The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the President of the United States has absolute immunity for criminal acts committed in his official capacity. He may order the Department of Justice to prosecute his political opponents. He can organize a coup against the government. He may order the military to assassinate his enemies. He may, as Trump did, send a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol and seek to stop the certification of the man who won the election and to murder elected officials. He may take a bribe for appointments or pardons.
The Court laid the groundwork for authoritarianism. For fascism. It eroded a basic understanding of our democracy. The six reactionary justices obliterated the bedrock principle of our government that “no person is above the law.” Under this ruling, the President is above the law. He is a King. The Founders would be appalled by this decision. Under this ruling, Richard Nixon need not have resigned.
This court is a threat to democracy. The majority is not conservative. It overrules precedent without hesitation, as it did in Dobbs (the abortion decision) and as it does in this decision.
Read the decision and the dissents yourself.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If this is the worst – and I can’t argue strongly against – then Bush v Gore and Citizens United have to run a close second / third. Remember that Bush v Gore is so awful on its face that the majority said that their decision ought not be a precedent.
LikeLike
They are all related in their brazen grasp for power.
LikeLike
Terrible decision on too many levels to summarize here.
LikeLike
I agree. The first thing was, “What constitutes an ‘unofficial act?'” And, it’s like in grade school and you get three wishes: One of them is for more wishes. All the “new king” has to do is make all unofficial acts official. With all things said, it is highly plausible. Beyond me to comprehend what the hell happened.
LikeLike
This comes close to being a coup. But if Trump loses in November, SCOTUS just handed unlimited power to a Democrat.
LikeLike
@Diane — My mind keeps going back to Ray Bradbury’s, “The Sound of Thunder” and the “Butterfly Effect.” As a person who had to explain to our young people the “why’s and how’s” of how things work, I now find myself pondering the ramifications of information now being rewritten due to this SCOTUS ruling. I can hear my old students asking, “Charvet, why?” And I respond, “I can’t talk too loudly. Keep the blinds closed and whisper our thoughts. Who knows who is listening. I may not be here tomorrow.”
LikeLike
The court has drawn “official acts” very, very, very broadly. So, the President has a responsibility to ensure fair elections. This is part of his duties and thus whatever he does related to this is an “official act”–e.g., declaring that the vote was fraudulent and having do-overs until he or she wins, AS IN OTHER BANANA REPUBLICS.
Here we are, a banana republic without the bananas.
LikeLike
Diane: if a Democrat wins the presidency, the Supreme Court can just declare that anything it does is not covered under immunity.
LikeLike
This decision by the US Supreme Court is the most damaging to this country than any other since the Declaration of Independence. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has been so damaging and destructive to democracy upon which this nation was founded. Wars, depressions, outbreaks of diseases, riots, etc. pale in comparison to what the members of the Supreme just did. This Supreme Court will go down as the worse court in the history of this country. The current US Supreme Court no way is standing up for the rights of the citizen of the United States.
LikeLike
Where are our resident lawyers who told us repeatedly that the Courts are non political. Sorry but ” who are we going to believe, them or your own eyes”
LikeLike
I admit this was a much worse decision than I expected. I thought the Court would reject the argument that the President has absolute immunity for everything alleged in the D.C. indictment, regardless of whether the conduct alleged fell within the core of his official duties. I got that part right. I did not expect them to tilt the scale so far in the executive’s direction in the analysis of whether immunity should attach to non-core conduct—the “presumptive immunity” analysis. Nor did I expect them to hold that motive is irrelevant in distinguishing between official and unofficial conduct, or that the prosecutors may not present the jury with evidence of any immune conduct even for purposes of context. Last, I did not expect them to toss a nebulous analytical framework back to the district court to flesh out what the Justices seemed unable to flesh out.
I may be a fool but I think there is enough left in the indictment to try Trump. But to do that, Trump has to lose the election. Ultimately, the courts were never going to save us from Trump. (Even if Trump were tried and convicted before the election, he could still run for president.). We have to save ourselves at the ballot box.
LikeLike
And only to have the District Courts decision appealed back up the chain.
Yes I agree that the only answer is to beat him in an election. The other flawed part of the system that has brought us the Taliban Court.
LikeLike
FLERP,
I agree. We must save our democracy at the ballot box.
For me, I assumed that SCOTUS would affirm the strong lower court rulings against “Absolute immunity.” I was wrong.
LikeLike
The far right is emboldened. And it is a direct result of how folks who should have known better kept normalizing their actions no matter how far they go. I saw it on this blog – Judge Scott McAfee acted in a way that was unprecedented. I won’t go into a too long litany, but Trump and his cronies wanted the trial delayed, and the Republican defense attorney proclaimed in open court that her legal filing that McAfee used as his excuse to delay the trial included false allegations based EXCLUSIVELY on 2nd hand rumors! – the speed with which McAfee shut her down revealed he knew that and didn’t care – he basically told her to go back to smearing the prosecutors in the public hearing he was holding under the pretense that her innuendo based questions would elicit the credible evidence of prosecutorial wrongdoing that was COMPLETELY MISSING from her legal filing! It did not matter that judges need some credible evidence before allowing defense attorneys to sling attacks at the prosecutor in public hearings. But this federalist judge was allowed to ignore precedent and not only did folks here call him admirable and restrained for doing so, one actually announced that Fani Willis had likely committed perjury (job well down, McAfee!)
It isn’t surprising that the Supreme Court feels untouchable when the NYT spends 100X more column inches telling voters that what is really of concern is that the Democrat currently presiding over the most successful presidency in recent history is too old, and voters are reminded every day by the so-called media that the real scandal is that Biden is old – anything the Republicans are doing is just normal, and some folks like what Trump/Supreme Court is doing, but partisan Dems don’t.
The far right has successfully manufactured consent for what they are doing. And when the consent they manufactured wasn’t enough to win elections, they simply ignored legal restraints and did whatever helped them win, knowing their federalist society judges would twist the law to legalize their actions.
Since the court system in Russia is the model for this, the next step will be folks who dissent, the ones who threaten their power being brought before their judges and found guilty of criminal behavior. The ones following the law will be thrown in jail, while the ones who break it will be in power.
Scary times. But could not have happened with the complicity of folks who kept telling us not to worry, it can’t happen here, and what we SHOULD be extremely concerned about is the evil/old/corrupt/demented Democrat who should be the focus of our attention while our Constitution (and country) burns. No biggie. At least we can be very grateful and relieved that our country was saved from that the corrupt woman who committed email crimes and the old guy with severe cognitive impairments who has been running our country so well for the last 4 years. Now THAT’S a win for what’s really important.
LikeLike
Justices Delaying Justice
🚫 ⚖️ 🚫
Justices Denying Justice
LikeLike
The right wing justices are partisan hacks.
LikeLike
yup
LikeLike
The current court and its rulings are a symptom and predictable result of unfettered capitalism. The court has been bought and paid for by an obscene amount of wealth. It will continue to rule in favor of those who bought them off so long as the majority of American citizens are sympathetic to those who have amassed such obscene wealth. Unfettered capitalism will not permit democracy to exist. We will not have both.
LikeLike
This is EXACTLY what the Founders were afraid of. They have to be spinning in their graves
LikeLike
You nailed it, TOW. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY FEARED. That these six rogue Just Asses consider themselves experts on Constitutional law is an utter joke. They just undid what the founders tried to accomplish. In a single decision. They created Kings of the United States.
LikeLike
No man is above the law, except for one.
LikeLike
The pediment above the front entrance to the Supreme Court reads, Equal Justice Under Law.
