Archives for category: Ethics
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The New Republic: If Joe Biden Were as Ruthless as Trump

By dianeravitch
July 6, 2024 //
46

The New Republic published a hypothetical speech by Sidney Blumenthal that Joe Biden might give if were as ruthless as Trump. However, he won’t because he is an institutionalist. He believes in the law and the Constitution. He believes, despite the Roberts Court, that no one is above the law, not even the President.

Here is the hypothetical Biden speech:

Good evening, my fellow Americans. With the close of the current session of the Supreme Court, I want to report to you on my compliance with their decisions, especially in the case involving presidential immunity, United States v. Trump.

When I took the oath of office, I swore that I would “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Supreme Court has now reinterpreted that document. The court, for all intents and purposes, has also reinterpreted the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” to replace the “absolute tyranny” of a king. 

I have read the court’s majority opinion that an official act of the president is “presumptively” immune from all prosecution during and after his term, and that the president’s motive cannot be questioned. I have read, according to the majority, that a president who orders the Department of Justice and his vice president to commit election fraud is immune. I have read that a president who incites a mob to attempt to assassinate the vice president for failing to follow those instructions is immune. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, “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.”

Fellow Americans, I have taken the court’s opinion to heart. I am not one to defy the court. I am, as many have remarked, an institutionalist. I believe with all my soul in our institutions. And now, following the letter and the spirit of the court’s ruling, I have acted swiftly, decisively, and enthusiastically to enforce it. I will not, I cannot, shirk my constitutional duty. As Justice Sotomayor states, “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.” 

To begin with, certain “gratuities,” as we shall call them, have been paid to the court majority as a token of appreciation. In their ruling in the case of Snyder v. United States, the majority decided that James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, who cajoled $13,000 from a trucking company after he granted it a city contract, was not liable for bribery. The court stated that it was a “gratuity.” “Gratuities are typically payments made to a public official after an official act as a reward or token of appreciation,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority opinion.

Payment of “gratuities” to the justices who ruled in the majority in y follows the court’s decision in Snyder. It cannot be considered a bribe because it was not promised beforehand. But I do hope, as Justice Kavanaugh wrote, that there is “appreciation.” 

Now, following my strict construction of the court’s ruling on immunity, I can report to the nation that the threat to national security posed by my former political opponent, my late predecessor, has been eliminated. It was an official act. It was, to quote the court, “presumptive.”

The reasons for his removal do not need to be explained. Under the court’s decision, as an official act, it is more than privileged. I hope you understand that I need not disclose the reasons. I must respect the Supreme Court. I can assure the American people that there will be a thorough report that is currently being written by the intelligence community. It is classified. The substance cannot be disclosed—and never can be.

But I do want to tell you that he did have sex with a porn star. She didn’t like it. And he lied about his golf handicap.

Why am I doing this? That’s not admissible. The state of mind of the president, according to the court, is not admissible. My state of mind falls under an official act, so it’s nobody’s business but my own. I am proud of my official acts. I must respect the precedent of keeping secret all my reasons. Otherwise, I would be damaging the presidency for others who might follow in this office.

I regret to inform you that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has been arrested. A number of other members of the House Republican Conference have been taken into custody. Jim Jordan, unfortunately, attempted to resist arrest. After wrestling with an FBI agent, he met a tragic fate. In the sudden absence of those members, there is a new majority in the House. I look forward to a long and cooperative relationship. I can say proudly, gridlock is at last broken. And we can all give thanks to the Supreme Court.

I further regret to inform you that 10 members of the Republican Senate caucus have been arrested. Again, unfortunately, Josh Hawley attempted to run away and was wounded in the leg. The incident was entirely his fault: if only he had submitted to the authorities. Lindsey Graham was arrested in his office. He has renounced all of his former allegiances, and I have issued him a pardon—a conditional pardon. There will be no more obstruction from filibusters. Again, we can thank the court. 

Now, about the court itself, with the present available members of the Congress, I have proposed that the Supreme Court be expanded by 26 justices. I can report that those new justices have already been nominated and approved. Advise and consent is on the fast track. All 26 will be here tomorrow. A longer bench is already under construction.

Tragically, Chief Justice John Roberts has been arrested for his treasonous comment that the president is doing something illegal, based on his very own opinion. I will name a new chief justice after the new 26 members take their posts.

More reform is on the way. The Twenty-Second Amendment prohibiting the president from holding more than two terms will be replaced by the Twenty-Eighth Amendment, which rescinds it. The new amendment has been proposed in the states. I have no doubt that three-quarters of the states, through their legislatures, will be cooperative. In fact, I can promise you that I expect 100 percent cooperation from each and every state legislature on a bipartisan basis. I have alerted FBI offices in every state to assist in our plan to extend democracy. 

