Wednesday, October 30, 2024

IMPORTANT NEW BOOK:

The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic: Reconstruction, 1860-1920
by Manisha Sinha
‎Liveright, 2024


[Publication date: March 26, 2024]
"Sinha not only has taken on this vast subject, but has greatly expanded its definition, both temporally and spatially. . . . She covers these difficult issues with remarkable skill and clarity." ―S. C. Gwynne, New York Times Book Review

We are told that the present moment bears a strong resemblance to Reconstruction, the era after the Civil War when the victorious North attempted to create an interracial democracy in the unrepentant South. That effort failed―and that failure serves as a warning today about violent backlash to the mere idea of black equality.

In The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic, acclaimed historian Manisha Sinha expands our view beyond the accepted temporal and spatial bounds of Reconstruction, which is customarily said to have begun in 1865 with the end of the war, and to have come to a close when the "corrupt bargain" of 1877 put Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House in exchange for the fall of the last southern Reconstruction state governments. Sinha’s startlingly original account opens in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln that triggered the secession of the Deep South states, and take us all the way to 1920 and the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted women the right to vote―and which Sinha calls the "last Reconstruction amendment."

Within this grand frame, Sinha narrates the rise and fall of what she calls the "Second American Republic." The Reconstruction of the South, a process driven by the alliance between the formerly enslaved at the grassroots and Radical Republicans in Congress, is central to her story, but only part of it. As she demonstrates, the US Army’s conquest of Indigenous nations in the West, labor conflict in the North, Chinese exclusion, women’s suffrage, and the establishment of an overseas American empire were all part of the same struggle between the forces of democracy and those of reaction. The main concern of Reconstruction was the plight of the formerly enslaved, but its fall affected other groups as well: women, workers, immigrants, and Native Americans. From the election of black legislators across the South in the late 1860s to the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 to the colonial war in the Philippines in the 1890s, Sinha narrates the major episodes of the era and introduces us to key individuals, famous and otherwise, who helped remake American democracy, or whose actions spelled its doom.

A sweeping narrative that remakes our understanding of perhaps the most consequential period in American history, The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic shows how the great contest of that age is also the great contest of our age―and serves as a necessary reminder of how young and fragile our democracy truly is.

53 illustrations
 

REVIEWS:


"Manisha Sinha not only has taken on this vast subject, but has greatly expanded its definition, both temporally and spatially. Her Reconstruction embraces the Progressive Era, women’s suffrage, the final wars against Native Americans, immigration and even U.S. imperialism in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. She covers these difficult issues with remarkable skill and clarity. . . . Sinha convincingly advances her vision of Reconstruction all the way forward to 1920, when the 19th Amendment granted women’s suffrage. That landmark event was inspired by the marquee equal rights amendments of the Reconstruction era, which, Sinha writes, ‘bequeathed a legacy of political activism and progressive constitutionalism’ on the movement, a breath of air that gave America new life."
― S. C. Gwynne, New York Times Book Review


"[A]n ambitious and expansive history of the tumultuous period known as Reconstruction… Sinha captures Reconstruction as a sweeping epic of lofty aspirations and impressive achievement by black Americans and their white allies. . . . Sinha’s deep familiarity with the abolition movement serves her particularly well. The abolitionists, as she shows, saw in the carnage of the Indian Wars an analogy to the racial animosity that was destroying Reconstruction. . . . vividly bring[s] to life the thwarted hopes not only of black Southerners but of countless other idealistic Americans as well, black and white, male and female, who sought a more democratic nation, one unblemished by racial violence and economic disparities."
― Fergus M. Bordewich, Wall Street Journal


"[E]ngrossing… The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic is engaging, elegantly written, provocative, and destined to become the new standard text on the period... Manisha Sinha’s grand narrative will become a staple for high school and college educators."
― Erik J. Chaput and Russell J. DeSimone, Commonplace

"[A] sweeping new history of what [Sinha] terms the ‘Second American Republic’ . . . [Sinha] has widened the lens to take in six decades of struggle and defeat in the ongoing battle between progressive change and reactionary retrenchment… [An] important and deeply researched book."
― Eugene L. Meyer, Washington Independent Review of Books

"A nuanced history of Reconstruction and the ongoing resistance movements it begat . . . A strong addition to modern studies of Reconstruction, bringing feminist and internationalist elements to the fore."
― Kirkus Reviews

"[R]igorously researched and brilliantly argued . . . Sinha challenges multiple myths about Reconstruction, beginning with the big white lie that it constituted a despotic imposition of federal power . . . The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic does much to set the record straight."
― Steve Nathans-Kelly, New York Journal of Books

"[Sinha’s] shrewdly argued study ties together many loose ends while providing propulsively narrated accounts of on-the-ground political violence and activism. It’s an all-encompassing new perspective on American history."
― Publishers Weekly, starred review


