i think the best way to understand the supreme court's conduct in trump v. united states is as an explicit effort to intervene in the 2024 election on behalf of the former president. it is a gross abuse of power on par with dred scott and deserves to be met with sanction from the elected branches.
even if we avoid the worst consequences of this decision — which, as rick says, involve trump getting elected and then pardoning himself for his attempted coup (and likely trying again) — the court's actions should be seen as grounds for dramatic action to curb its power
From Bush v Gore to Citizens United to Shelby, the Republican Court keeps emphasizing how little regard they have for voters. To be fair, if I was an unelected emperor-king with a lifetime appointment, I’d also be dismissive of democracy.
I don’t know you but I would hope you think better of yourself. After all, there are three justices on there who aren’t corrupt. If I were a Justice with a lifetime appointment I would be like them, no question, despite all the other faults I may have.
It isn't just an effort to benefit Trump, it is an effort to maximize the Court's power. "The president has as much immunity as we say he does, no more and no less" is a huge assertion of raw power. Some of the justices want a dictator... as long as they think they hold the leash.
It’s certainly fascinating watching them try to write a ruling that says “the last President should have absolute power to try to have his VP and half of Congress murdered in a coup, but the current one can’t just sack us all and get some competent constitutionalists in.”
The best case scenario is that the Democrats expand SCOTUS to 13 members, to match the number of circuit courts (the way previous Congress expanded SCOTUS from six seats to nine seats last time). SCOTUS will rule this unconstitutional by a ruling of 6 to 3.
But who gets that power instead? It's the executive branch who engaged in the abuses of power (and who appointed the morally corrupt justices), and the legislative branch equally refused their chance to hold Trump accountable, despite being the direct target of the violent mob he incited.
Actually I would argue that agreement fully with Trump is a better outcome than this. At least then Biden could yolo for an off chance of preserving our democracy
He should, 4 years of authoritarianism including reshaping the court with members who will reign in his power and then retire after 4 years in Bermuda. I'm not saying it's a good outcome, just a less bad one!. Also Biden would never do this unfortunetly
Biden should pack the Court immediately. He could cite
- his duty to restore order after a coup attempt (whose perpetrators SCOTUS is now giving aid and comfort)
- the wiggle room SCOTUS is leaving on "presidential immunity" (irony bonus)
He should appoint 4 new justices and let the chips fall.
it's been so blatant that even some of the usual fawning Court coverage has noted the extent to which the process has favored Trump
it's long since time for the rest of the government to stop tolerating this shit
well of course they’ll stop tolerating it…the second a democratic official does something they don’t like
(see: Gorsuch referencing Jamaal Bowman in the oral arguments just 10 days ago regarding insurrectionist impeding congress)
The rest of the government failed to impeach Trump after Jan 6. I think the guardrails that I used to believe in are almost gone or don't exist anymore.
At some point I realized I just don't care what the Supreme Court thinks anymore. I mean, I care in a practical sense--I have to live with it--but I'm not interested in it. The conservative majority is largely corrupt, not that smart, and not operating in good faith.
I've been fascinated by the law since I was a kid. I work as an appellate practitioner! This was an incredibly painful realization for me. But I'm done. The court at this point is a problem to be solved, nothing more.
@courtneymilan.com had a really good thread at the old place about her realization that the Supreme Court was illegitimate, the pain of that realization, and the process of tracing back in time when it had *become* illegitimate (since, of course, that had happened prior to her realization)
my mom is also an idealistic lawyer and it has been very, very painful to her to realize that the shining version of the supreme court that was taught to her in law school, and in which she had placed so much faith, has always been an illusion.
Went to law school and my desire to practice constitutional law (and consideration of SCOTUS) fell apart during Con Law class. I think it was Plessy v Ferguson compared to Brown v Board and "precedent" was shown only to be what was politically popular at the time.
Bush v. Gore was the death knell. Scalia rallied his cohort to intervene in the lawful Florida recount and stall it before it might decide Gore had won.
Literally every SCOTUS appointment in the past 55 years has pushed the court rightward. (With the possible exception of RBG.)
Somebody should ask the Supreme Court Justices if a President should be immune if he orders the military police to take them out into the square and execute them.
If only there were a committee—let’s call it, idk, “Judiciary”—in the upper house of what is supposed to be the most powerful branch of the United States government that could hold hearings
We aren’t obligated to obey the Supreme Court rulings. People forget that.
All it takes for a Supreme Court to turn evil is a feckless government.
The Senate controls the Supreme Court. But Democrats are weak, weak, weak.
And the other side knows it.
Assuming the Republic survives long enough, it would be interesting to see the next generation of court condemn the bullshit that is happening now. I won't live long enough to see that happen, though.
If Biden is concerned that SCOTUS is improperly interfering with an election, then, by the MAGA justices’ logic, the justice system would have no reason to interfere with a President who wants to protect election integrity by drafting an alternate SCOTUS decision against presidential immunity.
Recently reading again about the behind the scenes of the Dred Scott decision and it really is wild how totally corrupt a Supreme Court has been vs how unimpeachable we are supposed to think of the court.
Dred Scott met with no sanctions from the elected branches because the President was in on the decision, and Congress was badly divided.
Throw an 'ex' in front of "President" and Bob's your uncle.
Sometimes the mutatis just don't mutandis.
Indeed, the repeated "Well, I'm not talking about this case" we heard from conservatives gives the game away. They know that if they focus on this case, they can easily rule that there's no immunity for any of the acts he's be prosecuted for" (cont)
But by pretending that this case is bigger than that they can delay months by claiming that they need to use this opportunity to delineate what POTUS *is* immune for - most of which is already commonly accepted. And ignore that by expanding this case, they delay justice.