To that end, I am creating a new Cabinet department, the Department of Official Acts, to coordinate, simplify, and centralize the far-flung activities of the Department of Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Defense, and other departments and agencies. I am committed to eliminating waste and abuse in official acts.

Moreover, the vice president will head a new office here at the White House, the Office of Reimagining Official Acts, to spur innovation, creativity, and efficiency, and above all the execution of justice. That office will review all of the acts that I take so that they qualify as official.

The Office of Reimagining Official Acts has already held a Zoom conference this morning with all of the Fortune 500 CEOs. Each and every executive without exception has released a statement in support of my official acts and promised full cooperation, with gusto. By the way, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee will hold a press conference to announce the details of the amazing news that our campaign has just received new contributions of $43 billion and counting. 

I can also report that Rupert Murdoch has been arrested for seditious conspiracy, along with his accomplices at Fox News, who have previously been liable for defamation. They have been spewing libels every hour of every day since. That’s as much as I can say. I cannot give another reason without breaking the strictures laid down by the court.

The Supreme Court’s immunity decision has also had a big impact on international relations. I have had a conversation with Vladimir Putin, who told me that he misunderstood me all along, and that after the day’s events here at home, he has decided to withdraw Russian troops from Ukraine. He told me he has the greatest admiration for our form of government now. He said, we can do business, strongman to strongman. 

As for the rest of the campaign, when the Republican National Committee decides on its candidate, I would consider a debate with the ground rules that candidates adhere to national security guidelines, which will be presented as needed—before, during, and after such an event, consistent as official acts.

If any reader of this column can show where anything described here would be illegal under the Supreme Court immunity ruling, please turn yourself in to the nearest FBI bureau to avoid yet another tragic result. Thought is mother to the deed. Thought must be included among the potential threats to be countered by presidential official acts. “Presumptive,” as the court stated, must mean presumptive. And the reason? The president does not need to explain. 

As we celebrate this Fourth of July, in a fervent prayer that the court’s ruling will work out for the best of all possible worlds, I want to say in conclusion, what goes around comes around.

Categories Accountability, Biden, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Fascism, Justice, Trump

Politico: RFK Jr.’s Unsavory Past, Reported in Vanity Fair

By dianeravitch
July 6, 2024 //
16

Politico recounts a story in the new issue of Vanity Fair about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and what makes him tick:

WOWZA — Vanity Fair’s Joe Hagan is out with a buzzy profile of ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. through the lens of his close friends and family, who describe the presidential candidate as a man whose life story is “marked by personal trauma and addiction to drugs, sex, and, perhaps most perniciously of all, public adulation.”

In some of the more alarming stories, Hogan’s report includes …

  • An on-the-record allegation of sexual assault from ELIZA COONEY, who was a young woman Kennedy had hired in the late 1990s to work as a babysitter and personal assistant.
  • A photo of Kennedy posing with the cooked remains of a dog while traveling in Korea. “The photo was taken in 2010, according to the digital file’s metadata — the same year he was diagnosed with a dead tapeworm in his brain.”
  • Allegations that he sent friends sexually explicit photos of women that may not have been taken consensually. 

Writes Hogan: “Theories about Kennedy’s reckless behaviors abound. Long before it was reported, members of the family knew about the brain worm … But more often his family points to Kennedy’s 14 years as a heroin user.”

Categories Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Health, History

Senator Sanders Releases Report Assailing Billionaire-Funded Voucher Movement

By dianeravitch
July 6, 2024 //
24

Senator Bernie Sanders issued a report lambasting the billionaires who are funding the voucher movement. It’s good that someone in Washington, D.C., is paying attention to this mean spirited effort to shift public money to private and religious schools. As scholar Josh. Owen has repeatedly demonstrated, voucher schools have been a disaster for low-performing kids. The main beneficiaries are students from wealthy families whose children are already enrolled in no public schools. Texas is not mentioned in the Sanders release, but billionaires DeVos, Yass, and native Texan billionaires used their wealth to oust anti-voucher Republicans.

Common Dreams reports:

Sen. Bernie Sanders released a report Tuesday detailing how right-wing billionaires are bankrolling coordinated efforts to privatize U.S. public education by promoting voucher programs that siphon critical funding away from already-underresourced public schools.

The report notes that last year, the American Federation for Children (AFC)—an organization funded by former Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos—”ousted state lawmakers in Iowa and Arkansas who resisted proposals to subsidize private education in states and passed expansive private school vouchers.”

Aided by millions of dollars in funding from DeVos and her husband, “AFC’s political affiliates and allies spent $9 million to win 277 out of 368 races to remove at least 40 incumbent lawmakers,” the report adds.

The DeVos family is hardly alone in using its wealth to undercut U.S. public education. The Bradley Foundation, which has been knee-deep in efforts to privatize education in Wisconsin and across the country, spent $7.5 million in 2022 “to fund 34 state affiliates of the State Policy Network to push conservative policy agendas, including privatizing education, and $8.3 million to building a youth movement to ‘win the American Culture War.'”

