Trump v United States
July 1, 2024 7:40 AM Subscribe
The Supreme Court has found that: "Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." CNN NYT WaPo
FORMER president?
posted by njohnson23 at 7:42 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 7:42 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
"Joe, wake up, you've just become God-Emperor of America!"
posted by mittens at 7:47 AM on July 1 [52 favorites]
posted by mittens at 7:47 AM on July 1 [52 favorites]
Yeah, what "official" acts does a former President perform other than, I dunno, ribbon-cutting at their official Presidential library? Once you're off the clock as Prez, the magic prosecution shield goes away, right?
posted by Strange Interlude at 7:48 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by Strange Interlude at 7:48 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
If a lower court finds that those actions were not part of official acts he can be tried on them whether or not he's stumbled into the oval office again right?
Right?
posted by mazola at 7:49 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
Right?
posted by mazola at 7:49 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
I was wondering how they'd square the circle of not wanting to grant blanket immunity but punting the actual outcome out past the election. This is how they did it.
posted by tclark at 7:51 AM on July 1 [30 favorites]
posted by tclark at 7:51 AM on July 1 [30 favorites]
So who decides what's official and what's unofficial? Is fomenting an overthrow of the official duties of congress an official act?
As near as I can tell (NAL), this question gets thrown back to the lower courts.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:53 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
As near as I can tell (NAL), this question gets thrown back to the lower courts.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:53 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
This is really bad, but I don't want Corner Post to get buried. They just changed the statute of limitations for appealing a regulation 6 years from when an entity is first injured (instead of 6 years from when it was published). Meaning any new business can challenge any regulation, no matter how old or established.
posted by Garm at 7:53 AM on July 1 [31 favorites]
posted by Garm at 7:53 AM on July 1 [31 favorites]
If he stumbles back into the oval office, he can just pardon himself. If he doesn't, the Supreme Court can just declare all his acts were official. The Supreme Court has just ruled Trump is America's first dictator.
posted by dirigibleman at 7:54 AM on July 1 [29 favorites]
posted by dirigibleman at 7:54 AM on July 1 [29 favorites]
Strange Interlude: "Yeah, what "official" acts does a former President perform other than, I dunno, ribbon-cutting at their official Presidential library? Once you're off the clock as Prez, the magic prosecution shield goes away, right?"
If I understand correctly, this decision is saying that a former president retains immunity for "official acts" performed while in office; it has nothing to do with actions after leaving office.
posted by adamrice at 7:54 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
If I understand correctly, this decision is saying that a former president retains immunity for "official acts" performed while in office; it has nothing to do with actions after leaving office.
posted by adamrice at 7:54 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
If a lower court finds that those actions were not part of official acts he can be tried on them whether or not he's stumbled into the oval office again right?
Even if the district court finds the actions weren't official acts, the conservative majority gave the defense a clear roadmap for how to argue on appeal that 1) actually they were official acts and 2) even if they weren't, the prosecution doesn't have enough admissible evidence to prove it. But none of that will matter if Trump wins because he has clearly stated that he will tell the Department of Justice to drop the case. And between appointing a loyalist attorney general and US Attorneys and Schedule F'ing a bunch of the rest of the Department of Justice, the case would absolutely get dropped.
posted by jedicus at 7:55 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
Even if the district court finds the actions weren't official acts, the conservative majority gave the defense a clear roadmap for how to argue on appeal that 1) actually they were official acts and 2) even if they weren't, the prosecution doesn't have enough admissible evidence to prove it. But none of that will matter if Trump wins because he has clearly stated that he will tell the Department of Justice to drop the case. And between appointing a loyalist attorney general and US Attorneys and Schedule F'ing a bunch of the rest of the Department of Justice, the case would absolutely get dropped.
posted by jedicus at 7:55 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
So... an attempted Coup d'état, Jan 6 flavour... is that an official presidential act?
posted by uncle harold at 7:55 AM on July 1 [17 favorites]
posted by uncle harold at 7:55 AM on July 1 [17 favorites]
Under this opinion, Joe Biden could just order the military to execute Trump and he’d be immune from prosecution because it is a core constitutional responsibility to be the Commander in Chief.
