NAAN
OTTO
I haven’t read the Bellingcat piece yet, but this kind of behavior by Musk I take as an endorsement, so I am passing the link along. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2024/07/09/russian-missile-identified-in-kyiv-childrens-hospital-attack/
Screenshot of a tweet by Jimmy Rushton, showing that X/Twitter blocks clicking a Bellingcat link with a “Warning: this link may be unsafe” splash.
"Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."
— Chief Justice John Roberts
United States Supreme Court
@realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika Note that the Circuit Court, which heard the case prior to the Supremes, took the view several of you (at least early in our conversation) suggest this decision does: that if the President's action was beyond the law, it could not be protected.
But the Supreme Court does not endorse the Circuit's view. It reviewed that case, and overturned it.
Text: From this distinction, the D. C. Circuit concluded that the “separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in Marbury and its progeny, necessarily permits the Judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former Pres- ident for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in de- fiance of the Congress’s laws.” 91 F. 4th, at 1191. In the court’s view, the fact that Trump’s actions “allegedly vio- lated generally applicable criminal laws” meant that those actions “were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion.” Id., at 1192. The D. C. Circuit thus concluded that Trump had “no structural immunity from the charges in the Indictment.” Ibid.
if the Supreme Court wants a "vigorous", "energetic" executive, couldn't it have just read into the Constitution a requirement that the President be under 70?
i mean, they're originalists, right, all about looking back on what things meant at the founding.
well, what was retirement age in 1776?
Social media is the invention of that horrible twisted-metal traffic accident you somehow can't look away from, but on a global scale.
"When I first came to town, I was scandalized by the rumors of off-label prescription drug use on Air Force Force One during George W. Bush’s presidency, but it turns out every administration is like that — not just for POTUS but for senior staff as well — because it’s the only way to do the job."
// this is quite the aside from #MattYglesias, who does i think frequently talk to these people
@FeralRobots that's John Roberts I think. Thomas' concurrence comes later.
( yesterday i went through the decisions carefully, which i had only skimmed before, and that very "sometimes" compelled a bit of an embarrassing update. https://drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/07/03/no-longer-a-liberal-democracy/index.html )
"there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President 'is not above the law.' But…the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts *is* the law."
— Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
concurring in Trump v. US
I read the news about France today and I was like "maybe we should move to France". On the hellsite "French Jews" is trending with lots of panicked tweets saying everybody's got to leave. Whatever Jews are (I frankly have no fucking idea), we are not a homogenous minority! I'd feel much safer now in France than I would in Israel, or in a United States should Donald Trump win the kingship John Roberts has just crafted for him. Vive la France!
"Rather bemusingly, the report uses the terms 'democratic', and 'free' as factual labels (as opposed to reflecting perceptions) to refer to the Freedom House classification of countries. This follows the convention of referring to [Western] expert opinions as scientific fact, while delegating people’s perceptions of their governments to mere opinion." #YoramGat https://equalitybylot.com/2024/07/06/democracy-perception-index/
A great irony of Trump v. United States:
The "steelman" proposition is that it's intended to deter politically motivated malicious prosecution. But the decision *explicitly underlines* the President's authority to and absolute immunity for encouraging or compelling malicious prosecutions.
Text, from the majority holding in Trump v. United States: The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the Presi- dent cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitu- tional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. Pp. 19-21.
Henry Kissinger: "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."
US Supreme Court: The Executive branch needs more immunity.
france provides a glimmer of hope during a deeply hopeless time.
Just a reminder that, since July 1, 2024, if you live in the United States you no longer live in a liberal democracy. You live in a tyranny.
For the moment you live under a tyrant who happens not to be much of a brute. Don’t worry, though. As John Roberts enthused, sooner or later you’ll have a President who is “energetic”, “unhesitating”.
From a brilliant essay by @radleybalko on John Roberts' coup. Read the whole thing. https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-folds ht @ryanlcooper
Text: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States is its worst decision of my lifetime. John Roberts’s sloppy, arrogant, contradictory majority opinion provides license for any future president to lie, cheat, steal, suppress dissent, and — if they have the stomach for it — assassinate. It obliterates a guardrail for executive power that’s fundamental to a functioning democracy. So fundamental, in fact, that until the country elected an aspiring autocrat brazen enough to engage in open-air corruption, it was a guardrail few thought necessary to actually define. Of course the president can be prosecuted for actual crimes. When Trump initially made his claim of “absolute immunity” for presidents from criminal charges, it was widely derided among constitutional scholars as a hopeless Hail Mary. Then John Roberts answered Trump’s prayers. This opinion isn’t a stain on Roberts’s legacy. It is his legacy. He will be remembered as the “institutionalist” who destroyed the legitimacy of the institution entrusted to his care. And if that’s the worst of the damage, we’ll all be lucky.
In the US, we don't elect political parties (now famously "hollow"). And we don't elect the man, or the woman. Even in Congress, but especially as President, the job is far above the capability or judgment of one person, however old or young.
What we elect when we elect a person is that person's friends, who will become staff, advisors, appointees.
Whatever you think of the person, what matters is the people they will place around them. We choose not so much the puppet as the puppeteers.
from @RebeccaSolnit https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/06/biden-trump-race-rebecca-solnit
Text: Speaking of coups, we’ve had a couple of late, which perhaps merit attention as we consider who is unfit to hold office. This time around, Trump is not just a celebrity with a lot of sexual assault allegations, bankruptcies, and loopily malicious statements, as he was in 2016. He’s a convicted criminal who orchestrated a coup attempt to steal an election both through backroom corruption and public lies and through a violent attack on Congress. The extremist US supreme court justices he selected during his last presidential term have themselves staged a coup this very Monday, overthrowing the US constitution itself and the principle that no one is above the law to make presidents into kings, just after legalizing bribery of officials, and dismantling the regulatory state by throwing out the Chevron deference.
2024 Democratic nominee should be
42.9%
Biden
(18 votes)
57.1%
Other
(24 votes)
from Tressie McMillan Cottom https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/06/opinion/biden-debate-scotus-immunity.html
However poorly Biden performed at that debate (and he was embarrassing), debates are theater. However ill equipped the Democratic Party is to provide an heir apparent — and they are embarrassingly unprepared for this predictable eventuality - their dysfunction is not the clear and present danger. The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity is a harbinger of not just the court's growing power but of Democrats' inability to mount a populist defense. This conservative bloc on the court reflects years of undemocratic political maneuvering, from Mitch McConnell stealing a seat to the political activism of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. Their decisions are not only codifying minority interests, they are a show of strength for a Republican Party that has no intention of ever ceding power to majority will again. If you take your eye off the ball of democracy for any length of time, no amount of history will save you. Americans have taken our eyes off the ball. I have not wanted to make that call.