“The Koch-sponsored group, American Encore, has funneled substantial amounts into state governor races and ballot initiatives around the country, including more than $1.4 million to elect Arizona’s former governor Doug Ducey in 2014 (who led the efforts to create the nation’s first universal private school voucher),” the report adds.

“For too long, there’s been a coordinated effort to sabotage our public schools and privatize our education system. Unacceptable.”

The analysis also names billionaires Jess Yass of Susquehanna International Group, Richard Uihlein of Uline, and Bernard Marcus of Home Depot, all of whom have recently donated to the School Freedom Fund—a PAC that supports voucher programs and shuttering the U.S. Education Department.

School voucher programs disproportionately benefit wealthy families, analyses have shown, while undercutting the goal of serving all students within a community.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Democracy, Disruption, Education Industry, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Vouchers

John Thompson: Is AI a Boon or a Danger?

By dianeravitch
July 5, 2024 //
16

John Thompson is a retired teacher and historian in Oklahoma. I admit that I steer clear of AI, in part because of my innate aversion to “thinking machines” replacing humans. I am biased towards people deciding for themselves, but as I watch the polling numbers in the race for President, I wonder if artificial intelligence might be more trustworthy than people who support a man with Trump’s long record of lying and cheating others.

John Thompson writes:

We live in a nation where reliable polling data reveals that 23% of respondents “strongly believe” or “somewhat believe” that the attacks on the World Trade Center were an “inside job.” Moreover, 1/3rd of polled adults believe that COVID-19 vaccines “caused thousands of sudden deaths,” and 1/3rd also believe the deworming medication Ivermectin was an “effective treatment for COVID-19.” Moreover, 63% of Americans “say they have not too much or no confidence at all in our political system.”

Such falsehoods were not nearly as common in the late 1990s when I first watched my high school students learn how to use digital media. But, I immediately warned my colleagues that we had to get out in front of the emerging technological threat. Of course, my advocacy for digital literacy, critical thinking, and digital ethics was ignored. 

But who knew that misuse of digital media would become so harmful? As Surgeon General Vivek Murthy now explains: 

It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents. 

As a special issue of the Progressive  reports, our  digital ecosystems, with their deepfakes and disinformation are distorting reality, and increasing “human tendencies toward cognitive biases and groupthink.”  It further explains that since 2019 the number of people “who cite social media as their number one source for news has increased by 50 percent.” Moreover:

Half of American adults report that they access their news from social media sometimes or often. For Americans under the age of thirty-four, social media is the number one source for news.

The Progressive further explains that young people “don’t necessarily trust what they read and watch.” They “know that private corporations manipulate political issues and other information to suit their agendas, but may not understand how algorithms select the content that they see.”

We in public education should apologize for failing to do our share of the job of educating youth for the 21st century. Then we should commit to plans for teaching digital literacy.

It seems likely that the mental distress suffered by young people could be a first driver toward healthy media systems. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information:

According to data from several cross-sectional, longitudinal, and empirical research, smartphone and social media use among teenagers relates to an increase in mental distress, self-harming behaviors, and suicidality. Clinicians can work with young people and their families to reduce the hazards of social media and smartphone usage by using open, nonjudgmental, and developmentally appropriate tactics, including education and practical problem-solving.

According to the Carnegie Council:

Social media presents a number of dangers that require urgent and immediate regulation, including online harassment; racist, bigoted and divisive content; terrorist and right-wing calls for radicalization; as well as unidentified use of social media for political advertising by foreign and domestic actors. To mitigate these societal ills, carefully crafted policy that balances civil liberties and the need for security must be implemented in line with the latest cybersecurity developments.

Reaching such a balance will require major investments – and fortitude – from the private sector and government. But it is unlikely that real regulatory change can occur without grassroots citizens’ movements that demand enforcement.

And we must quickly start to take action to prepare for Artificial Intelligence (A.I.). In a New York Times commentary, Evgeny Morozov started with the statement by 350 technology executives, researchers and academics “warning of the existential dangers of artificial intelligence. “Mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority.” He then cited a less-alarming position by the Biden administration which “has urged responsible A.I. innovation, stating that ‘in order to seize the opportunities’ it offers, we ‘must first manage its risks.’” 

Morozov then argued, “It is the rise of artificial general intelligence, or A.G.I., that worries the experts.” He predicted, “A.G.I. will dull the pain of our thorniest problems without fixing them,” and it “undermines civic virtues and amplifies trends we already dislike.”

Morozov later concluded that A.G.I. “may or may not prove an existential threat’ but it has an “antisocial bent.” He warned that A.G.I. often fails “to grasp the messy interplay of values, missions and traditions at the heart of institutions — an interplay that is rarely visible if you only scratch their data surface.”