"Manisha Sinha’s magnificent account of Reconstruction fleshes out and vastly expands what W.E.B. Du Bois dubbed ‘abolition democracy.’ The Second Republic was never merely a southern project but a national struggle with global implications. Reconstruction’s defeat ensured Jim Crow’s ascent as the law of the land and the ideology of colonial expansion. The January 6 insurrection is a consequence of this defeat, which will become crystal-clear to anyone who reads this book."
― Robin D. G. Kelley, author of Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination


"A landmark. Manisha Sinha’s searing and revelatory account of Reconstruction redraws its borders, redefines its meaning, and restores its place as the hinge upon which American history turns."
― Jill Lepore, New York Times best-selling author of These Truths

"Studded with significant events, compelling stories, and little-known historical actors, The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic is a sweepingly grand political history that traces the multiracial quest for ‘abolition democracy’ while expanding our understanding of the stakes and afterlives of the Reconstruction era."
― Tiya Miles, winner of the National Book Award for All That She Carried

"A big and bold book. Manisha Sinha’s The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic is marked by deep learning, expansive thinking, and compelling arguments. Readers will find it illuminating, challenging, and thought-provoking."
― Steven Hahn, winner of the Pulitzer Prize and author of Illiberal America

"This is an account both luminous and tragic, which brings alive the violent defeat of Reconstruction but also the unremitting contest over the guarantees of democracy. In setting before us a sweeping history of Reconstruction―slave emancipation, the restoration of the Union, the dynamics of empire, the sovereignty of capital―Manisha Sinha has brilliantly transformed our understanding of the making of the American republic. This history holds vital meaning for the present."
― Amy Dru Stanley, author of From Bondage to Contract: Wage Labor, Marriage, and the Market in the Age of Slave Emancipation

"With this remarkable book Manisha Sinha dramatically expands our understanding of Reconstruction, which she calls the Second American Republic. It encompassed the entire nation, not simply the former Confederate states. It ended not in 1877 but in the 1890s. Reconstruction didn't fail; it was overthrown. It was a major part of women's history, reaching its culmination with the achievement of women's suffrage, the last of the Reconstruction amendments, Sinha writes. Thanks to The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic, Reconstruction will never look the same as it once did."
― James Oakes, author of The Crooked Path to Abolition: Abraham Lincoln and the Antislavery Constitution
 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Manisha Sinha is the Draper Chair in American History at the University of Connecticut. Her latest book, The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition, won the Frederick Douglass Book Prize among several others and was long listed for the National Book Award for Non-Fiction.

IMPORTANT NEW BOOK:

You Can't Please All: Memoirs 1980-2024
by Tariq Ali
‎Verso, 2024


[Publication date: November 5, 2024]



A new memoir from renowned political activist and author of Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties

The revolutionary upsurge of 1968–1975 jump-hopped continents with ease but finally petered out. What happened after is the subject of You Can’t Please All. Tariq Ali recounts a life committed to writing and cultural interventions. An eyewitness in Moscow to the fall of the Soviet Union, he was caught up in the intellectual excitement that had gripped the country. In Porto Alegre, Hugo Chávez invited him to visit Caracas, and the two men developed a striking friendship.

Post-2001, as a founding member of the Stop the War Coalition, he became a fierce critic of the War on Terror, visiting many US cities with surprising regularity to engage in debate and discussion, inaugurating a new phase of political activism. Evident in his work is the integral part politics plays in his life. He is one of the most sought-after socialist and anti-imperialist public intellectuals on most continents.

Underlying the narrative is a chain of anecdotes, reflections, jottings and storytelling. The book explores his work for the theatre and film, as well as his fiction, including the acclaimed Islam Quintet. There are pen portraits of friends and comrades such as Edward Said, Derek Jarman, Richard Ingrams, Benazir Bhutto, Mary-Kay Wilmers, and the intellectuals who founded and relaunched New Left Review: E. P. Thompson, Perry Anderson and Robin Blackburn.

The book also contains a moving family portrait, describing how his parents met and lived during the early years of Pakistan.
 

REVIEWS:


"Ali remains an outlier and intellectual bomb-thrower; an urbane, Oxford-educated polemicist"

—Observer


"Tariq Ali has not lost the passion and vim which made him a symbol of the spirit of '68 ... has not seen fit to join forces with the terminally cynical, or set up a graven god that can be accused of failing"

—Christopher Hitchens


"Vintage Ali: literate rabble-rousing mixed with entertaining sniping, smart aperçus, and endless provocations."

—Kirkus Reviews



ABOUT THE AUTHOR:



Tariq Ali has written more than two-dozen books on world history and politics—the most recent of which are The Extreme Centre, The Dilemmas of Lenin and The Forty-Year War in Afghanistan, Winston Churchill—as well as the novels of his Islam Quintet and scripts for the stage and screen. He is a long-standing member of the Editorial Committee of New Left Review and lives in London.

Monday, October 28, 2024

The Ongoing Contemporary Legacy of Fascism in America---Trump at Madison Square Garden: A Closing Carnival of Grievances, Misogyny and Racism

 
Trump at the Garden: A Closing Carnival of Grievances, Misogyny and Racism

The inflammatory rally was a capstone for an increasingly aggrieved campaign for Donald Trump, whose rhetoric has grown darker and more menacing.