We now live in a goddamned dictatorship with nothing between us and military rule except the good will of the people in the chain of command.
posted by Room 101 at 7:55 AM on July 1 [90 favorites]
We now live in a goddamned dictatorship with nothing between us and military rule except the good will of the people in the chain of command.
posted by Room 101 at 7:55 AM on July 1 [90 favorites]
If this isn't an invitation for an emergency re-balancing of the court, then what is?
What's stopping Biden? Certainly not any laws....
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:56 AM on July 1 [47 favorites]
What's stopping Biden? Certainly not any laws....
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:56 AM on July 1 [47 favorites]
NYT analysis (FWIW)
Chief Justice Roberts’ analysis suggests that Trump talking to Pence about the Electoral College vote might not be entitled to immunity because Congress has legislated extensively to define the vice president’s role, and the president plays no direct part in that process. Chief Justice Roberts suggests that another context — a president talking to a vice president about casting a tie-breaking 51st vote in the Senate on legislation that is part of the White House’s agenda — is more likely to be immune.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:58 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Chief Justice Roberts’ analysis suggests that Trump talking to Pence about the Electoral College vote might not be entitled to immunity because Congress has legislated extensively to define the vice president’s role, and the president plays no direct part in that process. Chief Justice Roberts suggests that another context — a president talking to a vice president about casting a tie-breaking 51st vote in the Senate on legislation that is part of the White House’s agenda — is more likely to be immune.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:58 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Decision here. Time to read (especially the dissents).
posted by mazola at 7:59 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by mazola at 7:59 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
The problem with this immunity ruling for trying to prosecute Trump now is that nothing that is part of an official act can be used as evidence. So firing or threatening to fire an attorney general guy example. Or a speech, tweet, or other communication. None of that could be used as context or to prove intent.
The more general problem is that no official act c of the president can be prosecuted now, and corruption involves official acts by definition. Appointments, vetos, pardons, directing the military, etc are official acts, and so even if bribes are accepted, or they are used for otherwise criminal purposes, they can't be questioned.
posted by Garm at 8:00 AM on July 1 [42 favorites]
The more general problem is that no official act c of the president can be prosecuted now, and corruption involves official acts by definition. Appointments, vetos, pardons, directing the military, etc are official acts, and so even if bribes are accepted, or they are used for otherwise criminal purposes, they can't be questioned.
posted by Garm at 8:00 AM on July 1 [42 favorites]
I mean, Biden could always order the military to execute Trump. Obama demonstrated that the president has that power pretty conclusively.
posted by jy4m at 8:01 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 8:01 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
We're only 10 days out from Trump's sentencing for his felony conviction--get us out of this pickle Judge Merchan!
posted by mittens at 8:02 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by mittens at 8:02 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
So... an attempted Coup d'état, Jan 6 flavour... is that an official presidential act?
Sure, since the Supreme Court will just construe Trump's role in Jan 6 as having official discussions with other executive branch officials about official processes (supervising and certifying elections), and that's now absolutely off-limits from criminal prosecution. Indeed, the discussion itself can't even be used as evidence. So even if the conspiracy had been to, say, distribute military weapons to right-wing militias and have them descend on the Capitol, as long as Trump only spoke with other officials about it, none of those conversations could be used as evidence against him or to prove his intent. It fully legalizes Trump's mafia-style approach to the presidency.
so even if bribes are accepted, or they are used for otherwise criminal purposes, they can't be questioned.
Hell, as long as the bribe is given after the fact, then it's just an innocent "gratuity", as the court very recently declared.
posted by jedicus at 8:05 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
Sure, since the Supreme Court will just construe Trump's role in Jan 6 as having official discussions with other executive branch officials about official processes (supervising and certifying elections), and that's now absolutely off-limits from criminal prosecution. Indeed, the discussion itself can't even be used as evidence. So even if the conspiracy had been to, say, distribute military weapons to right-wing militias and have them descend on the Capitol, as long as Trump only spoke with other officials about it, none of those conversations could be used as evidence against him or to prove his intent. It fully legalizes Trump's mafia-style approach to the presidency.
so even if bribes are accepted, or they are used for otherwise criminal purposes, they can't be questioned.
Hell, as long as the bribe is given after the fact, then it's just an innocent "gratuity", as the court very recently declared.
posted by jedicus at 8:05 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
So who decides what's official and what's unofficial? Is fomenting an overthrow of the official duties of congress an official act?