I lack expertise in A.I. and A.G.I. but it seems clear that the dangers of data, driven by algorithms and other impersonal factors, must be controlled by persons committed to social values. It is essential that schools assume their duty for preparing youth for the 21st century, but they can only do so with a team effort. I suspect the same is true of the full range of interconnected social and political institutions. As Surgeon General Murthy concludes his warning to society about social media:

These harms are not a failure of willpower and parenting; they are the consequence of unleashing powerful technology without adequate safety measures, transparency or accountability.

The moral test of any society is how well it protects its children.

Categories Disruption, Ethics, Freedom, Technology

“Democracy”: Jeff Bezos Is Betraying the Guiding Principles of The Washington Post

By dianeravitch
July 5, 2024 //
13

One of our readers uses the sobriquet Democracy. In response to posts about Jeff Bezos’ decision to put the Washington Post in the hands of Will Lewis, a Murdoch-trained publisher and editor, Democracy writes:

When Eugene Meyer bought The Washington Post in 1933 he established a set of guiding principles for the newspaper and its employees.

The first was” to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained.”

The other principles included:

*  “The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners.”

*  “The Newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it.”

*  “In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such course be necessary for the public good.”

*  “The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs.”

I think it’s fair to say that there has been some genuine “slippage” under Jeff Bezos.

Categories Ethics, Media

Seth Abramson: Why MAGA Wants Biden to Step Down

By dianeravitch
July 3, 2024 //
142

Seth Abramson is a veteran journalist. He writes here about why MAGA is trying to push Biden out of the race: He’s the best candidate against Trump.

He begins:

Let’s cut to the chase: President Joe Biden is not going to end his 2024 campaign over a single poor debate performance, any more than Donald Trump did in 2020 after a first-in-the-cycle debate performance that voters conclusively told pollsters was worse than the one yesterday by this sitting president.


President Biden will stay in the race not simply because he’s already the nominee; not simply because there’s no mechanism to force him to exit; not simply because major media’s and politicos’ hyperventilating response to his debate performance yesterday—about 40% of voters appear to think he won the debate, and only 5% said it changed their vote (a sentiment unlikely to survive beyond a day in any case)—fails to take into account that the president had a cold, is a lifelong stutterer, performed much better as the debate went along, told a fraction of the number of lies his rival did, and saw his intermittent “old man” optics repeatedly belied by his conspicuous command of facts, policy, and history (check the transcript of the debate if you doubt this); no, Joe Biden will not step away from the 2024 election cycle because it would hand the presidency, beyond any doubt, to a confirmed rapist, serial sexual assailant, active insurrectionist, convicted felon, pathological liar, malignant narcissistic sociopath, gleeful adulterer, career criminal, unrepentant con man, traitorous would-be U.S. dictator, misogynist, antisemite, racist, homophobe, transphobe, Islamophobe, and budding war criminal.


Why would a Biden exit ensure a Trump victory?

Let us zoom through some reasons:


(1) Nobody now polls, or has ever polled, better against Trump than Biden. Rightly or not, it appears that at present American independents prefer one particular old white man to Donald Trump over any other option available to them. It is true now, and it was true in 2018 when Joe Biden first floated a presidential run and behind the scenes Trump and his team concluded that Biden was the biggest threat to his re-election. Team Trump thought so then—and turned out to be right—and it thinks so still. Why? Because all the polls say so. No poll has anyone else close to Trump, and Republicans are well aware of this.

(2) Biden has beat Trump before. Even if we ignore polls, we cannot ignore results. Joe Biden beat the pants off Trump in the popular vote and Electoral College in 2020, and the results weren’t that close. Biden picked up states Democrats thought they couldn’t get, more than doubled Hillary Clinton’s popular-vote margin over Trump, and did all this while, well, old. Was he less old in 2020 than today? Yes, of course. But he was still a stutterer who sometimes loses his train of thought, misspeaks, and underperforms in many debates and interviews. Nevertheless, voters decided that they liked him, trusted him, and believed he’d surrounded himself with great advisers. Which he did.


(3) Biden has had—unlike Trump—a successful presidency. Nonpartisan historians now universally rank President Biden in the Top 20 presidents ever. Yes, really; feel free to Google it. They do this because the Biden administration has gotten results, even when and as they have not been widely reported by the media. But the results are there even if you’re not a historian: inflation is easing, the economy is healthy, crime is down, COVID-19 is under control, we’re out of Afghanistan, NATO is stronger than ever, and the Executive Order the president just signed on the border has clearly had a major and immediate effect on reducing border crossings. Unemployment’s low and Biden has avoided any major scandals. Foreign leaders like him and trust him. By comparison, nonpartisan historians universally rank Donald Trump among the worst five presidents in American history due to his rank incompetence, deceit, corruption, and moral depravity. Why would the Democrats trade a Top 20 president for some as-yet unnamed pol who is untested on the national stage and has no POTUS track record?