PHOTO: Former President Donald J. Trump on Sunday at Madison Square Garden. The rally featured inflammatory remarks from the featured speakers, many of whom also spoke at the Republican National Convention this year. Credit: Kenny Holston/The New York Times

by Shane Goldmacher Maggie Haberman and Michael Gold
Reporting from Madison Square Garden
October 27, 2024
New York Times


Donald J. Trump’s closing rally at Madison Square Garden on the second to last Sunday before the election was a release of rage at a political and legal system that impeached, indicted and convicted him, a vivid and at times racist display of the dark energy animating the MAGA movement.

A comic kicked off the rally by dismissing Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage,” then mocked Hispanics as failing to use birth control, Jews as cheap and Palestinians as rock-throwers, and called out a Black man in the audience with a reference to watermelon.

Another speaker likened Vice President Kamala Harris to a prostitute with “pimp handlers.” A third called her “the Antichrist.” And the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson mocked Ms. Harris — the daughter of an Indian mother and a Jamaican father — with a made-up ethnicity, saying she was vying to become “the first Samoan-Malaysian, low IQ former California prosecutor ever to be elected president.”

By the time the former president himself took the stage, an event billed as delivering the closing message of his campaign, with nine days left in a tossup race, had instead become a carnival of grievances, misogyny and racism.

If the parade of speakers felt at times like a Republican National Convention reunion — Senator JD Vance of Ohio, Mr. Carlson, Vivek Ramaswamy, Alina Habba, Lee Greenwood, the Trump family all appeared — they seemed to have returned for a bonus fifth night that was more inflammatory than the original in July.

The rally served as a capstone to an escalating series of remarks from Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly said in recent days that one of the gravest threats that America faces is “the enemy within.” Democrats have cranked up warnings of Mr. Trump’s descent into authoritarianism as John F. Kelly, the former Marine general who was his longest-serving chief of staff, warned that Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist.

“When I say ‘the enemy from within,’ the other side goes crazy,” Mr. Trump said on Sunday, mocking his critics.

Since early in his campaign, he has broadly promised an era of “retribution” if he wins. But after a relative lull earlier this year, he has grown more specific of late, including promising prosecutions against a variety of people if they’re deemed to have “cheated” in the election and to fire the special counsel, Jack Smith, who brought two federal indictments against him, and even suggesting throwing him out of the country entirely.

On Sunday, Mr. Trump described the date of his potential election as a “liberation day” from what he described as an occupation by invading migrants.


Long lines of supporters waited to enter the rally earlier on Sunday. Credit: Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times


Melania Trump, Mr. Trump’s wife, introduced her husband at the rally. Ms. Trump has not been a regular presence during this year’s campaign. Credit: Kenny Holston/The New York Times

Ms. Harris’s campaign seized on the spectacle, and some Republicans, including from Florida and Puerto Rico, denounced the comic’s comments about the island. Several influential Puerto Rican superstars, Bad Bunny, Jennifer Lopez, Luis Fonsi and Ricky Martin, lent their voice for Ms. Harris on Sunday.

But Mr. Trump has paid little political price over time for his own inflammatory remarks in the past — he has disparaged cities with large Black populations such as Detroit and Milwaukee this year — let alone those of his surrogates and supporters.

The marathon of speeches — Mr. Trump took the stage two hours after scheduled — was often infused with more self-indulgence than political strategy. Mr. Trump plainly enjoyed playing the Garden, which bills itself as “the world’s most famous arena.”

“Kamala, you’re fired!” Mr. Trump said, returning to the line that he first made famous as host of “The Apprentice.”

But he went so long that the crowd had begun to thin noticeably before he had finished his 78-minute speech.

The event was a spectacle that captured the unusual and sometimes ugly range of the MAGA movement that has taken over the Republican Party from the inside over the last nine years.

Hulk Hogan flexed his muscles and ripped off his clothes, just as he did at the convention. Donald Trump Jr. called his father a “badass.” The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who has poured $118 million of his fortune to aid Mr. Trump so far, entered to a video of his rocket booster landing, pumping his fists in the air. He promptly predicted the federal budget could be slashed by one-third even as Mr. Trump rolled out deficit-expanding tax breaks.

Stephen Miller, a senior Trump adviser who influenced Mr. Trump’s anti-immigrant crackdown, used nativist language as he argued that only Mr. Trump would stand up and say “America is for Americans and Americans only.”

The big surprise was a rare public speech by Melania Trump, who introduced her husband and exited the stage with him after he had finished, as the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.” blared.

The arrival of thousands of red hats at the symbolic arena at the center of a blue city in a blue state was celebrated by Trump supporters who relished the chance to collectively thumb their noses at the New York and national elite.

“Selling out the Garden means the MAGA movement has now arrived,” Jack Posobiec, the right-wing activist with a big following on social media, said in an interview. “It’s Madison Square Garden, it’s the center of everything, and to have this place filled with MAGA hats and Trump supporters really goes to show you it’s not just the surprise win of 2016 — it’s a nationwide movement.”