Well, that’s now a joke. A very bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.
They used to tell a lot of such jokes in the old Soviet Union.
LikeLike
Guess the folks who chisel words into stone will have to change that inscription. Add, “Except for the President.”
LikeLike
“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”NOTE TO THE ROBERTS COURT: “Animal Farm” was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
LikeLike
It mystifies me that SCOTUS members claim “originalism” and yet rule that the President is a king. Of course, their “originalism” is only for things they want.
LikeLike
It’s a breathtakingly total rejection of the founders’ original intent.
The six are a collection of partisan asshats. They have NO principles, originalist or otherwise. They like Jabba the Trump. They like oligarchs. They like fat cats. They like their sovereign and privileged position at the top of a social hierarchy that they would like to make immutable.
LikeLike
we all know that originalism is a bold lie to the public. They care less for the ideas of the founding fathers than they do for the needs of the poor or the gut-wrenching decision of the woman who bears a child.
LikeLiked by 1 person
even less
LikeLike
To add to my comment above about manufacturing our consent.
This is the sub-headline on the NYT today (which is probably the last day the Supreme Court decision will be mentioned, since it’s far more important the country discuss how soon we can get rid of elderly, impaired Biden, whose presidency clearly has posed an extreme risk to our nation (unlike these Supreme Court decisions):
“Amid signs of dysfunction and disarray, Chief Justice John Roberts reasserted his authority, while the influence of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito waned.”
HOORAY! Alito and Thomas’ influence is WANING! Let’s break out the champange folks! The NYT tells us better days ahead thanks to John Roberts, so no need to report on this story anymore, and now they can move on to what IS a dangerous, risky matter that voters MUST be concerned about — the huge risk of having a president as cognitiveluy impaired and unable to function as Joe Biden.
I kid you not — that is the sub-headline on the front page of the website.
LikeLike
“Put another way, none of the three members of the court appointed by Mr. Trump are as conservative as Justices Thomas and Alito.
Justice Barrett, the third Trump appointee, is particularly worth watching, Professor Epstein said. “Some indicators show that Barrett — though still way more conservative than her predecessor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg — is moving somewhat to the left,” she said. “This term she overtook Roberts as the Republican appointee casting the highest percentage of liberal votes in divided cases.”
Hooray! Break out the champagne! The NYT asserts that Trump’s appointees aren’t so bad. The fact that they join the far right in every case that matters is not worth mentioning.
The NYT tells us these cases are no big deal. Now back to reporting on how dangerous it was that the dementia-ridden Biden was president the last 4 years and how fast we can get rid of him.
LikeLike
The NY Times seems to be on a mission to remove Biden. I counted three stories today on why he should drop out. None on the other side.
LikeLike
If Trump did drop out, the Dems would be in even worse shape this fall. I shudder to think how people would have reacted to last week’s debate if it had been Nikki Haley rather than Trump at the other podium. Although a President Haley would probably be worth not having another President Trump.
LikeLike
I can imagine few things worse than another Trump presidency. DeSantis, maybe. Stephen Miller, maybe. The revenant of Joseph Goebbels, maybe.
Somehow we all went to sleep and woke up in a participatory theatre of the absurd production.
The “originalists” on the Extreme Court just made presidents into kings and both kneecapped the regulatory people in the Executive Branch and did away with womens’ control over their own freaking bodies and reproduction in contradiction of decades of law AND the founders’ intent.
The speaker of the House believes that the world is 6,000 years old, that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, that Satan is a real guy, and that any day now, the good people of planet Earth are going to be Raptured. He believes that the Devil is turning high-school kids transgender and that Democrats are working for him.
The richest guy in the world managed in a few months to lose 29 billion dollars on his purchase of Twitter and changed one of the most successful brand names ever to the letter X.
Freaking terrorists parachuted into a music festival and murdering and raped young people. Freaking kids. At a festival. And kids in the U.S. are saying that that is just hunky dory.
They guy who created a 7.8 TRILLION dollar deficit through a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans is running “his” “great economy.”
The guy who thinks that there is a book called Two Corinthians, who told aides, in reference to the evangelists who visited him that “they actually believe that shit,” who cannot cite a single Bible verse, who exemplifies in great excess each of the seven deadly sins, who spent his lifetime cheating on his wives and stealing from charities and contractors and everyone else he could, including by building casinos, is a rock star with fundamentalist Evangelicals.
Suddenly there is AI that can write novels and act in films and compose pop songs and do brilliant, complex illustration in nanoseconds, and videos are being released of long dead musicians singing their latest creations. Oh, have you heard the latest from Robert Johnson? And Bill Gates is going in front of audiences and telling them that chatbots are going to solve the labor shortage AND end “the reading crisis” by teaching reading.
My rent went up 30 percent this year. My electric bill and food bills both increased by 50 percent. And Social Security gave me a 3 percent cost of living increase, and the Republicans in the Senate have announced their intention to cut Social Security and Medicare dramatically.
The head of the Texas Repugnican Party called for the state to secede from the union.
The dumbest and most ignorant and moral bankrupt person you could ever imagine, having attempted to overthrow the duly elected government of our country, is now THE LEADING CANDIDATE for president in 2024.
His closest competitor lost after wearing white go-go boots and platform cowboy boots and going to war with drag queens and Mickey Mouse.
Kyle Rittenhouse is now a multimillionaire.
My neighbor tells me that he didn’t get the Covid vaccine because of the microchips that Bill Gates put in them.
One of our ex-Secretaries of State says that the biggest threat to America is the head of one of the teachers’ unions.
Someone tell me that I am dreaming. Or is this is the freaking Twilight Zone on acid?
LikeLike
Yes, the era of Insanity.
LikeLike
Did you ever imagine, when you were young, Diane, that it would come to this? It’s all so bizarre. So much for my youthful dreams about the progress we were going to make. It so looks like the end of the empire.
LikeLike
Bob,
As a young person—in high, college, grad school, then into adult life—I strongly believed that we were living in a country that was constantly getting better. We had lots of problems, but we were raising up the standard of living, creating good jobs, passing laws that punished discrimination, opening opportunities for women, Blacks, and lots of others who had been marginalized or excluded. We took one step back, two steps forward. Progress seemed inexorable.
Now, with the possibility of that malignant narcissist returning to the Presidency despite being a convicted felon, emboldened by a SCOTUS decision saying that the President is above the law, I worry for the future of the land I love. Trump sows chaos, hatred, and division. The prospect of his return, free to prosecute his enemies, is terrifying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
same
LikeLike
30 percent, good lord. Sorry about that.
LikeLike
Oh, I left of that we just concluded 12 continuous months of the hottest temperatures on record and Putin just fielded hypersonic missiles that can reach the U.S. in 11 minutes and many nations are now employing autonomous or semi-autonomous killer air, sea, and land drones in an era of runaway AI, and in response, Republicans are deeply concerned about Hunter’s laptop and drag queen story hour.
LikeLike
Biden would have looked better against Haley, who does not have the “gish galloping” down to a science. It’s not that easy to blithely lie. Between his age and his stutter, Biden is not quick on his feet anymore. He has slowed down. I’d prefer a younger Biden, but I am extremely pleased at how good Biden has been as president, and I find it frightening that people would throw that away because of one debate. But I’d prefer any candidate who can beat Trump.
Now that I have come to realize that the NYT is on a relentless mission to get rid of Biden (probably because Bernie and AOC like him and Biden is being too progressive) and the NYT is going to run 10 anti-Biden articles every day and barely cover anything else, I am starting to think that maybe it’s better for Biden to step aside. I think Biden stepping aside is a guaranteed Trump victory because the public will see only chaos and the result will be a weak candidate coming out of an open convention who is easy for the Republicans to smear. Every single one. And I think Biden COULD win, but not as long as the NYT is on a relentless mission to destroy him.
