda as well. The chapter on the Department of Energy, for instance, urges consideration of outsourcing the functions of the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a small statistical agency charged with gathering and analyzing data regarding U.S. energy systems. The information products that the EIA generates are crucial for informing energy-related policymaking and investments by the electricity and oil and gas sectors; it is perhaps best known for the different “outlooks” it publishes that forecast future energy trends. While conceding that the EIA’s products are generally “neutral”—if anything, the agency’s outlooks have been criticized for being too pessimistic about renewable energy—Mandate still suggests that the reform could be beneficial overall by reducing the costs of government. Previous experience with privatization casts doubt on this prediction. More troubling still, businesses interested in securing future lucrative contracts might deliberately produce analyses that align with the president’s preferred policy positions on energy. A future president opposed to urgent climate action, for instance, might be able to use biased analyses to oppose policies aimed at promoting renewable energy development.

The flip side of silencing or firing career public servants is to empower extremists and amplify outlier viewpoints.

Mandate for Leadership elsewhere calls for dismantling the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) lifesaving weather forecasting capabilities and outsourcing them to private companies. Such a move could exacerbate economic and racial inequity if the private company were to put those forecasts—which are now freely available to everyone—behind a paywall that might be unaffordable for many families. More ominously still, a company responding to profit incentives might create what amounts to a two-tier forecasting system, with more accurate forecasts available only for wealthier parts of the country. Low-quality forecasts in poorer areas would leave residents unable to plan for the kind of extreme weather conditions that are becoming more prevalent with climate change, putting their lives and property at risk of unnecessary harm.

Alongside its calls for expanded privatization, Mandate for Leadership advocates for politicizing existing relationships with contractors. Its chapter on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), for instance, recommends that the agency end its reliance on “global [non-governmental organizations]” such as Oxfam International for distributing humanitarian assistance, and instead turn the work over to “faith-based organizations,” including both local churches as well as larger U.S.-based organizations such as Catholic Relief Services and Knights of Columbus—the perfect vehicles for indoctrinating aid recipients in the conservative Christian ideology that is at Project 2025’s core.

Previously, the Trump administration used these humanitarian assistance programs as leverage to induce recipient countries to join the infamous Geneva Consensus Declaration on Women’s Health and Protection of the Family (GCD). The international agreement, developed outside of any recognized international governance structures such as the United Nations, binds signatory countries in adopting domestic and foreign policies that oppose abortion. Consistent with these neocolonial aspirations, Mandate for Leadership strongly embraces the GCD, envisioning the use of humanitarian aid programs implemented by faith-based organization contractors to expand its reach to new countries.

More generally, Mandate for Leadership calls for weaponizing contractor policy against companies with “woke” policies. Come 2025, a company that has adopted certain kinds of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) programs might find itself ineligible for many federal grant opportunities. The chapter on the Department of Education would prohibit public schools that receive federal assistance from entering contracts with companies that recognize transgender people’s pronouns—a set of policies that would complement recently adopted legislation in conservative states that prohibit DEIJ programs in public institutions of higher education.

Mandate for Leadership also contains several recommendations for how agencies could weaponize federal grantmaking to advance conservative policy objectives. For instance, the chapter on the Department of Health and Human Services recommends that the Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Personal Responsibility Educa­tion programs prioritize grants for abstinence-only programs. The chapter on the Environmental Protection Agency calls for radically overhauling that agency’s grants program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in discretionary grants every year. Mandate would end the practice of career staff making these grant determinations and instead assign this task to a “political appointee.”

---

Perhaps the most disquieting category of tactics in Mandate for Leadership involves the aggressive, politicized use of agency enforcement powers.

The chapter on the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposes overhauling the agency to eliminate its longstanding tradition of political insulation from the White House. In theory, this insulation follows from the idea that the job of the DOJ’s head, the attorney general, is to represent the U.S. government and not the president. Institutional mechanisms have been used to ensure the agency’s independence and to guard against both the perception and reality of conflicts of interest, including, most notably, the use of a special counsel to investigate and prosecute the president or certain administration officials. As was demonstrated during the first Trump term, though, the actual independence of a special counsel can be limited. Mandate would seek to further degrade the DOJ’s independence by injecting greater presidential control into questions of litigation strategy, even raising the disturbing specter of the president targeting political enemies with enforcement actions.

Likewise, in its chapter on the Department of Homeland Security, the document outlines various proposals aimed consolidating and strengthening enforcement policies at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These include giving individual agents greater leeway to arrest immigrants with suspected criminal records and expanding the geographic scope of Expedited Removal procedures—the summary removal of noncitizens without a hearing. Mandate would permit these procedures to be applied to individuals more than 100 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, which was the traditional limit, with no apparent bright-line geographic restrictions.