It was lost on no one that Mr. Trump was just miles from where he was convicted of 34 felony counts earlier this year and still awaiting sentencing, and a short jaunt to Trump Tower, where he opened his first presidential campaign in 2015.


From left, former Representative Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek Ramaswamy, Speaker Mike Johnson and Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida watching Senator JD Vance of Ohio speak at the rally on Sunday. Credit: Kenny Holston/The New York Times

PHOTO: Mr. Trump opened his speech by asking the crowd a timeworn political line: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Credit: Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times

The singular nature of Mr. Trump’s candidacy was emblazoned in slogan form on the scoreboard above as he began to speak: “Trump will fix it.”

Mr. Trump opened by asking the crowd a timeworn political line: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” It is at the core of Mr. Trump’s campaign against Ms. Harris ever since she replaced President Biden, a switch he remains sore about. Despite being delivered in a city that four years ago was the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic and still deep in shutdowns and closed businesses, and swimming in a high death toll, that line landed well.

Mr. Trump’s vows of mass deportation and inveighing against undocumented immigrants had an audience in New York City, too, where thousands of migrants who crossed the southern border without authorization have been given sanctuary and some residents have complained about the use of city services to help them.

So many of the day’s warm-up speeches were spent portraying the former president as he wants to be seen. Several speakers talked about him surviving a July assassination attempt not in spiritual terms but in muscular ones, describing his toughness at “dodging” the bullet. Many also falsely claimed he “built” the skyline in a city in which he was always seen as a B-list developer with a small portfolio of buildings that he acquired long after they were constructed.

“The king of New York is back to reclaim the city that he built,” his son, Donald Trump Jr., declared anyway.

The elder Mr. Trump, who normally speaks only glowingly about his late father, Fred, from whom he inherited millions of dollars and the spine of his real-estate company, delivered a surprising line about his parents as he reflected on how they would be receiving word of his legal travails.

“I know my mother’s in heaven, I’m not 100 percent sure about my father, but it’s close,” Mr. Trump said, to laughter in the arena.

Outside the arena, an overflow crowd watched Mr. Vance speak as the sun fell over the city. Credit: Todd Heisler/The New York Times

PHOTO: Mr. Trump was just miles from where he was convicted of 34 felony counts earlier this year and still awaiting sentencing, and a short jaunt to Trump Tower where he first began his 2016 presidential campaign. Credit: Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times

It was all a surreal scene.

At one point, the painter Scott LoBaido received a huge cheer when he flipped a middle finger to the crowd before grabbing a paintbrush to paint an American flag as “America the Beautiful” boomed. The grand finale was revealing an image of Mr. Trump hugging the Empire State Building.

Later, the television host Phil McGraw, known as Dr. Phil, lectured the crowd on why Mr. Trump did not fit the definition of “a bully” because a bully requires “an imbalance of power,” seeming to ignore the fact that Mr. Trump has enormous power as a billionaire and former president.

During the speech by Mr. Trump’s running mate, Mr. Vance, the entire arena spontaneously burst into chants of “Tampon Tim” to disparage Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Ms. Harris’s running mate.

“You all can say that,” Mr. Vance smiled. “I probably shouldn’t say that.”

It was a rare moment of restraint at the microphone.

David Rem, a childhood friend of Mr. Trump, called Ms. Harris “the devil.” Grant Cardone, a businessman, declared that the sitting vice president had “pimp handlers.” Sid Rosenberg denounced Hillary Clinton as a “sick son of a bitch” for linking the Trump rally and a pro-Nazi event at the arena of the same name decades ago.

Mr. Rosenberg called the entire Democratic Party “a bunch of degenerates, lowlives, Jew-haters and lowlives. Every one of them.”

When the comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made his remark about Puerto Rico, there were groans from many in the audience.

On the same afternoon, Ms. Harris was in Philadelphia, courting Pennsylvania’s significant Latino population and stopping by Freddy & Tony’s, a Puerto Rican restaurant.

“Timing is everything,” David Plouffe, a top Harris adviser, wrote on X, posting clips of the two side-by-side.

In his White House bid, Mr. Trump has banked on winning uncommon shares of Black and Latino voters, in part by leaning into culture wars that split the Democratic Party.

In his speech, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. invoked his uncle, former Senator Ted Kennedy, for creating Title IX for women’s sports. He used that heritage to defend his own current opposition to transgender women participating in sports.

Mr. Carlson marveled aloud from the stage at following the party-switching Mr. Kennedy. “It’s a realignment,” he declared. “It’s unbelievable.”

Twenty years ago, in the same arena, Rudolph W. Giuliani delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Republican National Convention, three years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack prompted then-President George W. Bush to caution the nation against hate.

On Sunday, Mr. Giuliani leaned into overbroad stereotyping against the Palestinian people, who he said “are taught to kill us at two years old.”

“I don’t take a risk with people that are taught to kill Americans at 2,” he said. “I’m on the side of Israel.”

Mr. Giuliani praised Mr. Trump for coming to the city where he once served as Republican mayor.

