Nicholas Grossman

@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social

6188

Followers

257

Following

3709

Posts

International Relations prof at U. Illinois. Senior Editor
of Arc Digital. Author “Drones and Terrorism.” Politics, national security, and occasional nerdery.

Posts Replies Media

My favorite line about war applies here: "The aggressor is always peace-loving... he would prefer to take over our country unopposed." No man, if you're trying a revolution against the Constitution of the United States, pro-Constitution Americans aren't going to simply get out of your way. Hard no.

Heritage Foundation president celebrates Supreme Court immunity decision: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution"www.mediamatters.org

When I say the Supreme Court went beyond law, I don’t mean that I disagree with their interpretation of any legal text. I mean their immunity grant isn’t based in any. The Constitution does not address it either way. They invented new powers from nothing.

The Roberts Court Boosts Trump’s Attack on Constitutional Democracywww.arcdigital.media The overreaching, absurd, un-American decision granting ex-presidents a large degree of immunity is an exercise in power, not law

Kamala Harris could win. Not a sure thing, of course. Nothing is. And I don't know what Biden should do. But many discounting how she'd be received given what she'd be replacing and especially running against. Are there really more "too female" or "too Black" voters than "too old" voters? Doubt it.

The Supreme Court's overreaching, absurd, deeply un-American immunity decision is an exercise in power, not law. I wrote about the Justices' evident priorities, the decision's faulty logic, various risks it creates, how it helps Trump's authoritarian project, and more:

Reposted by

Nicholas Grossman

claiming hypocrisy in cases like this is missing the point. they have completely consistent beliefs: they and their friends should be able to do whatever they want without consequence, and everyone else should be subservient to them.

The hypocrisy, it burns.

Justice John Roberts Saying The President Is 'Bound By The Law' During Confirmation Hearing Resurfaces After Immunity Rulingbit.ly John Roberts previously said presidents are "bound by the law" during his confirmation hearing.

Bad presidential debate, French elections first round, Supreme Court putting ex-presidents at least somewhat above the law. It's been quite a week. But neither fight has reached its big inflection point yet. France is July 7. US is November 5. Both could still go either way.

A president supporting court packing for the explicit purpose of reigning in presidential power, including his own, after a Supreme Court made a wildly un-American, precedent-breaking decision to expand it, would be making the best case for a president to support court-packing.

Preemptively rejecting the "oh calm down, if you take this ruling out of the political context in which it took place, interpret the writing very generously, and assume total good faith in the future, it's not a big deal" apologist nonsense. "Oh calm down" has been wrong a lot these past 8 years.

Reposted by

Nicholas Grossman

Reply to

Jacob T. Levy

In Paul's honor:

I understand pessimism and worry in response to the Supreme Court greatly expanding the degree to which the president is above the law and permitted to coup without consequence. But don't underestimate the upside scenario. It really all comes down to the election. If Trump loses, we can fix a lot.

2024: Stopping Trump, Renewing Democracywww.thebulwark.com Next year is about more than defeating a wannabe dictator—it’s also an opportunity for a grand reaffirmation of democracy.

Reminder: Trump pardoned literal war criminals. One's actions were so bad that some of his fellow SEALs testified against him, which pretty much never happens. And Fox News then treated the pardoned criminals as heroes. Thinking this every time I see "but the military won't follow illegal orders."

Trump pardons servicemembers in high profile war crimes caseswww.usatoday.com Donald Trump granted pardons to Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance and Maj. Mathew Golsteyn. He reversed a demotion of Edward Gallagher, a Navy Seal.

Let's-see-how-you-like-it fantasies in response to the Supreme Court immunity ruling are underestimating just how bad the situation is. Any prosecutions would take place in courts, where SCOTUS would block it. This term especially, the SCOTUS majority has shown that its standards are Calvinball.

Under today’s immunity decision, Biden could order AG Garland to immediately prosecute Thomas and Alito for corruption and insurrection. (Official act). If Garland refuses, Biden can fire him and replace him with someone who will. (Official act) I would suggest Elie Mystal.

Hear hear! It ain't over 'til it's over. And in this November's election, We the People have a live chance. Acting like we don't just squanders it.

The Court ruling today is terrible but expected. I will just gently remind everyone that the election hasn’t happened yet. We shouldn’t assume the worst outcome as a foregone conclusion. That only encourages more apathy than many are already feeling.

Richard Nixon 1977: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. America 1977-2023: What, are you kidding? No way. Roberts Court 2024: Actually Nixon was right, and shouldn't have been in trouble for ordering the Watergate break-in, because orders are by definition official acts.