Agreed. This gets punted down and will get punted back up when the prosecution tries to define which parts of an election are official duties of the President. I was under the belief that the answer to that question was "Zero. None of the duties are part of the office." but, time and time again, the rules will get bent.
posted by JoeZydeco at 8:05 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Agreed. This gets punted down and will get punted back up when the prosecution tries to define which parts of an election are official duties of the President. I was under the belief that the answer to that question was "Zero. None of the duties are part of the office." but, time and time again, the rules will get bent.
posted by JoeZydeco at 8:05 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Biden, rid us of this turbulent child-rapist felon.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:05 AM on July 1 [34 favorites]
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:05 AM on July 1 [34 favorites]
Biden could always order the military to execute Trump. Obama demonstrated that the president has that power pretty conclusively.
Nah, the conservative majority on the court would just declare that to have been an unofficial act. Because any criminal prosecution of a current or former president is always going to end up at the Supreme Court at some point, what the court is really doing here is of a piece with many of its other decisions this term: arrogating to itself the ultimate decisive role in virtually every part of government, and then deciding in favor of conservative policy.
posted by jedicus at 8:07 AM on July 1 [52 favorites]
Nah, the conservative majority on the court would just declare that to have been an unofficial act. Because any criminal prosecution of a current or former president is always going to end up at the Supreme Court at some point, what the court is really doing here is of a piece with many of its other decisions this term: arrogating to itself the ultimate decisive role in virtually every part of government, and then deciding in favor of conservative policy.
posted by jedicus at 8:07 AM on July 1 [52 favorites]
Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson, starts on page 68 of the pdf mazola linked above. Jackson has additional thoughts starting on page 98.
posted by mediareport at 8:07 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 8:07 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Teddy Roosevelt: "No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it."
John Roberts: "Well, actually......"
posted by Frayed Knot at 8:08 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
John Roberts: "Well, actually......"
posted by Frayed Knot at 8:08 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
Gonna need a new Schoolhouse Rock song, I guess.
posted by non canadian guy at 8:10 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
posted by non canadian guy at 8:10 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
"This July Fourth, celebrate the return of the Monarchy!"
posted by mittens at 8:11 AM on July 1 [37 favorites]
posted by mittens at 8:11 AM on July 1 [37 favorites]
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, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump
all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answeringfor criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:11 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
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, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump
all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answeringfor criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:11 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
Once again I'm left asking the question "Why Trump?". Why go through all this trouble and debase the core American principals for that guy? If you're going to end the republic and declare a king, why pick a petulant, erratic man-baby who is just as quick to throw his allies under the bus as his enemies? Why debase yourself, your office, and the Constitution for an ungrateful idiot?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:16 AM on July 1 [106 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:16 AM on July 1 [106 favorites]
Pro-rogue the court. Article 3 requires they be in Good Behavior to hold the office. You can't remove them as officers (that's impeachment), and Congress ain't doing shit, all, or fuck about it unless the GOP can magically find 16 democrats to convict in the Senate.
And now he can't be prosecuted for that and can retaliate against prosecution attempts.
Seize mcfucking power back from the Outback 6 (No rules, just Right) on the court, the advertised plan bellowed from the heavens by the GOP is that they will immediately be running similar plays if they win in November.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:16 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
And now he can't be prosecuted for that and can retaliate against prosecution attempts.
Seize mcfucking power back from the Outback 6 (No rules, just Right) on the court, the advertised plan bellowed from the heavens by the GOP is that they will immediately be running similar plays if they win in November.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:16 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
Even if Biden wins and the case continues, it will be in name only. The question of if an act is really-truly official can be appealed. So the trial court says ok I am applying this new made up test, and these acts are not official, let’s have a trial. Trump appeals to the court of appeals and then there is an appeal to the Supreme Court. That takes maybe 2 years. Repeat as needed forever.
posted by kerf at 8:18 AM on July 1 [12 favorites]
posted by kerf at 8:18 AM on July 1 [12 favorites]
1776-2016, its time to found a new republic. Democracy for all.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 8:20 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 8:20 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
@Kerf, by couching it as "Biden wins", you're playing into the "us vs them" attitude. This is "The People of US" vs. Trump, not Biden vs. Trump.
posted by kschang at 8:20 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
posted by kschang at 8:20 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
JILL BIDEN: Joe, they did it. The Court has ruled that as long as it is an official act, you can do anything you want. You're a god walking the Earth now. What do you want to do next?