Please open the link and finish reading.

Categories Biden, Character, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Trump

Heather Cox Richardson: The Supreme Court Amended Our Constitution

By dianeravitch
July 3, 2024 //
18

Heather Cox Richardson brilliantly dissected the U.S. Supreme Court’s shocking decision about Presidential immunity. The Court abandoned the foundational principle of our country that “no one is above the law.” As she points out, even the justices reiterated that principle at their hearings. To read the sources, open the link or subscribe.

She wrote:

Today the United States Supreme Court overthrew the central premise of American democracy: that no one is above the law. 

It decided that the president of the United States, possibly the most powerful person on earth, has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for crimes committed as part of the official acts at the core of presidential powers. The court also said it should be presumed that the president also has immunity for other official acts as well, unless that prosecution would not intrude on the authority of the executive branch.

This is a profound change to our fundamental law—an amendment to the Constitution, as historian David Blight noted. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that a president needs such immunity to make sure the president is willing to take “bold and unhesitating action” and make unpopular decisions, although no previous president has ever asserted that he is above the law or that he needed such immunity to fulfill his role. Roberts’s decision didn’t focus at all on the interest of the American people in guaranteeing that presidents carry out their duties within the guardrails of the law. 

But this extraordinary power grab does not mean President Joe Biden can do as he wishes. As legal commentator Asha Rangappa pointed out, the court gave itself the power to determine which actions can be prosecuted and which cannot by making itself the final arbiter of what is “official” and what is not. Thus any action a president takes is subject to review by the Supreme Court, and it is reasonable to assume that this particular court would not give a Democrat the same leeway it would give Trump. 

There is no historical or legal precedent for this decision. The Declaration of Independence was a litany of complaints against King George III designed to explain why the colonists were declaring themselves free of kings; the Constitution did not provide immunity for the president, although it did for members of Congress in certain conditions, and it provided for the removal of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors”—what would those be if a president is immune from prosecution for his official acts? The framers worried about politicians’ overreach and carefully provided for oversight of leaders; the Supreme Court today smashed through that key guardrail. 

Presidential immunity is a brand new doctrine. In February 2021, explaining away his vote to acquit Trump for inciting an insurrection, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who had also protected Trump in his first impeachment trial in 2019, said: “Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office…. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation, and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”

But it was not just McConnell who thought that way. At his confirmation hearing in 2005, now–Chief Justice John Roberts said: “I believe that no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution, and statutes.” 

In his 2006 confirmation hearings, Samuel Alito said: “There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.” 

And in 2018, Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate: “No one’s above the law in the United States, that’s a foundational principle…. We’re all equal before the law…. The foundation of our Constitution was that…the presidency would not be a monarchy…. [T]he president is not above the law, no one is above the law.”

Now they have changed that foundational principle for a man who, according to White House officials during his term, called for the execution of people who upset him and who has vowed to exact vengeance on those he now thinks have wronged him. Over the past weekend, Trump shared an image on social media saying that former Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), who sat on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, was guilty of treason and calling for “televised military tribunals” to try her. 

Today, observers illustrated what Trump’s newly declared immunity could mean. Political scientist Norm Ornstein pointed out that Trump could “order his handpicked FBI Director to arrest and jail his political opponents. He can order the IRS to put liens on the property of media companies who criticize him and jail reporters and editors.” Legal analyst Joyce White Vance noted that a president with such broad immunity could order the assassination of Supreme Court justices, and retired military leader Mark Hertling wrote that he was “trying to figure out how a commander can refuse an illegal order from someone who is issuing it as an official act.” 

Asha Rangappa wrote: “According to the Court, a President could literally provide the leader of a hostile adversary with intelligence needed to win a conflict in which we are involved, or even attack or invade the U.S., and not be prosecuted for treason, because negotiating with heads of state is an exclusive Art. II function. In case you were wondering.” Trump is currently under indictment for retaining classified documents. “The Court has handed Trump, if he wins this November, carte blanche to be a ‘dictator on day one,’ and the ability to use every lever of official power at his disposal for his personal ends without any recourse,” Rangappa wrote. “This election is now a clear-cut decision between democracy and autocracy. Vote accordingly.”

Trump’s lawyers are already challenging Trump’s conviction in the election interference case in which a jury found him guilty on 34 counts. Over Trump’s name on social media, a post said the decision was “BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND WISE, AND CLEARS THE STENCH FROM THE BIDEN TRIALS AND HOAXES, ALL OF THEM, THAT HAVE BEEN USED AS AN UNFAIR ATTACK ON CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S POLITICAL OPPONENT, ME. MANY OF THESE FAKE CASES WILL NOW DISAPPEAR, OR WITHER INTO OBSCURITY. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife was deeply involved in the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, also took a shot at the appointment of special counsels to investigate such events. Thomas was not the only Justice whose participation in this decision was likely covered by a requirement that he recuse himself: Alito has publicly expressed support for the attempt to keep Trump in office against the will of voters. Trump appointed three of the other justices granting him immunity—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—to the court.