No Democrat can win when the NYT goes on such a mission. I watched, completely mystified, when once-popular Dukakis and Gore and Kerry and HRC all got NYT-slimed, much as like they are doing to Biden now.
If the NYT is not going to stop until a weaker candidate who is easy for the Republicans to smear replaces Biden, then Biden has no choice. No Dem in my lifetime has won a presidential election once the kool kids at the NYT decide the Dem isn’t cool enough for them. They liked Obama so he was immune. It’s possible that Michelle Obama might be the only candidate that the NYT will refrain from sliming THEMSELVES. The Republicans will try, but those attacks have never worked if the NYT doesn’t join in the fun and flood the zone with non-stop stories telling voters that it is a non-partisan truth that this Democrat is just as bad as the Republicans say.
The Dems COULD win with Biden, but no Democrat can win if the NYT floods the zone to destroy them, and they are doing that to Biden.
It’s a shame that the NYT doesn’t think it is important enough to give flood the zone coverage to Trump’s unfitness to be in office. Voters might actually think they should be concerned about that!
Biden’s age is again the huge story on the NYT, with the Supreme Court decision practically forgotten. After 1 day.
LikeLike
Biden wouldn’t have looked better against a rock. The only points in his favor that night were the depravity and arrogance of his opponent.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
I had a conversation with a friend who lived their whole life in a midwestern swing state. Probably would describe themselves as moderate, not progressive and liked moderate Dems like HRC in 2016.
It was interesting to hear their take on the debate. Sure Biden wasn’t great, but Trump, to them, was simply awful. They heard what Trump was saying and were appalled. Apparently they didn’t get the NYT message that Trump won the debate. They are definitely still behind Biden. Their take was that Biden had a bad debate, and was old, but not that Biden was cognitively out of it. But Trump, to them was TOTALLY INSANE. Talking nonsense. And they told me they turned into the debate to see if maybe there was something to Trump, because they hadn’t been paying attention and seen Trump on video in a while. They said Trump was even worse than they remembered.
Not scientific. Just saying that people outside the beltway/NYT bubble were definitely strongly turned off of Trump. While Biden just had a bad day, instead of a debate performance that was disqualifying.
LikeLike
Bob and Diane: your comments recall a conversation I had with a friend. About twenty years ago, as Bush II was ramping up his fundamentaltalist statements because he was losing the traditional Republican base, my friend suggested that he had grown up thinking that he was witnessing the end of religious superstition and racial hostility. Now (20 years ago) people were voting for leaders who espoused anti-evolutionary ideas and directed racist comments like a machine gun sprays bullets.
Trump was being formed in the womb of American politics long ago. Even my friend, just an old Tennessee carpenter could see it. That is why I spent the day after Hillary Clinton’s defeat with my head swimming.
Now I face the possibility of Trump 2.0 without a vote. The electoral college makes my vote worth nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And they have already normalized this Supreme Court decision with their appalling both sides reporting. Some folks think this decision is good, some partisan folks think it is bad, no one really knows so no need to think about that anymore readers, because the REAL danger is Biden being president!
NYT is far more dangerous than Fox News because people believe their reporting is unbiased and voters believe the NYT is a newspaper dedicated to informing them about what is important. And what is important to the NYT is the extreme danger this country is in because Biden is too old to run the country (shhh, don’t mention the great job he’s doing) and the country will be in grave danger if such an old man is re-elected.
The Supreme Court and Trump’s unfitness for office aren’t important – voters know this because even the NYT tells Americans they are not.
LikeLike
There truly is no act of man, government, or God that will not cause people on every part of the political spectrum to whine about the New York Times.
https://imgur.com/a/Il28tlg
LikeLike
https://imgur.com/gallery/ny-times-Il28tlg
LikeLike
It is revealing that you give as much credibility to criticism from the right as you do to criticism from Democrats.
The NYT reporting on the Supreme Court decision has been abysmal. It’s already old news, save for Adam Litpak assuring us that Trump’s justices aren’t really that conservative.
When the NYT treats something a huge scandal it gives it wall to wall coverage for weeks or even months. Biden’s so-called fiasco with the Afghanistan pull out got that. So did the debate. So did her emails, and Gore’s “lies” and Dukakis’ “tank problem”. It’s not just a story – it is informing the public that the story is important, the story is concerning, the story should be something they keep in mind every single day.
And the Supreme Court and what’s happening is NOT such a story. It’s just something that happens that “both sides” disagree with.
There is a difference between a day or two story that reports something negative, and giving a story extreme play for weeks because it is SO IMPORTANT. Biden’s huge failure in Afghanistan is important. Biden’s debate performance is important. Her emails is important. Gore’s lies are important. Dukakis in the tank is important.
But apparently the NYT doesn’t consider the Supreme Court’s decision important. Or Trump’s lies.
“The public already knows” is how NYT reporters justify their one day coverage of the stories that might make people concerned about Republican actions.
It’s a laughable excuse, since the public ALSO already knew all those negative stories about the Dems, but the NYT felt it needed to make sure the public knew that it was something that it was something they should be extremely concerned and worried about.
What’s happening at the Supreme Court doesn’t meet that standard. Neither does Trump’s lies or corrupt behavior.
The NYT covers the Republicans the way they covered Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and the Republicans still complain. The NYT covers the Democrats like they SHOULD have covered Nazi Germany – as one step away from being a clear and present danger to this country.
The flaws of Democrats are apparently a far more important story to NYT reporters than the Republicans’ embrace of authoritarianism and the Supreme Court’s enabling of it.
LikeLike
“It is revealing that you give as much credibility to criticism from the right as you do to criticism from Democrats”
What does it reveal?
LikeLike
It is revealing that Flerp gives thought to criticism and argument from the right as well as from the left, which shows just how clear and careful a thinker he (I think Flerp is a he) is.
LikeLike
Bob and flerp!,
Bob knows education, and flerp! knows the law. Perhaps I have a bit more familiarity with media criticism than you. And saying “both sides complain” isn’t media criticism. Although it does perfectly encapsulate how NYT reporters evaluate themselves as journalists. “Both sides criticize me so I must be doing a great job.”
Bob, I thought you’d get it because the NYT does this with education reporting too. Their reporting is incredibly pro-charter, but if you ask an education reporter, they will swear up and down that “both sides complain about our reporting” so they are writing fair and balanced coverage of public education.
It’s not whether or not both sides complain. It is taking a close look at the coverage and deciding which of the complaints have validity and which are just working the refs. Which the right wing excels at doing.
I looked at one of the stories that flerp! cited here when he said the NYT had written a bunch of articles critical of the Republicans.
That article criticized something Republicans do the same way it criticizes charters. It normalized what was being done, describing it and then giving a quote from an anti-Trump person criticizing it and a stirring defense from the Republican. Even the news that might make voters concerned about Republican behavior is presented as a “both sides” may be okay or may not be event. But too Republicans, that is “anti-Republican”. It isn’t. I wish they reported on the debate in that “anti-Democrat” way. If they had, Biden’s terrible performance would have been forgotten the next day.
5 days after the debate and there are still 4 or 5 stories informing voters how concerning it is that Biden did terribly.
1 day after the Supreme Court decision and the only coverage left is the Adam Litpak story normalizing it, and informing us that Trump’s 3 appointees were actually not that conservative.