JOE BIDEN: (raises himself up, his eyes glowing in Dark Brandon mode) I officially declare that I want some MOTHERFUCKING ICE CREAM.
posted by delfin at 8:22 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
JOE BIDEN: (raises himself up, his eyes glowing in Dark Brandon mode) I officially declare that I want some MOTHERFUCKING ICE CREAM.
posted by delfin at 8:22 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]
Why go through all this trouble and debase the core American principals for that guy?
Why, Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?”
posted by gauche at 8:23 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
Why, Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?”
posted by gauche at 8:23 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
We're only 10 days out from Trump's sentencing for his felony conviction--get us out of this pickle Judge Merchan!
Prepare for disappointment.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:23 AM on July 1 [30 favorites]
Prepare for disappointment.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:23 AM on July 1 [30 favorites]
Roberts directed the lower court to sort through Smith’s indictment, to sift official acts from unofficial ones. He tipped his hand though, classifying some of the charges himself.Source.
Trump’s attempts to leverage the Justice Department to convince states to replace their electors with fake ones — and his threats to replace the acting attorney general — fall under the purview of official acts, so Trump cannot be prosecuted for them.
Disclaimer: I don't see how the president talking to states about electors could possibly be considered "official acts" and I haven't read the decision.
posted by mark k at 8:26 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
I can see a kernel of logic in the underlying idea that a President should enjoy some level of immunity from prosecution for official acts under the core Presidential duties, but the decision here takes it way too far, both in making that immunity absolute and in extending it to goddamn near anything that could remotely be considered an official act, corrupt intent be damned.
posted by wierdo at 8:27 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 8:27 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
"With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
We are all Justice Sotomayor today.
posted by The Bellman at 8:28 AM on July 1 [62 favorites]
We are all Justice Sotomayor today.
posted by The Bellman at 8:28 AM on July 1 [62 favorites]
From the majority opinion:
From the dissent:
As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom[eye roll]
that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually
does today—conclude that immunity extends to official dis-
cussions between the President and his Attorney General,
and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the
first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remain-
ing alleged conduct is entitled to immunity. Supra, at 24,
28, 30.
...
Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since
the founding, no President has ever faced criminal
charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly
no court has ever been faced with the question of a Presi-
dent’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s
practice establishes on the subject is silence.
From the dissent:
The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’sposted by mazola at 8:28 AM on July 1 [60 favorites]
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 “en-
deavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the
Constitution “combines . . . all the requisites to energy,” Al-
exander 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 re-
sponsibility?” The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Li-
brary ed. 2009). The answer then was yes, based in part
upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the
common course of law.” Ibid. 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 occu-
pant of that office misuses official power for personal gain,
the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not pro-
vide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
From TPM:
Roberts directed the lower court to sort through Smith’s indictment, to sift official acts from unofficial ones. He tipped his hand though, classifying some of the charges himself.posted by Going To Maine at 8:29 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Trump’s attempts to leverage the Justice Department to convince states to replace their electors with fake ones — and his threats to replace the acting attorney general — fall under the purview of official acts, so Trump cannot be prosecuted for them
Every goddamn thing Hillary Clinton said was right.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:30 AM on July 1 [85 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:30 AM on July 1 [85 favorites]
Ordering (edit, sorry, 'suggesting') people to do illegal things is an official act? I mean, WTF?
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:31 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:31 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution.
"And therefore, now that we are faced with the question, the obvious correct answer is to be as deferential as possible to presidential power, since that's definitely what the framers had in mind, having just fought a war in opposition to unchecked power in the hands of a single person who enjoyed literal sovereign immunity."
posted by jedicus at 8:31 AM on July 1 [31 favorites]
"And therefore, now that we are faced with the question, the obvious correct answer is to be as deferential as possible to presidential power, since that's definitely what the framers had in mind, having just fought a war in opposition to unchecked power in the hands of a single person who enjoyed literal sovereign immunity."
