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
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's immunity 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.
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:
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.
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:
Richard Nixon - "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal”
#uspolitics #history #potus
February 28, 2024
We thought the internet deserved a better video copy of this classic quote from the Nixon - Frost interviews of 1977.
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8YuW09mwco
January 16, 2024
Michigan Advance