In a dissent in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that because of the majority’s decision, “[t]he 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.”

“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy,” she wrote, “I dissent.” 

Today’s decision destroyed the principle on which this nation was founded, that all people in the United States of America should be equal before the law.

The name of the case is “Donald J. Trump v. United States.” 

Categories Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Justice, Trump

Greg Olear: Six Justices Doing Their Best to End American Democracy

By dianeravitch
July 2, 2024 //
23

Greg Olear writes a terrific blog called PREVAIL about whatever he wants.

He writes about the Supreme Court’s latest decision placing the President above the law, freeing him to commmit crimes with absolute immunity from prosecution. He notes that they ignore history and the clear-cut intentions and writings of the Framers of the Constitution.

He is not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar. He explains in plain language how extreme this decision is by citing the dissenting Justices.

He writes:

A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
—Declaration of Independence

As a lapsed novelist with a robust imagination, I can come up with all kinds of creative ramifications regarding the Supreme Court’s shit-awful ruling in Donald J. Trump v. United States: the so-called Immunity Case.

This is, alas, a waste of time. 

Whatever the MAGA narrative about his alleged crime family, President Biden is as honest as politicians come, and regardless of his newfound kingly powers, he’s not going to recommission Alcatraz and send Trump there, or nationalize Fox News, or deport Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch and Peter Thiel, or sic SEAL Team Six on SCOTUS. The guy won’t even pardon his son—the obvious victim of a humiliating political witch hunt—because he thinks it would be inappropriate. So it’s safe to say he’s not gonna go John Wick on Donald anytime soon. Brandon only runs so dark.

Furthermore, I am neither attorney nor law school graduate nor Supreme Court Kremlinologist. Legal texts bore me. Like, I don’t even like court procedurals. So I’d be lying if I told you I had any idea what the decision augurs for the FPOTUS, the election, or the future of the country. I’m going to defer, instead, to the experts who do know: three sitting Supreme Court Justices.

“The main takeaway of [yesterday]’s decision is that all of a President’s official acts, defined without regard to motive or intent, are entitled to immunity that is ‘at least…presumptive,’ and quite possibly ‘absolute,’” Sonia Sotomayor wrote, in a dissent for the ages. “Whenever the President wields the enormous power of his office, the majority says, the criminal law (at least presumptively) cannot touch him.”

We must presume a POTUS is immune from, basically, any potentially criminal act committed while he was in office. Ah, and who determines what he isn’t immune from? The Supreme Court! Fancy trick, that.

“In sum,” Sotomayor continues, “the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them.”

In her own addendum to the dissent, Ketanji Brown Jackson discusses the IRL impact the decision will have:

In short, America has traditionally relied on the law to keep its Presidents in line. Starting today, however, Americans must rely on the courts to determine when (if at all) the criminal laws that their representatives have enacted to promote individual and collective security will operate as speedbumps to Presidential action or reaction. Once selfregulating, the Rule of Law now becomes the rule of judges, with courts pronouncing which crimes committed by a President have to be let go and which can be redressed as impermissible. So, ultimately, this Court itself will decide whether the law will be any barrier to whatever course of criminality emanates from the Oval Office in the future. The potential for great harm to American institutions and Americans themselves is obvious.

Obvious to anyone who is not a Leonard Leo radical Catholic reactionary weirdo on Harlan Crow’s payroll, that is.

And speaking of Leonard Leo radical Catholic reactionary weirdos, there is an “Easter egg” in the decision! In his concurrence, Clarence Thomas—who violated the law by not recusing from the case, not that Dick Durban gives a shit—shared his unsolicited opinion, clearly directed at the corrupt judge Aileen Cannon, that the Office of the Special Counsel should not exist, constitutionally speaking.

You might want to take your heart medication before reading this excerpt from Thomas’s little addendum, because this is next-level—which is to say, Kremlin-worthy—trolling:

I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.

Wow, someone really doesn’t want that case to go to trial! One can’t help but wonder, reading that oddly specific wording, what Clarence and/or his insurrectionist-adjacent wife might be hiding in regards to January 6th. Does Trump have something on them? Are they trying to protect themselves from eventual prosecution? Are they bona fide True Believers? Or is there something even more insidious happening chezClarence et Ginni?

Thomas may as well have borrowed Trump’s Sharpie and scrawled I AM A TRAITOR—or, better yet, я предател—on the hard copy of the decision. The man is an adenocarcinoma on the prostate of democracy. At this point, we must question, if not fully doubt, Thomas’s allegiance to the United States. 