posted by jedicus at 8:31 AM on July 1 [31 favorites]
Once again I'm left asking the question "Why Trump?" ... why pick a petulant, erratic man-baby
It was the people who picked him. It's been clear since the 2016 primaries that the entire Republican establishment despises him. Now they fear him too much to oppose him, or they think they can control him, an approach which has some risks.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:32 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
It was the people who picked him. It's been clear since the 2016 primaries that the entire Republican establishment despises him. Now they fear him too much to oppose him, or they think they can control him, an approach which has some risks.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:32 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
Joe Biden has the opportunity to do something extremely cool right now
I, for one, prefer the sound of Biden Augustus more than Trump Augustus, though a republic would be nicer.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:32 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
I, for one, prefer the sound of Biden Augustus more than Trump Augustus, though a republic would be nicer.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:32 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
You know what? I've changed my mind a bit.
Trumpers want a divinely powered executive with immunity for all of its official acts? Fine. Biden should resign this afternoon and turn all executive power over to a motivated, angry black woman with prosecutorial experience.
posted by delfin at 8:33 AM on July 1 [95 favorites]
Trumpers want a divinely powered executive with immunity for all of its official acts? Fine. Biden should resign this afternoon and turn all executive power over to a motivated, angry black woman with prosecutorial experience.
posted by delfin at 8:33 AM on July 1 [95 favorites]
I hope this inspires Democrats to finally play some fucking brinksmanship.
It's not as if Republicans haven't spent the last few months broadly telegraphing that they'll prosecute Biden once they have control of the Justice Department. It's not as if Republicans haven't been not-so-subtly suggesting that they will "chill" the Presidency in the exact way that Roberts cites as a reason to grant broad-based immunity for official acts.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:34 AM on July 1 [19 favorites]
It's not as if Republicans haven't spent the last few months broadly telegraphing that they'll prosecute Biden once they have control of the Justice Department. It's not as if Republicans haven't been not-so-subtly suggesting that they will "chill" the Presidency in the exact way that Roberts cites as a reason to grant broad-based immunity for official acts.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:34 AM on July 1 [19 favorites]
"This July Fourth, celebrate the return of the Monarchy!"
That's all conservatism has ever been in this country.
posted by JohnFromGR at 8:34 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
That's all conservatism has ever been in this country.
posted by JohnFromGR at 8:34 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
One assumes the administration, knowing the opinion would come out today, will have prepared a statement outlining what they plan to do about this? Other than exhorting people to vote? I ask because it's been an hour now and I haven't seen anything.
posted by mittens at 8:35 AM on July 1 [17 favorites]
posted by mittens at 8:35 AM on July 1 [17 favorites]
It's so weird that we spent eight years letting Trump get away with whatever the fuck he wanted, only for his handpicked Court majority to codify it in an official ruling.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:36 AM on July 1 [27 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:36 AM on July 1 [27 favorites]
Truth is voting is the democratic remedy to this.
Don't vote a convicted felon into a law-free office is what we're left with.
posted by mazola at 8:39 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Don't vote a convicted felon into a law-free office is what we're left with.
posted by mazola at 8:39 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Roberts court has decided to be utter cowards and weasel their way out of this one by introducing a new legal distinction for Things the Person Does While President then kicking it down to the Federal courts to decide whether this distinction holds, so that they can then, later on, decide whether the decision of the lower court as to whether the distinction holds, holds. They've lawyer-brain magicked their way out of making a decision, reserving the right to decide later, when it probably won't matter, since now there's like 0 chance of Trump's federal prosecutions wrapping up before November. And if he wins, the trial is pointless since he can pardon himself (that's an official act, i'm sure!). If he loses, well, it will be good to convict him but it's also pointless. FUCKING COWARDS IN ROBES
posted by dis_integration at 8:39 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 8:39 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
Gee whiz gang, I don't want to shock anyone, but I'm starting to think maybe the system is rigged.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:39 AM on July 1 [36 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:39 AM on July 1 [36 favorites]
And shame on Republicans going along with this.
posted by mazola at 8:40 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by mazola at 8:40 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
"I know the institutions won't save us, but what if today was the day they decided to try and save us?"