“This is where a Republican is not supposed to come,” Mr. Giuliani said. “Which is why Donald Trump came here.”


ABOUT THE AUTHORS:


Shane Goldmacher is a national political correspondent, covering the 2024 campaign and the major developments, trends and forces shaping American politics. He can be reached at shane.goldmacher@nytimes.com. More about Shane Goldmacher

Maggie Haberman is a senior political correspondent reporting on the 2024 presidential campaign, down ballot races across the country and the investigations into former President Donald J. Trump. More about Maggie Haberman

Michael Gold is a political correspondent for The Times covering the campaigns of Donald J. Trump and other candidates in the 2024 presidential elections. More about Michael Gold

See more on: Donald Trump, Republican Party, 2024 Elections: News, Polls and Analysis, U.S. Politics



Trump's Madison Square Garden rally draws comparisons to 1939 Pro-Nazi rally in New York held by American supporters of Hitler at MSG--Leading Scholars On the History of Fascism Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Anne Applebaum Discuss the Dangerous Impact of this Legacy Today

 
Trump's MSG rally draws comparisons to 1939 Pro-Nazi rally
 
MSNBC
October 27, 2024
 
Donald Trump's extreme rhetoric and rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City has drawn comparisons to when supporters of Hitler packed the Garden in 1939. Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Anne Applebaum join Jonathan Capehart to discuss Trump's rally and how it's being held days after Trump was described as a "fascist" by his former chief of staff.


VIDEO: 


Sunday, October 27, 2024

Mehdi Hasan and Steve Schmidt in Conversation On Exactly How and Why Donald Trump is a Clear and Present Fascist Threat to America + The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Karl Marx--1852

 


Home

Mehdi Unfiltered

About

Is Donald Trump a Fascist Threat to America?

Mehdi & veteran GOP strategist and ‘Never Trumper’ Steve Schmidt discuss Trump, MAGA, racism, fascism, and the importance of the coming election.
 
VIDEO:  






by Mehdi Hasan and Team Zeteo

October 27, 2024
 

What does a veteran Republican strategist who served as a senior political adviser to George W. Bush, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the late Arizona Senator John McCain during his 2008 presidential campaign, have to say about Donald Trump?

Steve Schmidt, the adviser we’re referring to, and host of ‘The Warning with Steve Schmidt’ Substack newsletter and podcast joined Mehdi for a special Substack Live ‘Election Dialogue.’ In their wide-ranging and very passionate and personal conversation, Mehdi and Schmidt, an ardent ‘Never Trumper’ since 2016, break down the political dynamics surrounding Donald Trump and his 2024 campaign - and they both agree that American democracy is at existential risk from a fascist movement led by the former president.

Mehdi argues that Democrats are too soft with their responses to people like Musk.

“What do they say? Don't bring a knife to a gunfight? They [the Democrats] bring a sternly worded letter to a bazooka fight with fascists like Musk and Trump.”

The duo also discusses what a potential second Trump term might mean for minorities, including Muslim Americans.

“There is no group in this country that is more vulnerable to a Trump administration than Muslim-Americans… Donald Trump has a real animus for people of color, for blacks, for Muslims, and he's going to act on that malice, and anybody who thinks that they somehow are going to be safe from Trump, is very, very naive,” says Schmidt.

Steve and Mehdi cycle through a lot of aspects of this year’s election during their near one-hour conversation. Listen to the full discussion above to hear why there is fear even within House Republicans of a second Trump term, and why the media is turning a blind eye to fascism – again – when it comes to Trump.·

11 Restacks:  Discussion about this podcast
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.
by Karl Marx
1852

Hegel remarks somewhere[*] that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidière for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851[66] for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances of the second edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.

When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a salient difference reveals itself. Camille Desmoulins, Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Napoleon, the heroes as well as the parties and the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their time – that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society – in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases. The first one destroyed the feudal foundation and cut off the feudal heads that had grown on it. The other created inside France the only conditions under which free competition could be developed, parceled-out land properly used, and the unfettered productive power of the nation employed; and beyond the French borders it swept away feudal institutions everywhere, to provide, as far as necessary, bourgeois society in France with an appropriate up-to-date environment on the European continent. Once the new social formation was established, the antediluvian colossi disappeared and with them also the resurrected Romanism – the Brutuses, the Gracchi, the publicolas, the tribunes, the senators, and Caesar himself. Bourgeois society in its sober reality bred its own true interpreters and spokesmen in the Says, Cousins, Royer-Collards, Benjamin Constants, and Guizots; its real military leaders sat behind the office desk and the hog-headed Louis XVIII was its political chief. Entirely absorbed in the production of wealth and in peaceful competitive struggle, it no longer remembered that the ghosts of the Roman period had watched over its cradle.