But the true evil genius of Trump v. United States, if you’re fash, is in the shielding of POTUS communications, such that, even if an act is deemed personal and unofficial, most of the available evidence to prove criminality isn’t admissible in court.

“Not content simply to invent an expansive criminal immunity for former Presidents,” Sotomayor explains, “the majority goes a dramatic and unprecedented step further. It says that acts for which the President is immune must be redacted from the narrative of even wholly private crimes committed while in office. They must play no role in proceedings regarding private criminal acts.”

In her dissent, Sotomayor lays out what the majority—which is to say, the aforementioned Leonard Leo radical Catholic reactionary weirdos—decided, why it’s “atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable,” and the malefic impact it will have on our democracy: (Note: I’m removing the references that appear after every other sentence, to make it easier for us non-lawyers to read.)

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. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent….

The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law. The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. 

Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force. Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. To start, the majority’s broad “official acts” immunity is inconsistent with text, history, and established understandings of the President’s role. Moreover, it is deeply wrong, even on its own functionalist terms. Next, the majority’s “core” immunity is both unnecessary and misguided. Furthermore, the majority’s illogical evidentiary holding is unprecedented. Finally, this majority’s project will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy.

What Trump v. United States does, as I am hardly the first to point out, is turn the president into a king. This is ironic, because for all of Alito’s and Thomas’s bluster about “originalism,” where they ask WWJD (where “J” stands for “Jefferson”), the one thing we Americans—even little kids, ffs!—know for sure about the Founders is that they did not want another king. How do we know this? They wrote a whole fucking letter about it and posted it to George III. You can see a copy at the National Archives Museum.

Anyway, said Troll King of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, worked the George III stuff into his reasoning that Jack Smith has no more authority to indict Donald Trump than Jack White, Jack Black, Jack B. Nimble, or Jack B. Quick. “In fact, one of the grievances raised by the American colonists in declaring their independence was that the King ‘ha[d] erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,’” Thomas writes, no doubt pleased with himself for working “erect” and “eat out” into a concurrence.

“The Founders thus drafted the Constitution with ‘evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to that of the British king,’” he continues, noting that they “broke from the monarchial model by giving the President the power to fill offices (with the Senate’s approval), but not the power to create offices. They did so by ‘imposing the constitutional requirement that new officer positions be “established by Law” rather than through a King-like custom of the head magistrate unilaterally creating new offices.’”

In short, Clarence Thomas is attempting to eighty-six Jack Smith on the grounds that the Founders explicitly rejected a “monarchial model,” while simultaneously arguing that Trump should be given kingly powers.

These bought-and-paid-for fascists are just fucking with us at this point.

The last six paragraphs of Sotomayor’s dissent are, in a word, chilling. Again, I’ve not read many Supreme Court decisions, but I’d be surprised if this were not the first one that mentioned the possibility of a president tapping SEAL Team Six to whack a political rival. 

There’s no way to sugarcoat it: this is the senior liberal justice on the Supreme Court freaking the fuck out about what Roberts and his reactionary chums have unleashed. Lines from this section have been quoted in every article published about the decision, but I’m going to include the entire excerpt, for maximum impact:

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. 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.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. 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 majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the Constitution “combines . . . all the requisites to energy,” Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?” The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the common course of law.” The answer after today is no.

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.

With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

Six weeks ago, Sotomayor spoke at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, where she was honored with an award. She was remarkably candid about her experience working with six fascists. “There are days that I’ve come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried,” she said. “There have been those days. And there are likely to be more.”

I wonder if the immunity case was one of the times Sotomayor wept in her office—or if the ugly future it portends was too horrifying for the tears to come.

Share

Photo credit: George III and an admirer.

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, History, Trump

Jamelle Boule: “If the President Does It, It’s Not Illegal”

By dianeravitch
July 2, 2024 //
28

Jamelle Bouie is an opinion writer for The New York Times. He writes with exceptional insight and clarity. In this column, he explains the radical, unprecedented nature of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity. The majority claims to be “originalists,” paying strict attention to the meaning of the words of those who wrote the Constitution, but this decision clearly demonstrates their complete indifference to the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. The Framers created a strong balance of power among the three branches of the Federal Government; this Court negates those checks and balances.

With this ruling, Trump vs. US, the six member majority of the Supreme Court has shown that they are rank partisans. Their overriding objective was to protect Trump, first, by dragging out their decision as long as possible; second, by remanding the case to a District Court, where it may require months of hearings and appeals to determine which acts are official and which are not; and third, by affirming Trump’s once-absurd claim that the President can do whatever he wants and it’s not illegal.

The Roberts Court is a disgrace.