posted by penduluum at 8:40 AM on July 1 [21 favorites]
posted by penduluum at 8:40 AM on July 1 [21 favorites]
I give up. There seems to be literally nothing the man can do and not get away with it. He could (redacted) (redacted), then (redacted) (redacted), then (redacted) (redacted), then (redacted) (redacted), all on live television, and finish up by using the nuclear codes on a US state, and he'd still win at everything. All he does is win and he gets out of more shit than Houdini. The tide seems so strong and the opposing forces are tired and not so competent and the system is rigged in his favor at every turn. As far as I can tell, he made a deal with the devil to get literally everything he wants and I don't see how anything is going to stop him now. I am In Despair and in acceptance mode that he's going to take over for life in a few months. Hell, Biden's been behind all year and that was even before the debate. Short of (redacted) happening, I don't see any way out of the impending nightmare.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:41 AM on July 1 [36 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:41 AM on July 1 [36 favorites]
It's almost poetic to elevate the office of President to Kinghood right before the 4th of July. Sort of a snake-eating-it's-tail moment. An Americoroborous.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 8:41 AM on July 1 [27 favorites]
posted by mrjohnmuller at 8:41 AM on July 1 [27 favorites]
It's not as if Republicans haven't spent the last few months broadly telegraphing that they'll prosecute Biden once they have control of the Justice Department.
well hey at least now Biden's immune from prosecution too amirite?
(all of this is horrible)
posted by martin q blank at 8:42 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
well hey at least now Biden's immune from prosecution too amirite?
(all of this is horrible)
posted by martin q blank at 8:42 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
Now would be an optimal moment for Biden to kick Clarence Thomas off the court for a history of conflict of interest.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 8:44 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 8:44 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
> well hey at least now Biden's immune from prosecution too amirite?
It turns out everything Biden does is not an official act, while everything Trump does is an official act. Sorry that's just how it works, nothing we can do about it
posted by dis_integration at 8:44 AM on July 1 [57 favorites]
It turns out everything Biden does is not an official act, while everything Trump does is an official act. Sorry that's just how it works, nothing we can do about it
posted by dis_integration at 8:44 AM on July 1 [57 favorites]
The president is not above the law. He could still be prosecuted for sleeping under a bridge (unless he did so officially)
posted by paper chromatographologist at 8:45 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
posted by paper chromatographologist at 8:45 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
Biden has absolute immunity and dementia!
Can't be held responsible and not criminally responsible! A Presidential twofer!
</snark>
posted by mazola at 8:45 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Can't be held responsible and not criminally responsible! A Presidential twofer!
</snark>
posted by mazola at 8:45 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
I can think of no greater official presidential act to preserve the Constitution than Biden securing Trump to a dolly and making him wear a hockey mask.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:45 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:45 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Is the opposition put on actual trial or just shot in the nearest public square?
posted by Slackermagee at 8:45 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 8:45 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
this? Other than exhorting people to vote? I ask because it's been an hour now and I haven't seen anything.
Nothing meaningful, and the Dem elites will continue to coordinate their continued success and wealth in the new order.
We’re definitely entering one of those periods of history where force in the street, blood in the street, and making the rich fear for their lives are going to be necessary to make change. I hate it, I hoped never to live through one, but that’s where we are.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:46 AM on July 1 [24 favorites]
Nothing meaningful, and the Dem elites will continue to coordinate their continued success and wealth in the new order.
We’re definitely entering one of those periods of history where force in the street, blood in the street, and making the rich fear for their lives are going to be necessary to make change. I hate it, I hoped never to live through one, but that’s where we are.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:46 AM on July 1 [24 favorites]
I give up. There seems to be literally nothing the man can do and not get away with it.
So this must be what it's like to have to life in a world where someone can sell their soul to the devil in exchange for power and influence.
Funny how those kind of stories always present the person getting their eternal comeuppance as some kind of just resolution while conveniently ignoring all the earthly damage they do while in possession of their unlimited, unholy powers.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:48 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
So this must be what it's like to have to life in a world where someone can sell their soul to the devil in exchange for power and influence.
Funny how those kind of stories always present the person getting their eternal comeuppance as some kind of just resolution while conveniently ignoring all the earthly damage they do while in possession of their unlimited, unholy powers.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:48 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Best grim joke I've seen (Twitter link): "I can’t believe the Supreme Court just ruled that the president can sleep outdoors in a public space."
posted by coffeecat at 8:49 AM on July 1 [45 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 8:49 AM on July 1 [45 favorites]
Sadly the sclerotic, spineless democratic party will do absolutely nothing except maybe write a strongly worded email to Roberts (Schumer and Durbin seem up for this task). Biden's team will do absolutely nothing, except maybe some laser focused campaign events on Pell Grants and the Chips Act. Harris and the women in the Admin will likely scream behind close doors about Dobbs and the coming Handmaids Tale America, yet in public will talk about the Chips act and Pell Grants cause Frank Lutz tells them to do so. Matthew Karzmaryk runs America.