Holy shit, the Supreme Court actually wrote that Trump telling Pence to claim the wildly unconstitutional power to single-handedly reject certified Electoral College votes, thereby overthrowing Constitutional democracy, can't be illegal because POTUS and VP talking about it makes it an official act.

i keep re-reading this to make sure i didn't hallucinate

Reposted by

Nicholas Grossman

Reply to

Julia Azari

basically making a coup legal as long as you discuss it with your vice president. moreover, this way of argumentation that ignores obvious context and treats all reasoning like we're in a law school seminar is just straight-up gaslighting.

Reposted by

Nicholas Grossman

This is the ball game folks, the authoritarian green light laid out in advance. Congress will not impeach Trump. And SCOTUS now blesses him with extraordinary latitude to do whatever he wants in power. A second administration will not be constrained by Congress, the courts, the bureaucracy or law.

Trump, who tried to overthrow an election, campaigned persistently for his fellow party members to grant him absolute immunity for his misdeeds in office. And they did. If you can't distinguish between "energy in the executive" and a constitutional crime spree, you've given up on US democracy.

Reposted by

Nicholas Grossman

Chief Justice Roberts decrees the end of DOJ independence in an offhanded sentence on page 20.

The institutions of US democracy are hanging by a thread, and the Supreme Court just frayed it. I cannot emphasize this enough: the 2024 election is effectively an up-or-down vote on Constitutional democracy. All else is secondary, because democracy and rule of law are how we address other issues.

The Institutions of American Democracy are Hanging by a Threadwww.arcdigital.media Trump has brought the United States further down the path of democratic backsliding than many realize. The election is the only barrier left.

Putting the president above the law to any degree—and not just while in office, when there a practical argument, but out of office too—is so wrong, so undemocratic, so egregiously un-American. The Supreme Court declared a core American principle going back to George Washington no longer applies.

John Adams: A government of laws, and not of men Theodore Roosevelt: No man is above the law John Roberts: Presidents don't have to follow laws in office, at least not all of them, and if a sitting president breaks the law, he's immune from any legal consequences for life and you just have to deal

Media (Nov. 2016-2023): The white working class, especially men in the Midwest, are the most important people in the country. We elites are so out of touch. Bad, elites. Bad. Get thee to an Ohio diner and learn how Real Americans think! Media (Summer 2024): Never mind, the people want us to pick.

All these people say they're trying to beat Donald Trump and none of them seem to be able to take five seconds to imagine what Donald Trump would say about their candidate picked by a brokered convention at the behest of the New York Times editorial board

Reposted by

Nicholas Grossman

Thanks (or no thanks) to @thomaszimmer.bsky.social, I just lost 30m to reading anti-anti-Trump leftists relitigate the 2020 primary. I did (irrelevant) volunteer policy work for Sanders in 2016 and did (less irrelevant) work in 2020, but left before Iowa. So I have some thoughts. Caveat emptor.

Any other Wag the Dog fans out there hearing the “you don’t change horses in midstream” ads in their heads, or just me?

When people claim no leftists want Trump to win, the leftist quoted here saying that a Biden presidency is "way more dangerous" than a Trump presidency, and pushing absurd, Trump-normalizing BS that Trump's 1st term was "standard," is what people saying some leftists want Trump to win have in mind.

There it is: A position completely untethered from empirical evidence, as ridiculous analytically as it is dangerous politically, propagated by anti-liberal leftwing intellectuals who are solely animated by their disdain for “the Libs” and have abandoned any regard for accuracy.

Far right National Rally party appears to do well in French parliamentary elections. I say "appears," because it's unofficial—though early estimates in France are usually accurate—and it's just the 1st round. France has 3 coalitions (more or less), but the 2nd-round runoff forces choices. We'll see.

If there's any alternative to Biden, it's Harris. Strikes me as obvious. She's the sitting VP, she's already on the presumptive 2024 Dem ticket, there's no mechanism to pass over her, and her base will feel shafted if Dems did. Some pundits disliking her or doubting her chances doesn't change that.

National pundits are doing their level best to manifest a world in which Kamala Harris does not exist

No sign Iran is that stupid, NYT. Media might treat the world as a reality show with the president as main character, but NatSec strategists don't. Iran knows POTUS seeming too old at a debate doesn't make US carrier groups stop working, nor stop the US from rallying against them if they act out.

Too Old would almost certainly lose to Young, Smart, Competent and Exciting But we're in an era of negative partisanship 2016: Too Deplorable > Too Hillary 2020: Too Old > Too Awful In 2024, Too Old can beat Too Criminal (Maybe a change would have a better chance, IDK, just noting plausibility)

Silver lining: Democrats and the media doing this big "should Biden drop out, and if so, then what?" thing now rather than in September. Have the conversation, Dems—and the conversations about the conversation—get it out of your system now, settle on what you're doing, then focus on beating Trump.