But unheroic though bourgeois society is, it nevertheless needed heroism, sacrifice, terror, civil war, and national wars to bring it into being. And in the austere classical traditions of the Roman Republic the bourgeois gladiators found the ideals and the art forms, the self-deceptions, that they needed to conceal from themselves the bourgeois-limited content of their struggles and to keep their passion on the high plane of great historic tragedy. Similarly, at another stage of development a century earlier, Cromwell and the English people had borrowed from the Old Testament the speech, emotions, and illusions for their bourgeois revolution. When the real goal had been achieved and the bourgeois transformation of English society had been accomplished, Locke supplanted Habakkuk.

Thus the awakening of the dead in those revolutions served the purpose of glorifying the new struggles, not of parodying the old; of magnifying the given task in the imagination, not recoiling from its solution in reality; of finding once more the spirit of revolution, not making its ghost walk again.

From 1848 to 1851, only the ghost of the old revolution circulated - from Marrast, the républicain en gants jaunes[Republican in yellow gloves], who disguised himself as old Bailly, down to the adventurer who hides his trivial and repulsive features behind the iron death mask of Napoleon. A whole nation, which thought it had acquired an accelerated power of motion by means of a revolution, suddenly finds itself set back into a defunct epoch, and to remove any doubt about the relapse, the old dates arise again – the old chronology, the old names, the old edicts, which had long since become a subject of antiquarian scholarship, and the old minions of the law who had seemed long dead. The nation feels like the mad Englishman in Bedlam [1] who thinks he is living in the time of the old Pharaohs and daily bewails the hard labor he must perform in the Ethiopian gold mines, immured in this subterranean prison, a pale lamp fastened to his head, the overseer of the slaves behind him with a long whip, and at the exits a confused welter of barbarian war slaves who understand neither the forced laborers nor each other, since they speak no common language. “And all this,” sighs the mad Englishman, “is expected of me, a freeborn Briton, in order to make gold for the Pharaohs.” “In order to pay the debts of the Bonaparte family,” sighs the French nation. The Englishman, so long as he was not in his right mind, could not get rid of his idée fixé of mining gold. The French, so long as they were engaged in revolution, could not get rid of the memory of Napoleon, as the election of December 10 [1848, when Louis Bonaparte was elected President of the French Republic by plebiscite.] was proved. They longed to return from the perils of revolution to the fleshpots of Egypt [2], and December 2, 1851 [The date of the coup d’état by Louis Bonaparte], was the answer. Now they have not only a caricature of the old Napoleon, but the old Napoleon himself, caricatured as he would have to be in the middle of the nineteenth century.

The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content – here the content goes beyond the phrase.

The February Revolution was a surprise attack, a seizing of the old society unaware, and the people proclaimed this unexpected stroke a deed of world importance, ushering in a new epoch. On December 2 the February Revolution is conjured away as a cardsharp’s trick, and what seems overthrown is no longer the monarchy but the liberal concessions that had been wrung from it through centuries of struggle. Instead of society having conquered a new content for itself, it seems that the state has only returned to its oldest form, to a shamelessly simple rule by the sword and the monk’s cowl. This is the answer to the coup de main [unexpected stroke] of February, 1848, given by the coup de tête [rash act]of December, 1851. Easy come, easy go. Meantime, the interval did not pass unused. During 1848-51 French society, by an abbreviated revolutionary method, caught up with the studies and experiences which in a regular, so to speak, textbook course of development would have preceded the February Revolution, if the latter were to be more than a mere ruffling of the surface. Society seems now to have retreated to behind its starting point; in truth, it has first to create for itself the revolutionary point of departure – the situation, the relations, the conditions under which alone modern revolution becomes serious.

Bourgeois revolutions, like those of the eighteenth century, storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day – but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [cat’s winge] takes hold of society before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out:

Hic Rhodus, hic salta!

[Here is the rose, here dance!] [NOTE]

For the rest, every fair observer, even if he had not followed the course of French developments step by step, must have had a presentiment of the imminence of an unheard-of disgrace for the revolution. It was enough to hear the complacent yelps of victory with which the democrats congratulated each other on the expectedly gracious consequences of the second Sunday in May, 1852. [day of elections – Louis Bonaparte’s term was expired] In their minds that second Sunday of May had become a certain idea, a dogma, like the day of Christ’s reappearance and the beginning of the millennium in the minds of the Chiliasts [4]. As always, weakness had taken refuge in a belief in miracles, believed the enemy to be overcome when he was only conjured away in imagination, and lost all understanding of the present in an inactive glorification of the future that was in store for it and the deeds it had in mind but did not want to carry out yet. Those heroes who seek to disprove their demonstrated incapacity – by offering each other their sympathy and getting together in a crowd – had tied up their bundles, collected their laurel wreaths in advance, and occupied themselves with discounting on the exchange market the republics in partibus [i.e., in name only] for which they had already providently organized the government personnel with all the calm of their unassuming disposition. December 2 struck them like a thunderbolt from a clear sky, and those who in periods of petty depression gladly let their inner fears be drowned by the loudest renters will perhaps have convinced themselves that the times are past when the cackle of geese could save the Capitol. [5]

The constitution, the National Assembly, the dynastic parties, the blue and red republicans, the heroes of Africa, the thunder from the platform, the sheet lightning of the daily press, the entire literature, the political names and the intellectual reputations, the civil law and the penal code, liberté, egalité, fraternité, and the second Sunday in May, 1852 – all have vanished like a phantasmagoria before the spell of a man whom even his enemies do not make out to be a sorcerer. Universal suffrage seems to have survived only for the moment, so that with its own hand it may make its last will and testament before the eyes of all the world and declare in the name of the people itself: “All that exists deserves to perish.” [From Goethe’s Faust, Part One.]