I continue to be completely stumped by ordinary conservatives bending the knee. Roberts et al are clearly drunk on their own power. Somehow this run of shredding, well, everything, doesn't make them immune to a Trumpest Autocracy. Do they honestly think Bannon (and his thousand year Reich) and Flynn (god forbid, but the guy really does want the Handmaids Tale) will defer to them? They'd better pray it's just an Orbanist/Erdoganist authoritarian regime (they get put out to pasture) and not a Putin-esque / Xi- dictatorship? Cause they die under those.
Does NO ONE in power ready a fucking history book?
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:49 AM on July 1 [24 favorites]
I continue to be completely stumped by ordinary conservatives bending the knee. Roberts et al are clearly drunk on their own power. Somehow this run of shredding, well, everything, doesn't make them immune to a Trumpest Autocracy. Do they honestly think Bannon (and his thousand year Reich) and Flynn (god forbid, but the guy really does want the Handmaids Tale) will defer to them? They'd better pray it's just an Orbanist/Erdoganist authoritarian regime (they get put out to pasture) and not a Putin-esque / Xi- dictatorship? Cause they die under those.
Does NO ONE in power ready a fucking history book?
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:49 AM on July 1 [24 favorites]
Also, you can tell the majority of operating purely on a results-oriented basis because they make heavy use of citations to concurring opinions in past cases, not the actual binding precedent of the majority. Basically trying to cover up for the fact that they're just making shit up.
posted by wierdo at 8:49 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 8:49 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
You know where all this is heading, right? Changing the 22nd Amendment back to having no limits to how many terms a president can serve.
posted by ashbury at 8:50 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
posted by ashbury at 8:50 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Pack the court. Now. It's clear that the Rep's are planning to hand this election to the SC, who are in their pocket, so the Dems best option, while there's still time, is to flip the court, right now.
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:52 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:52 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
November 6th we’re going to have mobs rushing the vote counting in every state. This will make the Brooks Brothers Brigade in Florida in 2000 look like amateur hour.
Democrats won’t do anything.
Time for Biden to do something for the history books. Not holding my breath.
And frankly all I care about at this stage is the US dollar remaining as the global reserve currency and that’s going to go out the window. Kiss your lifestyle goodbye.
posted by Farce_First at 8:52 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
Democrats won’t do anything.
Time for Biden to do something for the history books. Not holding my breath.
And frankly all I care about at this stage is the US dollar remaining as the global reserve currency and that’s going to go out the window. Kiss your lifestyle goodbye.
posted by Farce_First at 8:52 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
The top-line summary of the holding actually sounds correct to me, at least in the abstract. Official acts are presumptively immune; non-official acts are not. If you take very simple examples from both categories, that's the right result. If a president murders their spouse, that's not an official act and should be prosecutable. But if a president issues an executive order that a future political rival says was criminal, that should be immune. Why should official policy acts be immune? Well, it isn't very hard for me to think of a very near future in which a Republican administration decides to, say, prosecute President Biden for violations of the Comstock Act because under his policies, the Department of Defense pays for military members' abortions in the case of rape or incest. It's not even absurd, in the abstract, for SCOTUS to say that a trial court should take evidence and figure out in the first instance whether certain actions were official or unofficial.
The problem, it seems, is the standard that official acts are presumptively immune and then setting up a standard for overriding that presumption that is so high that it's basically insurmountable. There's no escape valve for saying, sure, this sounds like an official act but the way the president did it was so egregious and illegal that they are no longer immune from prosecution. It should be a high bar, but not so insurmountable that there is literally nothing anyone can do in the face of treason or using one's official power for personal and corrupt reasons.
posted by alligatorpear at 8:54 AM on July 1 [19 favorites]
The problem, it seems, is the standard that official acts are presumptively immune and then setting up a standard for overriding that presumption that is so high that it's basically insurmountable. There's no escape valve for saying, sure, this sounds like an official act but the way the president did it was so egregious and illegal that they are no longer immune from prosecution. It should be a high bar, but not so insurmountable that there is literally nothing anyone can do in the face of treason or using one's official power for personal and corrupt reasons.
posted by alligatorpear at 8:54 AM on July 1 [19 favorites]
> You know where all this is heading, right? Changing the 22nd Amendment back to having no limits to how many terms a president can serve.