Jamelle Bouie writes:

In 1977, nearly three years after leaving office in disgrace, President Richard Nixon gave a series of interviews to David Frost, a British journalist. Of their hourslong conversations, only one part would enter history.

“When the president does it,” Nixon told Frost, defending the conduct that ended his presidency, “that means that it is not illegal.” He went on to add that if “the president approves an action because of the national security — or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude — then the president’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law.” Otherwise, Nixon concluded, “they’re in an impossible position.”

Yesterday, in a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, the Supreme Court affirmed Nixon’s bold assertion of presidential immunity. Ruling on the federal prosecution of Donald Trump for his role in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the president has “absolute immunity” for “official acts” when those acts relate to the core powers of the office.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” Roberts writes. “At least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity.”

The majority divides official conduct from “unofficial conduct,” which is still liable for prosecution. But it doesn’t define the scope of “unofficial conduct” and places strict limits on how courts and prosecutors might try to prove the illegality of a president’s unofficial acts. “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives,” Roberts writes. “Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protest.” In other words, the why of a president’s actions cannot be held as evidence against him, even if they’re plainly illegitimate.

Roberts tries to apply this new, seemingly extra-constitutional standard to the facts of the case against the former president. He says that the president “has ‘exclusive authority and absolute discretion’ to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime” and may “discuss potential investigations and prosecutions” with Justice Department officials, effectively neutering the idea of independent federal law enforcement. Turning to Trump’s attempt to pressure Mike Pence into delaying certification of the Electoral College, Roberts says that this too was an official act.

Having made this distinction between “official” and “unofficial” conduct, Roberts remands the case back to a Federal District Court so that it can re-examine the facts and decide whether any conduct described in the indictment against Trump is prosecutable.

The upshot of this decision is that it will delay the former president’s trial past the election. And if Trump wins he can quash the case, rendering it moot. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has, in other words, successfully kept the American people from learning in a court of law the truth of Trump’s involvement on Jan. 6.

But more troubling than the court’s interference in the democratic process are the disturbing implications of the majority’s decision, which undermines the foundations of republican government at the same time that it purports to be a strike in defense of the constitutional order.

Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution does not exist in the Constitution, Justice Sonia Sotomayor observes in her dissent. The historical evidence, she writes, “cuts decisively against it.” By definition, the president was bound by law. He was, first and foremost, not a king. He was a servant of the public, and like any other servant, the framers believed he was subject to criminal prosecution if he broke the law.

And while the majority might say here that the president is still subject to criminal prosecution for “unofficial acts,” Sotomayor aptly notes that the chief justice has created a standard that effectively renders nearly every act official if it can be tied in some way, however tenuously, to the president’s core powers.

If the president takes official action whenever he acts in ways that are “not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority” and if “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives,” then, Sotomayor writes, “Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune.”

A president who sells cabinet positions to the highest bidder is immune. A president who directs his I.R.S. to harass and investigate his political rivals is immune. A president who gives his military illegal orders to suppress protesters is immune.

These examples only scratch the surface of allowable conduct under the majority’s decision. “The court,” Sotomayor writes, “effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.” When he uses his official powers in any way, she continues, “he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. 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.”

The bottom line, Sotomayor concludes, is that “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.”

If the president is a king, then we are subjects, whose lives and livelihoods are only safe insofar as we don’t incur the wrath of the executive. And if we find ourselves outside the light of his favor, then we have find ourselves, in effect, outside the protection of the law.

Roberts says that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is necessary to preserve the separation of powers and protect the “energy” of the executive. But the aim of the separation of powers was not merely to create exclusive spheres of action for each branch — if this were true, the Senate, which ratifies treaties and confirms executive branch appointments, would not exist in its current form — but to prevent the emergence of unchecked authority. Roberts has reversed this. Now separation of powers requires the absolute power of the executive to act without checks, without balances and without limits.

In their relentless drive to protect a Republican president and secure his power for a future administration, the conservative majority has issued a fundamentally anti-republican opinion. In doing so, it has made a mockery of the American constitutional tradition.

By the end of his time in the White House, Nixon was a disgrace. But to the conservative movement, he was something of a hero — hounded out of office by a merciless liberal establishment. One way to tell the story of the Republican Party after Nixon is as the struggle to build a world in which a future Nixon could act unimpeded by law.

Roberts has done more than score a victory for Trump. He has scored a victory for the conservative legal project of a unitary executive of immense power. Besides Trump, he has vindicated the lawlessness of Republican presidents from Nixon to George W. Bush. The Nixonian theory of presidential power is now enshrined as constitutional law.

This time when the president does it, it really won’t be illegal.

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, History, Injustice, Trump

The Worst Supreme Court Decision in Our Lifetime

By dianeravitch
July 2, 2024 //
109

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.


Categories Accountability, Biden, Corruption, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Justice, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »