i think akhil amar reed captures something very important, which is that the roberts court rewrote article ii, which explicitly states that a president can be held criminally liable after impeachment (and which has long been understood to mean that he can be held liable after leaving office)
Seems like their plan may be to amass as much power as possible and force a constitutional crisis/convention. Rewrite the rules forever. Why would they not?
The courts do not have the legislative authority to write out core elements of the Constitution. That would need to be done via amendments and bills signed into law.
I mean, that didn't stop them from trying. I think a large number of lower court judges (and Jack Smith) should state they cannot follow a decision that side-steps the Constitutionally mandated process for changing core elements of the Constitution. It would be contrary to their oaths of office.
Force them to do it. Don't surrender preemptively.
And also assert that whatever the DoJ does--as a part of the Executive--is presumptively legal under new Supreme Court precedent. Up-to-and-including ignoring Judicial Branch dicta.
It happened, but the Judicial Branch relies on the Executive Branch for all enforcement. They take it for granted that all lower court judges, governors, prosecutors, and so on will respect their decisions. But this puts pressure on all officers who swore an oath to the Constitution to defend it.
People need to realize that continuing to point to the rule book when it’s been set on fire and the other team has bribed the refs isn’t going to accomplish anything
I for one think shrugging and laughing when we only have a few months is not a productive use of our time. We can let them do this easily by abdicating in advance, or we can make it very, very hard.
Being clear-eyed about what has already occurred is not abdicating in advance. One does not fight injustice by refusing to acknowledge that it happened.
So let's push the Biden admin to "read out" judicial review, and pack the Court from behind his brand-new shield of immunity. It's a constitutional showdown and SCOTUS is bluffing powers it doesn't have—let's push the other branches to call its bluff.
prospect.org/justice/the-...
I forget when in the past five to ten years I got Marbury-blackpilled, but when it happened it was intense and instant. The poisoned fruit from which 220 years of jurisprudence has grown.
I think everyone needs to recalibrate their perspective on “authority” bc this is a court that will render the reconstruction amendments meaningless (but keep them around just in case they need them for stuff they want)
Yes. It's a constitutional crisis, a showdown between branches. There's no reason to concede the fight to John Roberts right up front.
(Relevant: this piece from a couple years back, which contains gems like the one below)
prospect.org/justice/the-...
(Obviously, Biden isn't fighting in any substantive way and may have little fight left in him...but even his creaky 5-min speech laid some rhetorical groundwork for a real, formal "dissent." Mass pressure in an election year could get the admin to where they need to be.)
They swore to interpret it faithfully. This is a completely disingenuous ruling that does far more than "interpret." It overrides and rewrites the Constitution in a way that is amending and legislating. This is usurpation of Congressional and Presidential powers written in the Constitution.
Yes…it’s why electing presidents who will appoint good and honorable people to the court is important and can’t be taken lightly as it was in 2016.
Hell, it seems like since the federalist society was created, all the GOP court appointments have been awful.
It is the most egregious case yet of the court inventing new forms of immunity, but is a natural extension of what they've given to police and prosecutors over the course of decades (which the liberal justices have often signed on to to varying degrees).
In the UK, we have had it proven to us that "long been understood" is no basis for underpinning a democracy. If it isn't explicitly stated, the far right will worm a way around it then impose their warped will.
1/ They. Don't. Care. About. The. Constitution. Or. Rule. Of. Law. Period.
Hand-in-hand with the clowns of the 118th Cirque Du Congress, SCOTUS is intentionally and maliciously stalling and starving the ability of the Constitutional government to function. By doing so, they enable ...
2/ the ongoing treachery of efforts by The Heritage Foundation and its minions ALREADY ACTIVE IN LOCAL/STATE/FED government services and the public sector. They dont want the constitution. Neither will they honor the conventional processes of maintaining such core law. ...
3/ The Heritage Foundation is perpetrating a very real, very active coup. J6 NEVER ENDED. It has remained alive and well in the pustules calling themselves the Freedom Caucus, SCOTUS, et al. Let that sink in. ...
4/ The old ways of thinking for U.S. politics and policy have been effectively put to sleep. The sooner leaders and voters come around to this new reality, the better because NEW STRATEGIES ARE REQUIRED TO FIGHT and DEFEAT Project 2025. And more insidious than COVID, it spreads by our failure ...
5/ to recognize it. Project 2025 is NOT A FUTURE THING. It's here. Now. The Heritage Foundation is working tirelessly to make sure it stays. They're PUBLICLY saying it's the Second American Revolution and can be bloodless SO LONG AS THE LEFT ACCEPTS IT. They're not even hiding. They're promising.
6/ Waltzing toward November with two centuries of how things have always been isn't just a bad plan, IT'S A FAILED PLAN! THINKING AND STRATEGY MUST CHANGE TO MEET THIS ENEMY! And it truly is an enemy. Otherwise, step into the time machine and accept where we're going. The next Dark Age awaits. /END
My understanding of the current ruling is that even *IF* the president is impeached, they could still not be held criminally liable for actions in office that are considered official acts / actions... which are incredibly broad and undefined terms.