LikeLike
The New York Times’ failure to write articles exactly the way you would like to see them written is not compelling evidence that the New York Times is the reason people don’t think about things the exact way you want them to think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“no person is above the law.” All are below the SCOTUS rulings. The self empowered court, since (Marbury v. Madison), continues to ignore what the founders are said to believe, feel, know, or think. You cannot lecture “Democracy” into a system of APPOINTED dictators. What the founders are said to have believed or meant, compels the Court as much as all the “Hot Air” authorities below it. The proof is in the rulings.
LikeLike
Exactly so.
LikeLike
Without the constraints of law or precedent, President Biden must act expeditiously to arrest 6 members of the Supreme Court and imprison them at Guantanamo. Let their confinement serve as a catalyst to discussions, current trials, the consequences of their judgements, and the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. No restraint required.
LikeLike
Biden has a dilemma because he is essentially negotiating with terrorists willing to blow up the country to get what they want.
The terrorists are holding hostage the principles of democracy.
When terrorists plant bombs in schools and threaten to blow them up if they don’t get their way, there isn’t a good solution. There is only a question of what gets sacrificed.
It’s not easy to make a decision when every decision is the wrong one. It’s weighing short and long term effects.
What should Biden do if it is 99% certain that Trump’s election will mean the end of democracy, with the US becoming a Russian-style authoritarian country where dissent is severely punished and no one who threatens the authoritarian power is ever going to win an “open election”? What if it is only an 80% chance? What if it is only a 50% chance?
If there is only a 50% chance that a nuclear bomb goes off, but there is 100% chance that if it does go off, the entire country will be decimated, what do you do?
What depresses me is all the people who watched the chances of a nuclear bomb going off becoming more and more likely, but kept denying that there was any value in stopping it BEFORE we were faced with these kinds of choices. When the chances were ZERO, but people decided that raising the chance of a nuclear bomb going off to 20% or 30% was a small price to pay to “send a message”.
There are lots of other ways to “send a message” then to turn the chance of nuclear bomb going off from zero to 25% or 50%. Or even just 10%.
As harmful as some presidents have been, from Reagan to GW Bush, we all knew there was a chance to fight for a better tomorrow. Progressives could speak out, work to change minds.
But in 2016 we were faced with an election that was clearly different. An open Supreme Court seat that would change which direction the country would go. A Republican who led the birther movement who lacked even the tiniest respect for democracy.
In 2016 this country CONSENTED to the nuclear threat level being raised from zero to possible. That threat level continued to rise and while we can waste time whether Trump’s election is only 50% likely to end democracy or 99%, it shouldn’t matter to anyone.
We need to end this threat to democracy. It is the height of insanity that we didn’t end it in 2016 when we had a chance, but the Dem-haters on the left got their pyrrhic victory – they defeated the Dems and all it cost them was democracy!
LikeLike
What should alarm people is that Nixon and his folks HID what they were doing because they knew this country would not condone it.
Trump and the far right now do this OUT IN THE OPEN! The Supreme Court says it is okay OUT IN THE OPEN. It’s like Hitler’s Nuremberg laws. There is no longer any need to hide because these people ARE the law.
LikeLike
exactly right
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom Drummond,
Under the latest ruling, Biden has the power to arrest the six justices who warped the Condtitution. It’s in the scope of his official duties. He could use his authority as president to terminate their life tenure and replace them. All in the name of a national emergency.
Biden won’t do it. He is an institutionalize and, unfortunately, would not use the illicit authority that this partisan court gave him.
LikeLike
Don’t mistake the authority to do something (the courts would surely find that Biden does not have the authority to do these things) with immunity from criminal prosecution for doing that thing.
LikeLike
I don’t understand this point, FLERP. The Court decision says the President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution when acting in his official capacity, broadly defined.
LikeLike
Well, the real answer is that these examples (Biden removing Supreme Court justices) are clearly not official duties (core or non-core) of the President under the majority’s logic. These acts aren’t listed in or implied by Article II, and the conduct clearly violates separation of powers doctrine.
LikeLike
I am quite sure that “inciting insurrection to remain in office because you lost an election” is not listed in nor implied by Article II.
Nor is “taking home top secret material that doesn’t belong with you and refusing to give it back.”
Neither is “having folks break into DNC headquarters to get dirt”
And yet…
LikeLike
You may need/want to read the majority opinion and understand its constitutional logic. The logic is flawed, but there is a logic.
LikeLike
Although if I understand flerp!’s point, Biden could have the Supreme Court Justices arrested, and even though he had no right to have the justices arrested, he could do so because he would have immunity as it would fall under the “official acts” of protecting our democracy from traitors.
Or maybe the point is that when Trump does it, it is an official act, but if Biden does it the Supreme Court would rule in 24 hours that Biden should be arrested.
Hitler, there is no law saying that you can round up entire Jewish families and summarily execute them. However, if you do round up entire Jewish communities and summarily execute them and say it is necessary as part of your “official duties” — i.e. Making Germany Great Again — you have absolute immunity from punishment.
LikeLike
The way I read this, the Supreme Court has seized for itself the right of determination concerning what sort of acts are official. I suggesting that there are some acts that are official and some that are not, they essentially seize power from a hostile executive, and yield power to one friendly to their arbitrary values.
LikeLiked by 1 person
exactly right
LikeLike
There is no better evidence than this ruling that six members of SCOTUS are in league with Trump’s ongoing coup. Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow are quite glib at the moment.
LikeLike
“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
–Opening to the dissent by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson
LikeLike
Exactly!
LikeLike
This court is an obscenity. And this is how it happened in Germany, folks. The courts gave him the power to act unilaterally, in whatever manner he saw fit.
LikeLike
Absolutely right. But it was more than that.
It was that the courts giving Hitler unilateral power was normalized by the media. Just like the NYT is RIGHT NOW normalizing what the Supreme Court just did here.
LikeLike
There is definitely a boiled frog thing going on.
LikeLike
Well, the first thing was Hindenburg’s making him Chancellor. Then there was the Enabling Act. And then there were the stacked courts backing him on everything.
LikeLike
This is when GregB is sorely missed. I am sure he is feeling the pain and I am also sure he would get no pleasure at all from saying “I told you so”. But he did warn us.
LikeLike
Democracy seems to be on the ropes not just in the U.S. but in many places around the world lately.
Correct me if I’m wrong in that regard….
So, why now? And, why worldwide?
Does the incredibly fast pace of technological change now have anything to do with it? And, not just the impacts of globalization. Is change outpacing many people’s abilities to adapt. Hence the turn to authoritarianism and wacky conspiracy theories. So many people seem to want simple solutions. us vs them….right or wrong….. Their lives are so out of control and they’ve been sold so much fear…..they’d welcome a dictator taking charge. (Though they’d probably never ever admit to that word.)
Representative government is very time consuming. And there’s just so much infotainment and streaming video to consume our waking hours. Do citizens even have the time to participate anymore?
Hence, the very, very dangerous juncture the planet is at now. Pretend democracies, awash in self deception of all sorts.
LikeLike
HARRIS TIES TRUMP
The latest CNN/SSRS poll, reported in The Washington Post which says that this poll “is a quality, well-regarded poll,” shows that Biden is losing to Trump by a huge six-percent margin — but that Vice President Kamala Harris is in a dead heat with Trump, just two points behind and well within the poll’s margin of error.
All of the other Democrats — Newsome, Whitmer, and Buttigieg — touted as replacing Biden on the Democratic ticket are shown losing to Trump by the same six-percent margin as Biden.
The CNN/SSRS poll also shows that Harris is favored over Biden by the critical swing voters: women, non-white voters, and under-45 voters.
The CBS News/YouGov poll found that 72 percent of all voters said Biden “does not have the mental and cognitive health to be president.” These numbers are not disputed by the Biden campaign. With numbers like that, Biden cannot win even if every loyalist Democrat votes for him.
And major donors are saying they recognized in Biden’s performance some of the deterioration they have observed in smaller meetings and donor events. So, Biden must not be the Democratic Party candidate for President in the November election.
America is long, long overdue for a woman President.
Long overdue.
Within the next few weeks, Biden should resign as President, citing health reasons, some of which are clearly evident. That would give Harris national exposure as America’s first woman President and would ignite women of all ethnic backgrounds to want to see her continue as President. That block of voters would tip the election in her favor over Trump.
Biden has indeed been a good President; and he is a fundamentally good and moral person. Nevertheless, in the world of practical politics, he is all too likely to lose to despicable Trump who would bring our republic to its knees.
LikeLike
Well, I know that strange days are upon us when I find myself agreeing with NYC PSP and No Brick. ROFL. Well, I’m not laughing, actually. In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke uses this famous analogy: A system of government is like a brick wall. If you just start hammering away at it, it’s going to collapse on you. You are going to be in deep trouble. You might not survive it.
Well, in the last year, the Supreme Court has gone at our system of government with sledgehammers. And it isn’t done yet.
LikeLike
I say, I find myself agreeing. Not with everything, ofc. I strongly recommend that people actually read the court’s decision, which is the most important of my lifetime (I was born a year after Brown).
LikeLike
Anyone who takes the time to read the SCOTUS opinion and dissents cannot help but be absolutely shocked. If it weren’t so serious, it would be risible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YES
LikeLike
Let’s see…based on the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, Trump’s attorneys are now arguing that Trump’s actions to discredit and reverse the 2020 election results were official presidential actions that were done in order to defend what Trump says were the actual 2020 election results in his favor. So….
If Trump wins the 2024 election in November, according to the Supreme Court ruling Biden can while he is still President until January 2025 declare that the 2024 election was fraudulent and can take official presidential action to reverse the results of the election and imprison Trump as a threat to our republic because Trump has said that he will be a dictator if he is elected.
What goes around, comes around.
LikeLike
NYT has been normalizing Trump, Republicans and the anti-democratic right wing takeover of the Supreme Court at least since 2016.
But this isn’t the first time the newspaper normalized fascism. It’s simply a repeat of history, and the parallels are chilling:
Tablet Magazine, June 3, 2021
“The New York Times’ ‘Nazi Correspondent’: As Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany and then embarked on his program of world conquest and mass extermination, The New York Times’ Berlin bureau chief was busy slanting the news in his favor” by Laurel Leff
“At the outbreak of the Second World War, The New York Times bureau chief in Berlin, Guido Enderis, was known to sit in the bar of the city’s famous Adlon Hotel spouting “a loudmouthed defense of Nazism,” eventually provoking another reporter to complain to the Times’ publisher: “Isn’t it about time that The New York Times did something about its Nazi correspondent?”
But the Times had no intention of doing anything about Enderis. In fact, it valued his close connections to the Nazi government, as it had throughout the 1930s….”
“…….Throughout the 1930s, Enderis helped steer Times coverage to play down Jewish persecution and play up Germany’s peaceful intentions. He kowtowed to Nazi officials, wrote stories presenting solely the Nazi point of view, and reined in Times reporters whose criticism he thought went too far, shaping the news in favor of a genocidal regime bent on establishing a “Thousand Year Reich.”
“….To be clear, the Times had no agenda to bolster Nazism. In fact, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the Times publisher during most of the Nazi era, detested Hitler and advocated U.S. intervention to stop German aggression. Nor was Enderis a Nazi collaborator—a charge that should be leveled carefully, given that Nazi propaganda services actually enlisted American correspondents.
Instead, what crippled the Times coverage of Hitler and the Nazis was a timidity and deference to authority born of being an institution controlled by Jews who desperately wanted to fit into WASP society. Rather than run the slightest risk of being tossed out of Nazi Germany and causing a ruckus over its Jewish ownership, the Times let a figure like Enderis—a pitiful ally of some of history’s greatest villains—lead its Berlin bureau during its most consequential decade.”
“…on Jan. 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany and Berlin became the center of the news universe. Hitler quickly disabled the legislature, opened concentration camps, booted Jews from government and university positions, and took over the domestic press along with all other media.
Rather than figuring out how best to cover these momentous events, Enderis began plotting how best to get in good with the new regime…”
“…The biggest failing of Enderis’ early reporting—and Birchall’s, too—was reading into every move a Nazi drive toward moderation. Enderis’ articles assured: “Hitler threatening Nazi radicals”; “Government accepting counsel from moderate quarter”; “Hitler puts curb on zealous Nazis.” At the same time, the biggest failing of Enderis’ reporting throughout the Nazi era was to offer up, without hesitation or qualification, Nazi refutations of criticisms of the regime. When there were “charges abroad of atrocities in this country,” Enderis reported that “the government would not tolerate persecution of the Jews and had established no discrimination against them.” Enderis attributed this denial to “Captain Hermann Wilhelm Goering, Federal Minister without portfolio and commissarial Minister of the Interior in Prussia”—his breathless listing of Nazi titles being another sign of his fealty.
Enderis wrote again and again of Germany’s peaceful intentions despite its expansion into the Saar and Rhineland regions, annexation of Austria, and takeover of Czechoslovakia. “A peaceful, prosperous Europe was envisaged today by Chancellor Hitler in a speech before the Reichstag,” read the beginning of one such story. Enderis continued: “The tenor of the speech was self-assertive, yet free of aggressive emphasis, and it ended on a note that left full scope for diplomatic action or mediation. … If the tone of the speech can be accepted as a gauge, Herr Hitler sincerely desires a peaceful solution of the conflict with Britain and France.” Remarkably, Hitler delivered the speech and Enderis wrote about it five weeks after Germany invaded Poland and ignited World War II. It’s hard to know which took more chutzpah—for Hitler to say it, for Enderis to write it, or for the Times to publish it….”
This is only a small part of the article – it just turns my stomach to read it as it seems to parallel exactly what is going on in the NYT right now. As noted in Adam Liptak’s article finding something good and positive to say about the current Supreme Court. Nothing to worry about here. Just like there was nothing to worry about in Nazi Germany. NYT is filled with stenographer-reporters who can’t see what’s coming (or pretend they cannot) because of their own self-interested desire to please their “valuable sources” in the Supreme Court and the Republican party that their stenography needs. A real journalist doesn’t need those in power to like them. They can report the reality, not the reality that won’t make their Republican sources mad at them and force them to practice real journalism. Hint: real journalism isn’t getting quotes from powerful people because they like you enough to answer your question and know you will write a story that amplifies their narrative. It writing the truth.
LikeLike
Well, time for li’l old Flerp! to eat crow. Mea culpa. I just skimmed through the NY Times and I am disgusted to say that the Times published only at least ten stories since yesterday about the immunity decision, with headlines such as:
Only ten stories that condemned the decision, calling it “monumentally awful,” allowing Trump to “dodge accountability,” highlighting the failure of Justices Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves, enabling Trump to delay his trials until after the election, creating a “lawless presidency.” Oh the normalization!
And below is what the Times’ editorial board had to say about it. The cowardice! The normalization! Look at how the Times treats this decision as just another “most consequential” decision that will permit Presidents to take “once-unimaginable actions,” with “no limit to the kinds of illegal conduct that could be plotted”, even fabricating evidence.” Disgusting! No wonder nobody understands the gravity of this situation — it’s the New York Times’ fault!
The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents
In a stunning finale to its term on Monday morning, the Supreme Court delivered a gift of inestimable worth to Donald Trump and all future presidents who intend to violate the law and their oaths to the Constitution. In a 6-to-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority said that official acts that are central to the presidency are given “absolute immunity” from prosecution. Other acts, even those that reach to the outer edge of a president’s official duties, are “presumptively immune,” the court said, making them much harder to be prosecuted.
The immediate effect of the decision — one of the most consequential ever produced by the court on the subject of presidential powers and constitutional government — was to delay indefinitely the prosecution of Mr. Trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The vote this fall will now almost certainly move forward with no legal accountability for that act. But the long-term danger to the Constitution and the American government is even more serious, particularly given the real possibility that Mr. Trump, whose recent criminal conviction in New York is only the latest demonstration of his contempt for legal boundaries, could be returned to office in just a few months.
As of Monday, the bedrock principle that no one is above the law has been set aside. In the very week that the nation celebrates its founding, the court undermined the reason for the American Revolution by giving presidents what one dissenting justice called a “law-free zone” in which to act, taking a step toward restoring the monarchy that the Declaration of Independence rejected. Presidents can still be impeached for their crimes in office, but it is hard to see how they can ever be prosecuted. They can take once-unimaginable actions, like encouraging an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, with no fear of later going to jail or being held legally accountable.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a blistering dissent along with the other two liberal justices, the ruling creates a series of “nightmare scenarios” for what a president is now allowed to do. “Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
She added: “The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”
The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, significantly raises the stakes of the coming election. Not only does it make clear the importance of a president’s appointments to the Supreme Court — all three of Mr. Trump’s nominees voted to give him the immunity he sought — but it also hands Mr. Trump carte blanche to act even more determinedly in a second term than he did in his first. The chief justice explicitly said that Mr. Trump’s speech and tweets on Jan. 6, 2021, urging his supporters to go to the Capitol and disrupt the certification of the vote, could well be protected as a standard use of the presidential bully pulpit. The court sent the case back to the district court to make factual determinations on that and other questions, a process that, including appeals, will take months if not longer.
And yet we know that Mr. Trump’s speech and tweets led to a violent insurrection. Now that Mr. Trump knows he could get away with that, how much worse would things get in a second term? The most urgent danger is his possible abuse of the legal system, because as the dissent suggests, if every conversation between the president and the Justice Department is considered a protected official act, there is no limit to the kinds of illegal conduct that could be plotted, even fabricating evidence.
What doesn’t count as an official act? The justices in the majority would not say, but it is hard to identify any clear guiding principle — perhaps because they couldn’t find any.
Prior to this decision, there was no grant of criminal immunity to presidents; though the authors of the Constitution gave a form of that privilege to members of Congress, they declined to do so for the chief executive. For a conservative majority that pretends to rely on historical precedent, the newly created standard is remarkable for its lack of basis in the Constitution, law or any precedent of the court. It was made up out of thin air.Editors’ PicksBook Bans Are on the Rise. But Fear of Fiction Is Nothing New.Is Organic Produce Worth the Higher Price?Where to Watch July 4 Fireworks Around New York City
The product of the majority’s invention runs counter to the entire notion of a government based on the rule of law. It also runs counter to the long-settled understanding of a president’s exposure to criminal prosecution, regardless of whether his acts were considered “official.” As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, why would Richard Nixon have accepted a pardon for his role in the Watergate scandal if not because everyone agreed that he could otherwise be prosecuted for his actions?
This same understanding was clear during Mr. Trump’s second impeachment trial, in 2021, when his lawyers insisted to senators that acquitting Mr. Trump for his actions on and around Jan. 6 would not leave him “in any way above the law.” They acknowledged that a former president “is like any other citizen and can be tried in a court of law.”
Not any more. In Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s words, it’s “a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our government.”
Chief Justice Roberts tried to dismiss the concerns about the implications of the court’s ruling by saying that “the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official. The president is not above the law.”
But unofficial acts, like a campaign speech, were never at the core of this dispute. Even Mr. Trump’s attorneys conceded he was not immune from prosecution for unofficial acts. The problem is that the scope of what is “official,” according to this court, has no definition. The majority refused to label any of Mr. Trump’s actions as clearly unofficial, even actions that Mr. Trump’s own attorneys conceded were not official, such as conspiring to organize fraudulent slates of electors.
“The courts have spoken,” Mr. Trump said after the ruling. As always, the only legitimate outcomes Mr. Trump recognizes in American government are the ones that benefit him personally. This is the attitude he has promised to bring to the 2024 election. If he loses, he has already said it will be because of fraud. If he wins, he will take the message the court gave him on Monday and act accordingly. And the country will undoubtedly be left worse off for it.
LikeLike
Well, time for li’l old Flerp! to eat some crow. Mea culpa. I just skimmed through the NY Times and I am disgusted to say that the Times published only at least ten stories since yesterday about the immunity decision, with headlines such as:
Only ten stories that condemned the decision, calling it “monumentally awful,” allowing Trump to “dodge accountability,” highlighting the failure of Justices Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves, enabling Trump to delay his trials until after the election, creating a “lawless presidency.” Oh the normalization!
And below is what the Times’ editorial board had to say about it. The cowardice! The normalization! Look at how the Times treats this decision as just another “most consequential” decision that will permit Presidents to take “once-unimaginable actions,” with “no limit to the kinds of illegal conduct that could be plotted”, even fabricating evidence.” Disgusting! No wonder nobody understands the gravity of this situation — it’s the New York Times’ fault!
The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents
In a stunning finale to its term on Monday morning, the Supreme Court delivered a gift of inestimable worth to Donald Trump and all future presidents who intend to violate the law and their oaths to the Constitution. In a 6-to-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority said that official acts that are central to the presidency are given “absolute immunity” from prosecution. Other acts, even those that reach to the outer edge of a president’s official duties, are “presumptively immune,” the court said, making them much harder to be prosecuted.
The immediate effect of the decision — one of the most consequential ever produced by the court on the subject of presidential powers and constitutional government — was to delay indefinitely the prosecution of Mr. Trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The vote this fall will now almost certainly move forward with no legal accountability for that act. But the long-term danger to the Constitution and the American government is even more serious, particularly given the real possibility that Mr. Trump, whose recent criminal conviction in New York is only the latest demonstration of his contempt for legal boundaries, could be returned to office in just a few months.
As of Monday, the bedrock principle that no one is above the law has been set aside. In the very week that the nation celebrates its founding, the court undermined the reason for the American Revolution by giving presidents what one dissenting justice called a “law-free zone” in which to act, taking a step toward restoring the monarchy that the Declaration of Independence rejected. Presidents can still be impeached for their crimes in office, but it is hard to see how they can ever be prosecuted. They can take once-unimaginable actions, like encouraging an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, with no fear of later going to jail or being held legally accountable.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a blistering dissent along with the other two liberal justices, the ruling creates a series of “nightmare scenarios” for what a president is now allowed to do. “Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
She added: “The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”
The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, significantly raises the stakes of the coming election. Not only does it make clear the importance of a president’s appointments to the Supreme Court — all three of Mr. Trump’s nominees voted to give him the immunity he sought — but it also hands Mr. Trump carte blanche to act even more determinedly in a second term than he did in his first. The chief justice explicitly said that Mr. Trump’s speech and tweets on Jan. 6, 2021, urging his supporters to go to the Capitol and disrupt the certification of the vote, could well be protected as a standard use of the presidential bully pulpit. The court sent the case back to the district court to make factual determinations on that and other questions, a process that, including appeals, will take months if not longer.
And yet we know that Mr. Trump’s speech and tweets led to a violent insurrection. Now that Mr. Trump knows he could get away with that, how much worse would things get in a second term? The most urgent danger is his possible abuse of the legal system, because as the dissent suggests, if every conversation between the president and the Justice Department is considered a protected official act, there is no limit to the kinds of illegal conduct that could be plotted, even fabricating evidence.
What doesn’t count as an official act? The justices in the majority would not say, but it is hard to identify any clear guiding principle — perhaps because they couldn’t find any.
Prior to this decision, there was no grant of criminal immunity to presidents; though the authors of the Constitution gave a form of that privilege to members of Congress, they declined to do so for the chief executive. For a conservative majority that pretends to rely on historical precedent, the newly created standard is remarkable for its lack of basis in the Constitution, law or any precedent of the court. It was made up out of thin air.
The product of the majority’s invention runs counter to the entire notion of a government based on the rule of law. It also runs counter to the long-settled understanding of a president’s exposure to criminal prosecution, regardless of whether his acts were considered “official.” As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, why would Richard Nixon have accepted a pardon for his role in the Watergate scandal if not because everyone agreed that he could otherwise be prosecuted for his actions?
This same understanding was clear during Mr. Trump’s second impeachment trial, in 2021, when his lawyers insisted to senators that acquitting Mr. Trump for his actions on and around Jan. 6 would not leave him “in any way above the law.” They acknowledged that a former president “is like any other citizen and can be tried in a court of law.”
Not any more. In Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s words, it’s “a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our government.”
Chief Justice Roberts tried to dismiss the concerns about the implications of the court’s ruling by saying that “the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official. The president is not above the law.”
But unofficial acts, like a campaign speech, were never at the core of this dispute. Even Mr. Trump’s attorneys conceded he was not immune from prosecution for unofficial acts. The problem is that the scope of what is “official,” according to this court, has no definition. The majority refused to label any of Mr. Trump’s actions as clearly unofficial, even actions that Mr. Trump’s own attorneys conceded were not official, such as conspiring to organize fraudulent slates of electors.
“The courts have spoken,” Mr. Trump said after the ruling. As always, the only legitimate outcomes Mr. Trump recognizes in American government are the ones that benefit him personally. This is the attitude he has promised to bring to the 2024 election. If he loses, he has already said it will be because of fraud. If he wins, he will take the message the court gave him on Monday and act accordingly. And the country will undoubtedly be left worse off for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Flerp!
LikeLike
Like I said, there is coverage for ONE DAY. You just cited the coverage on day 1.
I just looked at the NYT website front page and it was 6 anti-Biden articles and the one Adam Liptak article assuring us that the Supreme Court was not something to be very concerned about since the 3 Trump justices were actually not all that conservative when compared to Thomas and Alito.
Why hasn’t Trump’s unfitness for office ever been covered in the manner that Biden’s is? No flood the zone coverage, which tells readers that Trump’s unfitness for office is not important. Biden’s is so important that even though the NYT informed readers about it 5 times a day for 4 days straight, they know readers must hear about it much more.
I would have been fine with one day post-debate that had 10 negative Biden debate stories, followed by radio silence the way they do when Trump demonstrates his unfitness for office because “the public already knows, so it’s not worth reporting.”
That isn’t what happened. You posted headlines to stories from the first day, and I doubt very much you will find anything new on Wednesday – the current website barely covers it now.
LikeLike
No, it’s over two days. And I likely missed others. But then even so, perhaps the Times will fail to write a sufficient number of negative stories about the immunity decision on days 3, 4, or 5. Or perhaps they will write more negative stories about the immunity decision that some readers don’t notice. Normalization!
LikeLike
flerp! says “I likely missed others.” I would say that is UNlikely since a closer look demonstrates that you couldn’t even find 10 headlines.
What you DEFINITELY did is weaken your case by including two old headlines – one from February, one from June – to support your statement that “the Times published only at least ten stories since yesterday about the immunity decision”.
Given your inclusion of two old headlines that don’t support your claims, I am skeptical that there are lots of stories you “missed” that support your view. Especially when two of the other headlines you cited were a single news story about the immunity decision that gratuitously bashed BIDEN!
Of the 7 headlines remaining on your list, 6 were op ed pieces, not news stories. The one news story was a classic “both sides disagree” piece – not negative news coverage of the decision.
Thank you for providing convincing evidence to support my comment that the NYT news coverage minimized the Supreme Court immunity decision, presenting it as if it was an unimportant decision with little impact – with “both sides” reporting informing readers that the jury is still out as to whether the decision was good or bad.
LikeLike
I will also take the time later to directly check the links, but if you want to post some newly written stories that are negative about the SC decision, please do. I didn’t see any yet and it is only Day 2. One day coverage informs readers the SC decision is not important.
LikeLike
Things could be worse for Biden. I hear today RFK Jr. has been defending himself about having been photographed with a barbecued dog.
LikeLike
14 years of heroin abuse, eating dog.
He and Kristi Noem should team up for 2028. She can shoot the dog. He and his brain tape worm can eat it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bob, your proposal for an RFK-Noem ticket is hilarious!
LikeLike
The “Parboil the Pooch” Platform
LikeLike
It’s way worse than you imagine. This is not just about Trump or anyone who may follow his suit. The SCOUTUS reaffirms the utmost immunity of any president who took the office in the past and will do so beyond 2024 on whatever acts they conduct in the name of ‘national security’ and ‘order’ while willing to criminalize those who engage in peaceful protests.
LikeLike
flerp! wrote: “the Times published only at least ten stories since yesterday about the immunity decision” and then included a list of headlines that allegedly contradict my point that the NYT coverage of Biden’s debate decision was far more negative and long lasting than their coverage of the immunity decision.
But flerp!’s characterization of the headlines he posted was not accurate. Which made flerp!’s “evidence” far less convincing.
First, flerp! incorrectly included two headlines from articles that were written before the immunity decision came out!
“In taking up Trump’s immunity claim, the Supreme Court bolstered his delay strategy.” This is from FEBRUARY! Not one of “at least ten stories since yesterday about the immunity decision”. It is over 4 months old.
“Thomas and Alito took part in the case, despite calls for their recusal.” – that headline isn’t even about the immunity case at all and was published days before anyone knew what the immunity decision would be. It doesn’t belong in a list of headlines about the immunity decision that supposedly came out since Monday.
Once those mischaracterized headlines are removed, there are only 8 headlines left to support flerp!’s statement that “the Times published only at least ten stories since yesterday about the immunity decision.”
But there aren’t even 8 because two of the headlines aren’t separate stories – they are one story. Even worse, the single story they relate to makes a gratuitous but very prominent swipe at Biden’s debate performance! Here they are:
“Biden Warns That Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Will Embolden Trump: The president, UNDER SCRUTINY since his DAMAGING debate appearance last week, did not stumble or falter during his brief remarks.”
“Supreme Court’s Immunity Decision Sets ‘Dangerous Precedent,’ Biden Says” (This 2nd headline is NOT an article, it is simply an audio excerpt from Biden’s press conference that is part of the same article above where the NYT informs readers that Biden, UNDER SCRUTINY FOR HIS DAMAGING DEBATE APPEARANCE, criticizes Trump.”)
So flerp! cites a news article that reminds readers that Biden’s debate appearance was very concerning, to undermine my criticisms of the NYT for their reporting that amplified the “Biden is old and that is a huge concern” meme and minimized the dangers of the Supreme Court immunity decision.