Project 2025 also envisions expanded use of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which authorizes the president to use the military for domestic law enforcement purposes under rare, extreme circumstances. In 2020 Trump threatened to use this authority to quell the Black Lives Matter protests that took place in the wake of George Floyd’s murder before being discouraged from doing so by his advisors. Mandate for Leadership, while not citing the law by name, does appear to endorse its use as part of its broader border control strategy, recommending calling in “active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to assist in arrest operations along the border—something that has not yet been done.” Citing internal documents and an anonymous source, the Washington Post has reported that key personnel involved in Project 2025 have plans to use the Insurrection Act even beyond what Mandate for Leadership lays out for it.

Mandate for Leadership’s final set of tactics for hijacking the administrative state have to do with limiting or evading congressional oversight. Several chapters, for instance, describe how the administration can manipulate the Federal Vacancies Reform Act by installing political appointees in key agency leadership positions—a gambit whose practical effect is to enable politically loyal personnel to carry out official agency business without being subjected to the lengthy, and potentially embarrassing, Senate confirmation process.

Other chapters recommend giving the president greater control over communications between agencies and committees of jurisdictions with Congress, with the apparent aim of controlling the flow of information that members of Congress and their staff receive. Instituting these changes would clearly undermine Congress’s ability to conduct meaningful oversight for these agencies. The chapter on the DHS, for example, calls for the president to demand that only one committee in each chamber serve as an authorizing committee for the agency (currently there are at least six authorizing committees in the House and four more in the Senate). If congressional leadership refuses to accept this arrangement, then it recommends that the agency’s Office of Legislative Affairs select one and restrict its communications to only that committee. Similarly, the chapter on the Department of State recommends that agencies defer to the White House on relevant communications with Congress—meaning that in practice, discussions on certain issues of agency business would have to first go through the president.

---

Congress and the federal judiciary have long been ripe for capture by elite minority factions to serve and sustain their rule. But the administrative state, which is of a much more recent vintage, was supposed to be different.

In the years following the Civil War, and then later during the Progressive Era, reformers and advocates sought to build a governing institution that would be more inclusive and democratically responsive. The Interstate Commerce Commission and other early experiments in federal regulatory governance demonstrated that the administrative state could stand up to powerful economic interests and ensure a fairer marketplace for consumers and small businesses while protecting democracy against ever-evolving oligarchic threats. Meanwhile, rapid industrialization and urbanization laid bare the limitations of using civil lawsuits to address harms from dangerous business practices. Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, first created in 1906, offered the promise of using standards developed and implemented by scientists and other experts to prevent such harms from occurring in the first place. These and other regulatory frameworks created by Congress established a new model in which agencies would be empowered to continually respond to new and emerging threats.

Degrading Congress and the federal judiciary were important first steps for the right, but administrative state would be the real prize.

The genius of the administrative state’s design was that it would provide a permanent forum in which public input and professional expertise could be leveraged to solve the people’s problems in ways that elected officials would, or could, not. Scholars of U.S. democracy have long recognized its potential to serve as a platform for building and sustaining true, durable public power. At its best, they argue, it can provide ordinary citizens with a locus of countervailing power in the political marketplace. It’s clear, then, why the modern conservative movement has come to see it as such a threat.

And that is the real import of Project 2025: it seeks to corrupt the administrative state by transforming it from a dynamic base of democratic power into a fierce weapon of social and economic conservatism. What will happen if it succeeds? Once the damage has been done, the task of sustaining minority rule for decades to come would be much easier for the conservative movement. Degrading the institutions of Congress and the federal judiciary were important first steps toward rebuilding the United States in line with its vision of Christian nationalist principles, white supremacy, and economic inequality. Seizing control of the administrative state would be the real prize.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

James Goodwin

James Goodwin is Policy Director at the Center for Progressive Reform.

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/02/imperial-presidency-in-waiting-am

12 hours ago

Politics & Policy

 
Imperial presidency in waiting
by Mike Allen
July 3, 2024
AXIOS

 

Photo illustration: Brendan Lynch/Axios. Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Former President Trump, if re-elected, plans to immediately test the boundaries of presidential and governing power, knowing the restraints of Congress and the courts are dramatically looser than during his first term, his advisers tell Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen for a Behind the Curtain column.

Why it matters: It's not just the Supreme Court ruling on Monday that presidents enjoy substantial legal immunity for actions in office. Trump would come to office with a cabinet and staff pre-vetted for loyalty, and a fully compliant Republican coalition in Congress — devoid of critics in positions of real power.That's a big reason many Democrats worry President Biden is making one of the biggest gambles in U.S. history by staying in the race amid acute concerns about his age.

🖼️ The big picture: Trump promises an unabashedly imperial presidency — one that would turn the Justice Department against critics, deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally, slap 10% tariffs on thousands of products, and fire perhaps tens of thousands of government staff deemed insufficiently loyal.He'd stretch the powers of the presidency in ways not seen in our lifetime. He says this consistently and clearly — so it's not conjecture. You might like this or loathe this. But it's coming, fast and furious, if he's elected.

Thanks to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, Trump could pursue his plans without fear of punishment or restraint.

👀 What to watch: To hear Trump and his allies tell it, this is how early 2025 would unfold if he wins:A re-elected Trump would set up vast camps and deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally. He could invoke the Insurrection Act and use troops to lock down the southern border.

In Washington, Trump would move to fire potentially tens of thousands of civil servants using a controversial interpretation of law and procedure. He'd replace many of them with pre-vetted loyalists.

He'd centralize power over the Justice Department, historically an independent check on presidential power. He plans to nominate a trusted loyalist for attorney general, and has threatened to target and even imprison critics. He could demand the federal cases against him cease immediately.

Many of the Jan. 6 convicts could be pardoned — a promise Trump has made at campaign rallies, where he hails them as patriots, not criminals. Investigations of the Bidens would begin.

Trump says he'd slap 10% tariffs on most imported goods, igniting a possible trade war and risking short-term inflation. He argues this would give him leverage to create better trade terms to benefit consumers.

Conversation would intensify about when Justices Clarence Thomas, 76, and Sam Alito, 74, would retire. Lists of potential successors are already drawn up. President Biden said last month that "the next president is likely to have two new Supreme Court nominees." If Trump were to win and the two oldest justices retired, five of the nine justices would have been handpicked by Trump.

https://panopticonreview.blogspot.com/2024/07/welcome-to-fascist-america.html

Monday, July 1, 2024

WELCOME TO FASCIST AMERICA

 

All,

This absolutely criminal and fiercely antidemocratic decision today on the ‘constitutional’ and now “legal” parameters of presidential power in granting absolute immunity to any/all of a president’s “official acts” while in office by what is clearly the most corrupt and ideologically reactionary, as well as morally and ethically bankrupt Supreme Court in modern American history (i.e. since 1900) is the first major structural, systemic, and institutional indication that this country has already opened the floodgates to asserting fascism as not merely a massive aspirational desire in the United States (after all 74 million citizens—80% of them white Americans!—gave their national fascist leader their vote in 2020 which was the second highest total of votes that any presidential candidate from either party has ever received in American history) but a now flatout super judicial endorsement and assertion of executive branch governmental power whether it’s “lawful" or not.

What this all means of course is that we no longer have even a modicum of a democratic political, judicial, or legislative system and have clearly devolved—whether we like it or not!—into a society and a government that no longer is “immune” to “official” fascist rule that at least half of the country and civil society in general now fervently supports, advocates, and defends no matter what and actively votes in favor of throughout the nation. To say we are “in very deep trouble” is a massive understatement and is frankly an infantile and ultimately braindead assessment of what is actually happening (and has been for at least a half century now (remember 1968?). Stay tuned because not only is this all going to become much worse very soon and will determine what the November 5, 2024 election really means no matter who is elected or what so-called “political party” crawls into power…It’s now 1933 (see: Reich, Third) all over again only it's our turn this time around and we are clearly the Weimar Republic of the 21st century. Guess what’s next…Don’t believe me?—WATCH AND SEE...


Kofi 

 

DEFEAT FASCISM BEFORE FASCISM DEFEATS YOU  

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-immunity-dissents-sotomayor-jackson-rcna159771 

Justices Sotomayor and Jackson fear for democracy in their dissents

The Democratic appointees said the Supreme Court's decision on Donald Trump's immunity claims would hurt the country.

by Ryan Teague Beckwith
July 1, 2024 
MSNBC

Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson raised serious questions about the future of democracy in their dissents to the high court's ruling on Donald Trump'simmunity claims.

The two justices, along with fellow Democratic appointee Elena Kagan, were on the losing side of a 6-3 decision finding that Trump had "absolute immunity" for some of the actions he took to try to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

Writing for all three Democratic appointees, Sotomayor found fault with the majority's ruling that Trump is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for all "official acts," including talking with the Justice Department or Vice President Mike Pence about his schemes:

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent. 

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. 

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. 