It is not enough to say, as the French do, that their nation was taken unawares. Nations and women are not forgiven the unguarded hour in which the first adventurer who came along could violate them. Such turns of speech do not solve the riddle but only formulate it differently. It remains to be explained how a nation of thirty-six millions can be surprised and delivered without resistance into captivity by three knights of industry.

Let us recapitulate in general outline the phases that the French Revolution went through from February 24, 1848, to December, 1851.

Three main periods are unmistakable: the February period; the period of the constitution of the republic or the Constituent National Assembly - May 1848 to May 28 1849; and the period of the constitutional republic or the Legislative National Assembly – May 28 1849 to December 2 1851.

The first period – from February 24, the overthrow of Louis Philippe, to May 4, 1848, the meeting of the Constituent Assembly – the February period proper, may be designated as the prologue of the revolution. Its character was officially expressed in the fact that the government it improvised itself declared that it was provisional, and like the government, everything that was mentioned, attempted, or enunciated during this period proclaimed itself to be only provisional. Nobody and nothing ventured to lay any claim to the right of existence and of real action. All the elements that had prepared or determined the revolution – the dynastic opposition, the republican bourgeoisie, the democratic-republican petty bourgeoisie, and the social-democratic workers, provisionally found their place in the February government.

It could not be otherwise. The February days originally intended an electoral reform by which the circle of the politically privileged among the possessing class itself was to be widened and the exclusive domination of the aristocracy of finance overthrown. When it came to the actual conflict, however – when the people mounted the barricades, the National Guard maintained a passive attitude, the army offered no serious resistance, and the monarchy ran away – the republic appeared to be a matter of course. Every party construed it in its own way. Having secured it arms in hand, the proletariat impressed its stamp upon it and proclaimed it to be a social republic. There was thus indicated the general content of the modern revolution, a content which was in most singular contradiction to everything that, with the material available, with the degree of education attained by the masses, under the given circumstances and relations, could be immediately realized in practice. On the other hand, the claims of all the remaining elements that had collaborated in the February Revolution were recognized by the lion’s share they obtained in the government. In no period, therefore, do we find a more confused mixture of high-flown phrases and actual uncertainty and clumsiness, of more enthusiastic striving for innovation and more deeply rooted domination of the old routine, of more apparent harmony of the whole of society; and more profound estrangement of its elements. While the Paris proletariat still reveled in the vision of the wide prospects that had opened before it and indulged in seriously meant discussions of social problems, the old powers of society had grouped themselves, assembled, reflected, and found unexpected support in the mass of the nation, the peasants and petty bourgeois, who all at once stormed onto the political stage after the barriers of the July Monarchy had fallen.

The second period, from May 4, 1848, to the end of May, 1849, is the period of the constitution, the foundation, of the bourgeois republic. Immediately after the February days not only had the dynastic opposition been surprised by the republicans and the republicans by the socialists, but all France by Paris. The National Assembly, which met on May 4, 1848, had emerged from the national elections and represented the nation. It was a living protest against the pretensions of the February days and was to reduce the results of the revolution to the bourgeois scale. In vain the Paris proletariat, which immediately grasped the character of this National Assembly, attempted on May 15, a few days after it met, to negate its existence forcibly, to dissolve it, to disintegrate again into its constituent parts the organic form in which the proletariat was threatened by the reacting spirit of the nation. As is known, May 15 had no other result but that of removing Blanqui and his comrades – that is, the real leaders of the proletarian party – from the public stage for the entire duration of the cycle we are considering.

The bourgeois monarchy of Louis Philippe can be followed only by a bourgeois republic; that is to say, whereas a limited section of the bourgeoisie ruled in the name of the king, the whole of the bourgeoisie will now rule in the name of the people. The demands of the Paris proletariat are utopian nonsense, to which an end must be put. To this declaration of the Constituent National Assembly the Paris proletariat replied with the June insurrection, the most colossal event in the history of European civil wars. The bourgeois republic triumphed. On its side stood the aristocracy of finance, the industrial bourgeoisie, the middle class, the petty bourgeois, the army, the lumpen proletariat organized as the Mobile Guard, the intellectual lights, the clergy, and the rural population. On the side of the Paris proletariat stood none but itself. More than three thousand insurgents were butchered after the victory, and fifteen thousand were deported without trial. With this defeat the proletariat passes into the background on the revolutionary stage. It attempts to press forward again on every occasion, as soon as the movement appears to make a fresh start, but with ever decreased expenditure of strength and always slighter results. As soon as one of the social strata above it gets into revolutionary ferment, the proletariat enters into an alliance with it and so shares all the defeats that the different parties suffer, one after another. But these subsequent blows become the weaker, the greater the surface of society over which they are distributed. The more important leaders of the proletariat in the Assembly and in the press successively fall victim to the courts, and ever more equivocal figures come to head it. In part it throws itself into doctrinaire experiments, exchange banks and workers’ associations, hence into a movement in which it renounces the revolutionizing of the old world by means of the latter’s own great, combined resources, and seeks, rather, to achieve its salvation behind society’s back, in private fashion, within its limited conditions of existence, and hence necessarily suffers shipwreck. It seems to be unable either to rediscover revolutionary greatness in itself or to win new energy from the connections newly entered into, until all classes with which it contended in June themselves lie prostrate beside it. But at least it succumbs with the honors of the great, world-historic struggle; not only France, but all Europe trembles at the June earthquake, while the ensuing defeats of the upper classes are so cheaply bought that they require barefaced exaggeration by the victorious party to be able to pass for events at all, and become the more ignominious the further the defeated party is removed from the proletarian party.

The defeat of the June insurgents, to be sure, had now prepared, had leveled the ground on which the bourgeois republic could be founded and built, but it had shown at the same time that in Europe the questions at issue are other than that of “republic or monarchy.” It had revealed that here “bourgeois republic” signifies the unlimited despotism of one class over other classes. It had proved that in countries with an old civilization, with a developed formation of classes, with modern conditions of production, and with an intellectual consciousness in which all traditional ideas have been dissolved by the work of centuries, the republic signifies in general only the political form of revolution of bourgeois society and not its conservative form of life – as, for example, in the United States of North America, where, though classes already exist, they have not yet become fixed, but continually change and interchange their elements in constant flux, where the modern means of production, instead of coinciding with a stagnant surplus population, rather compensate for the relative deficiency of heads and hands, and where, finally, the feverish, youthful movement of material production, which has to make a new world of its own, has neither time nor opportunity left for abolishing the old world of ghosts.

During the June days all classes and parties had united in the party of Order against the proletarian class as the party of anarchy, of socialism, of communism. They had “saved” society from “the enemies of society.” They had given out the watchwords of the old society, “property, family, religion, order,” to their army as passwords and had proclaimed to the counterrevolutionary crusaders: “In this sign thou shalt conquer!” From that moment, as soon as one of the numerous parties which gathered under this sign against the June insurgents seeks to hold the revolutionary battlefield in its own class interest, it goes down before the cry: “property, family, religion, order.” Society is saved just as often as the circle of its rulers contracts, as a more exclusive interest is maintained against a wider one. Every demand of the simplest bourgeois financial reform, of the most ordinary liberalism, of the most formal republicanism, of the most shallow democracy, is simultaneously castigated as an “attempt on society” and stigmatized as “socialism.” And finally the high priests of “religion and order” themselves are driven with kicks from their Pythian tripods, hauled out of their beds in the darkness of night, put in prison vans, thrown into dungeons or sent into exile; their temple is razed to the ground, their mouths are sealed, their pens broken, their law torn to pieces in the name of religion, of property, of the family, of order. Bourgeois fanatics for order are shot down on their balconies by mobs of drunken soldiers, their domestic sanctuaries profaned, their houses bombarded for amusement – in the name of property, of the family, of religion, and of order. Finally, the scum of bourgeois society forms the holy phalanx of order and the hero Crapulinski [a character from Heine’s poem “The Two Knights,” a dissolute aristocrat.] installs himself in the Tuileries as the “savior of society.”




Footnotes

1. Bedlam was an infamous lunatic asylum in England.

2. The expression, "to sigh for the flesh-pots of Egypt" is taken from the biblical legend, according to which during the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt the faint-hearted among them wished that they had died when they sat by the flesh-pots of Egypt, rather than undergo their present trials through the desert.

3.Hic Rhodus, hic salta. See [MIA Encyclopedia] for clarification.

4. Chiliasts (from the Greek word chilias – a thousand): preachers of a mystical religious doctrine concerning the second coming of Christ and the establishment of the millennium when justice, universal equality and prosperity would be triumphant.

5. Capitol: A hill in Rome, a fortified citadel where the temples of Jupiter, Juno and other gods were built. According to a legend, Rome was saved in 390 B.C.E. from an invasion of the Gauls, due to the cackling of geese from Juno’s temple which awakened the sleeping guards of the Capitol.

The Supreme Court's Ratification of Fascist Political Rule in the United States in the Guise of Presidential Executive Power

“What’s Past is Prologue..."

FROM THE PANOPTICON REVIEW ARCHIVES

(Originally posted on July 1, 2024)

Monday, July 1, 2024

WELCOME TO FASCIST AMERICA


IMAGE: Photo illustration by Tracy Ma. Source photograph by Carol M. Highsmith, via Library of Congress. 
The Roberts Court, 2022 
Front row, left to right — Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan.
 
Back row — Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 
 
In a Supreme Court portrait Trumps head replaces the heads of the Conservative Justices.

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
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.
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.
Sonia Sotomayor speaks during a forum
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.