i think we should see the Trump v. United States ruling as a group of Republican apparatchiks taking their opportunity to vindicate Nixon and write the unitary executive into the Constitution. www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/o...
Roberts, Alito and Thomas all cut their teeth in a Reagan administration eager to expand the outer limits of executive power. Kavanaugh did the same under George W. Bush who tried to make the unitary executive a reality.
I think this also proves that in a liberal democracy, the revolution is on-going. There will always be monarchists, right-wing reactionaries and counter-revolutionists constantly pulling the nation back to minority rule.
Or, alternatively, it is not a change to the definition but a change in its application. Perhaps it is not applicable to think of liberal democracy as revolutionary at all, or perhaps it is not applicable to refer to a given context (in this case, the US) as having been a liberal democracy.
She even got her own nickname in Doonesbury cartoons of the early 80s (The Ice Queen), and her son is going to make sure nobody else is sacrificed to make the Earth habitable starting with Chevron.
I don’t think it’s possible for Democrats to win the House, Senate and Presidency, but should they do so they have to expand the Court and bring this back for review. As we now understand precedent is a quaint tradition and courts are not beholden to it. The law is what today’s SCOTUS decides.
From Wiki -- The presidency of Ronald Reagan was marked by numerous scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any president of the United States.
Goes to show why they were so keen on giving Trump the store.
Exactly. When congress wrote specific legislation against engaging conflict in Nicaragua (Boland amendment) the executive saw that as a congressional attack on the Reagan Doctrine.
These justices were ass deep in it then.
Boland amendment was not respected as the will of the people.
And of course, this power is intended solely for GOP Presidents, because they think they can also prevent a Democrat President getting elected again.
I want to see Biden win, then see the GOP attempt a take-backsie on executive power.
Isn't it weird that they keep doing it when it has become harder and harder for someone with their policy preferences to be elected nationwide? Their administrative law positions have changed accordingly, but "the president needs to be the king" hasn't.
Yes, but the key is that their belief is that the “unitary executive” is for Republicans only — Democrats can and should be thwarted at every step. This decision perfectly threads that needle, by leaving in the hands of this Court the ability to decide whether and to whom immunity applies.
The tell is that the usual suspects are not screaming how dangerous this decision is in the hands of Dark Brandon or how the Dems will use this to confiscate their guns or lock them up for anti-wokeness or whatever.
I’ve always understood the rise of right wing media as a direct reaction to Watergate. Took em a little longer to use the courts to enact the same project on the executive branch.
i can't stop thinking about the short jump from the way in which the torture/geneva/wartime post 9/11 memos were written/justified (by a thomas clerk of course) to the way this court approaches law.
I was under the impression that Nixon was arguing that the president's conduct is always legal if conducted in the interest of national security. If ever that nuance was there, however, the Roberts Court made it disappear.
A decision for the ages, J. Kavanaugh said. We all scratched our heads and wondered what he could possibly be thinking. Of course US law applies to a president, just like anyone else. Except Boofing Brett had other ideas.
Definitely. I think we should also see it as a crime rather than a "ruling." A high crime against the state, a conspiracy against the people's rule, an abuse so severe that it warrants the arrest of the six crooked Justices and their co-conspirators (Leo, Crow). Court packing is the compromise now.
"If the president is a king, then we are subjects, whose lives and livelihoods are only safe insofar as we don’t incur the wrath of the executive. And if we find ourselves outside the light of his favor, then we ... find ourselves, in effect, outside the protection of the law."
I think I remember hearing or reading that Roger Ailes saying that the founding idea of FOX News was "if a news agency with our viewpoints were in place, Nixon would have never needed to resign."
I just want to say how much I appreciate your work. This is all very scary, and your clear, sensible opinion pieces are a breath of fresh air amid the hysteria I seem to encounter everywhere else.
I’d much rather spend my energy in understanding what is happening than panicking, if that makes sense