So what’s left from the headlines that flerp! cited? A single news story that is a prime example of NYT’s news coverage that excludes the danger caused by the immunity decision.
“Immunity Ruling Escalates Long Rise of Presidential Power” (This is not negative, it is a typical “both sides” article that simply reports that the Supreme Court made this unprecedented decision, and while some partisan Dems are outraged, Justice Roberts brushed off complaints. And, by the way, the NYT tells us that it turns out that there was no need for Ford to pardon Nixon!)
Every one of the remaining 5 headlines flerp! cited that covered the immunity decision were OPINION pieces. The essays were certainly critical, but they were presented as an op ed writer’s partisan opinion. There were also OPINION pieces about the debate that were rabidly anti-Biden.
flerp! provides a list of articles that actually supports my criticism of the NYT. There is no news reporting that would inform readers that the Supreme Court decision is concerning and impactful, or even dangerous, which is in contrast to their endless “Biden debate” coverage. The implicit message is that the Supreme Court decision is no big deal because even the liberal NYT presents it as no big deal, by covering it for a couple days only as a “both sides” news story. Some partisan folks on the op ed page have their opinion, but it’s just that – an opinion and not news.
With Biden, the NEWS coverage was – and still is after six days – about what a huge concern Biden’s debate performance was. With the immunity decision, the news coverage covered the decision as if it was just another day in the office. For one day. Then it’s not concerning enough to cover anymore.
Less than 48 hours after the decision, the only NYT reporting left is Adam Liptak’s article that implies that the court moved toward the center this term! Not that this court became a danger to democracy, but that Thomas and Alito’s influence waned. Nothing to worry about, folks:
“By today, In a Volatile Term, a Fractured Supreme Court Remade America: Amid signs of dysfunction and disarray, Chief Justice John Roberts reasserted his authority, while the influence of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito waned.”
While even six days later, “Biden’s age is a huge concern” have not slowed down, with multiple NEWS articles still reminding voters to be very, very concerned.
In short:
There were no multiple NEWS stories in the NYT informing readers of how troubling and concerning the Supreme Court immunity decision is. That is mere “opinion”, not news. The decision is of so little import that news coverage has all but disappeared after 48 hours.
But the NYT has no qualms informing readers about how troubling and concerning Biden’s debate performance is, in multiple news stories daily, even 6 days later. The narrative that Biden’s age and cognitive failings are of grave importance that should make voters have strong reservations about Biden’s fitness is NEWS, not opinion.
The narrative that the Supreme Court has gone dangerously rogue is just an opinion, not something of such grave importance that voters should have strong reservations or be reminded of it for more than a day.
The now scanty news coverage of the Supreme Court is that whether the immunity decision is of any concern is still up for debate. I WISH the NYT had covered Biden’s debate that way. The only debate seems to be HOW dangerous it would be if the cognitively impaired Biden doesn’t step aside.
This is the reason I am now resigned to Biden being replaced on the ticket so the new Dem can lose to Trump. Biden is the Dems best chance to defeat Trump, but not when every NYT news story is infected with the “Voters must be very concerned about Biden’s age” narrative.
I only wish the NYT thought voters should be concerned about the Supreme Court. Or about Trump’s unfitness. But instead they treat those true narratives as just opinions.
LikeLike
OK. This is nowhere near your personal record. See if you can’t write another gazillion and a half posts about how Flerp is wrong about the New York Times, since this is of course the most pressing issue of our time.
LikeLike
It is pressing to make sure people are informed, not MISinformed.
As I said before, I find it odd that you are embracing the idea that if both sides complain about NYT coverage, then it is isn’t biased. Because that is the excuse made by the NYT education reporters when they disrespect Diane Ravitch’s carefully rendered views. Sure Diane supports her views with evidence and the privatizers support their views with nonsense, but the important thing is that “both sides” say the NYT is biased, so NYT reporting on public education is good.
I understand why you don’t want to counter a false narrative yourself, but how dare you barge in to try to shut me up. I am simply defending what I said about the NYT news coverage. flerp! tried to contradict me, but the evidence he presented was extremely weak, and 2 headlines were flat out wrong.
Your bias against me is getting tiresome. Your joy when flerp! supposedly puts me in my place is misplaced. Folks like you are what makes me want to give up defending public schools. Folks like you are why I stopped posting here. It’s why Greg B is gone. Linda has gone. Funny how they were the ones who recognized the danger this country was in long before everyone else.
Clearly I need to stop posting again so you can all be reassured by flerp!’s carefully gathered evidence that Fani Willis committed perjury and the NYT is absolutely fair in its coverage of Biden. How dare I post to challenge false narratives when Bob Shepard isn’t bothered by them.
Bob, we may disagree a lot, but I have never told you not to post a gazillion times on whatever you are concerned about. And you often post many, many, many times about an issue that you are concerned about. I think it’s great. Why not act in a civil manner toward me? I don’t think flerp! needs you to protect him from dangerous old me.
LikeLike
Sorry, NYC PSP. It was just getting tiresome to read the same arguments over and over and over again, but you have a point.
LikeLike
And it’s Shepherd, like a person who herds sheep.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd,
First of all apologies for misspelling your last name. I had a Biden-like “senior moment” when I wrote that comment, because I see your name written out all the time and I know that you spell it this way, but forgot.
Thank you for your gracious reply. Sometimes hearing the words “you have a point” (if the person is actually making a point you agree with) is all that is necessary, if you choose to respond at all. Even if, like me (and sometimes like others here), the comment is much too wordy. Keeps the conversation civil. Not sure what the purpose of responding “yikes” is.
LikeLike
Yikes
LikeLike
If someone points out an error I make, I check to see if it is true and if it is, I acknowledge it.
I know it’s wrong for me to expect the same civil response from you, given your history.
Do I owe you an apology for pointing out your errors? How dare I be so uncivil!
LikeLike
Loosen up!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hinted at this before, but during the long period of your absence from this blog, the comments were never once cluttered up with diatribe upon diatribe from commenters talking about other commenters, bringing up weird old grievances (Fani Willis?), insinuating or outright accusing other commenters of being liars or just bad people. There are like four people in the universe reading these comments. Calm down and get some perspective.
LikeLike
NYC, cut the personal attacks on Flerp. In the past, I have pointed out a ton of errors and/or extreme and implausible statements that you have made and I have even quoted you back to yourself when you denied having said this or that, but never once, to my recollection, have you said, oh, gee, I was wrong. So, your claim of a moral high ground there is simply false. At any rate, this endless harping on Flerp is tedious, tiresome, boorish. It needs to stop.
LikeLike
Bob,
Loosen up!
(just wanted to reply to you in the “civil” way that will make you like me more and stop your attacks.)
Yikes!
Don’t harsh my mellow!
Happy early 4th of July to Bob and flerp!
I hope we are all breathing a sigh of relief next year and not reading the latest best seller “How to Survive in an Autocracy”, by Heather Cox Richardson (currently residing safe from the the Brownshirts somewhere in Canada.)
LikeLike
Happy 4th!
LikeLike
My sincere apologies to Masha Gessen for unwittingly plagiarizing (almost) the title of her important book. I invented an imaginary book, hopefully never to be written by an author I admired.
I should have said:
I hope next July that we are NOT reading the latest edition of “Surviving Autocracy” by Masha Gessen. May that book be so irrelevant to the world next year that it ends up on the shelf of a dusty used bookstore along with the other obsolete fantasy novels.
LikeLike
Masha Gessen is a great gift to the world. A brilliant light in the current darkness.
LikeLike