Later in the decision, Sotomayor outlined her view that the case essentially gave presidents immunity for all kinds of misconduct:Sotomayor ended her dissent by noting her "fear" for the future of democracy under this ruling:

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. 

Supreme Court justices have previously drawn attention for dropping the word "respectfully" from "I respectfully dissent" as a closing statement, so the final sentence is particularly notable.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jacquelyn Martin | Pool | Getty Images

In a separate dissent, Jackson added a few words of her own about the decision's "paradigm shift" for the powers of the presidency:

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.

Also, under the new Presidential accountability model, thestarting presumption is that the criminal law does not apply to Presidents, no matter how obviously illegal, harmful, or unacceptable a President’s official behavior might be.

Regardless of all that, courts must now ensure that a former President is not held accountable for any criminal conduct he engages in while he is on duty, unless his conduct consists primarily (and perhaps solely) of unofficial acts. 

She added that the decision means the Supreme Court will now be the final arbiter of whether a president has overstepped the bounds.

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. Once self-regulating, the Rule of Law now becomes the rule of judges, with courts pronouncing which crimes committed by a President have to be let go and which can be redressed as impermissible. So, ultimately, this Court itself will decide whether the law will be any barrier to whatever course of criminality emanates from the Oval Office in the future. The potential for great harm to American institutions and Americans themselves is obvious.

Jackson ended with a similarly stark sign-off:

The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm. I fear that they are wrong. But, for all our sakes, I hope that they are right. In the meantime, because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent. 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

 

Ryan Teague Beckwith

 

Ryan Teague Beckwith is a newsletter editor for MSNBC. He has previously worked for such outlets as TIME magazine, Bloomberg News and CQ Roll Call. He teaches journalism at Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/liberal-justices-say-trump-immunity-decision-will-disastrous-consequen-rcna159755 

Supreme Court

Liberal justices say Trump immunity decision 'will have disastrous consequences' for the U.S.

The Supreme Court ruled that the former president has some immunity from prosecution in his federal election interference case, further delaying the trial.

 

PHOTO: Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority had invented an "unjustifiable" immunity that puts a president above the law.  Jahi Chikwendiu / The Washington Post via Getty Images file

 

by Rebecca Shabad

July 1, 2024

NBC News 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's liberal bloc issued blistering dissents Monday in the Trump immunity ruling, arguing that it "reshapes the institution of the presidency" and "makes a mockery" of the constitutional principle that no man is above the law. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading her dissent from the bench, said that "relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom ... the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."

She added that "because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on ideological lines that former President Donald Trump has immunity for some of his conduct as president but not unofficial acts in the federal election interference case. The court did not determine what constitutes an "official" act in this case, leaving that to the lower court.

Follow live updates on the Trump immunity hearing

The decision adds another hurdle and further delay to special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of the former president. Trump was indicted last year on charges he conspired to "overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election."

Sotomayor said that the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, invents "an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law." 

Their ruling, she went on, makes three moves that she said "completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability." Sotomayor said the court creates absolute immunity for the president's exercise of "core constitutional powers," creates "expansive immunity for all 'official acts,'" and "declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him." 

Sotomayor warned that the ruling "will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy" and that it sends the message: “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends.”

She added, “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

In her own written dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the majority's ruling "breaks new and dangerous ground." 

"Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity—an exemption from criminal law — applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government," she wrote. 

Jackson warned that under the majority's "new Presidential accountability mode," a hypothetical president "who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics...or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup...has a fair shot at getting immunity." 

The chief justice dismissed the dissents, suggesting that his three liberal colleagues had misinterpreted the majority's opinion and were engaging in "fear mongering." Roberts argued that they "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today." He wrote that "like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity." 

He also appeared to scoff at Sotomayor for what she included in her dissent, saying that her "most compelling piece of evidence consists of excerpted statements of Charles Pinckney from an 1800 Senate debate." He continued, "But those statements reflect only the now-discredited argument that any immunity not expressly mentioned in the Constitution must not exist." 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurring opinion that she agreed with some of the majority opinion but not all of it. Notably, she said she agreed with Sotomayor that Trump’s immune conduct should still be allowed to be used as evidence in his trial.

“The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable,” she said.

Soon after the court issued the ruling, Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social account, writing in all caps: "Big win for our Constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!"

A Biden campaign adviser, on the other hand, said that the ruling doesn't change what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. 

"Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election," the adviser said. "Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself."

 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS: 

Rebecca Shabad

Rebecca Shabad is a politics reporter for NBC News based in Washington.

Lawrence Hurley, Gabe Gutierrez and Daniel Barnes contributed.