I mean, if you declare an emergency, then refusing to step down is an official act. The only remedy would be impeachment, which, well, would only happen if the congress and senate are held by the non-presidential party. However, if you arrest the Senate, because your emergency powers and maybe the emergency is the Senate is full of traitors! (e.g., members of the other party), well, that's an official act. You see, it doesn't matter what the constitution says anymore, since the President can do anything so long as it is an "official act" except nobody knows what is or isn't an official act and well, it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide that, which would be an interesting struggle for them if, for example, the President had just had a few Senators arrested and imprisoned, and was glaring really madly in a generally southeastern direction from the White House.
posted by dis_integration at 8:55 AM on July 1 [30 favorites]
I mean, if you declare an emergency, then refusing to step down is an official act. The only remedy would be impeachment, which, well, would only happen if the congress and senate are held by the non-presidential party. However, if you arrest the Senate, because your emergency powers and maybe the emergency is the Senate is full of traitors! (e.g., members of the other party), well, that's an official act. You see, it doesn't matter what the constitution says anymore, since the President can do anything so long as it is an "official act" except nobody knows what is or isn't an official act and well, it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide that, which would be an interesting struggle for them if, for example, the President had just had a few Senators arrested and imprisoned, and was glaring really madly in a generally southeastern direction from the White House.
posted by dis_integration at 8:55 AM on July 1 [30 favorites]
The (republican ) president, under self declared 'official acts' determines that the (bullshit) border emergency * is of such drastic import that it can suspend all national elections indefinitely until it determines that emergency 'over' (there is no emergency at the border).
The (democratic) president vastly exceeded his authority by forgiving a few dozen thousand under $10k student loans.
* Trump2: The Vengeance Administration is going to use that bullshit 'cause' to 'justify' all their coming authoritarian nightmare-ish rule.
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:57 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
The (democratic) president vastly exceeded his authority by forgiving a few dozen thousand under $10k student loans.
* Trump2: The Vengeance Administration is going to use that bullshit 'cause' to 'justify' all their coming authoritarian nightmare-ish rule.
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:57 AM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Lotta silver-lining hay getting made out of "Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes[.] 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 the decision also says that any official acts cannot be scrutinized for evidence for prosecution for unofficial acts. And "[i]n dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives." And acts aren't unofficial just because they're illegal.
Make no mistake -- it's not blanket immunity in name, but no criminal proceedings will ever succeed against a President. Never, none.
Changing the 22nd Amendment back to having no limits to how many terms a president can serve.
Why? He wouldn't have to. All he has to do is not leave, and assert that his continued service in the role of President is a core duty of the Presidency.
posted by penduluum at 8:57 AM on July 1 [12 favorites]
But the decision also says that any official acts cannot be scrutinized for evidence for prosecution for unofficial acts. And "[i]n dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives." And acts aren't unofficial just because they're illegal.
Make no mistake -- it's not blanket immunity in name, but no criminal proceedings will ever succeed against a President. Never, none.
Changing the 22nd Amendment back to having no limits to how many terms a president can serve.
Why? He wouldn't have to. All he has to do is not leave, and assert that his continued service in the role of President is a core duty of the Presidency.
posted by penduluum at 8:57 AM on July 1 [12 favorites]
From Thomas' concurrence:
posted by mazola at 8:59 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Few things would threaten our constitutional order moreSoooo close. Elaborate on those 'few things' please.
than criminally prosecuting a former President for his offi-
cial acts.
posted by mazola at 8:59 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Street protests are not going to solve a goddamn thing, and are going to get a lot of protestors killed. It won't start with drone strikes, but it will get there pretty quickly.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:59 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:59 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
The election is too close for Democrats to bother doing anything about this.
a) They're too afraid that whatever they do will upset a potentially narrow win and
b) Narrowly winning means they get claim that everything's "normal" while kicking the can down the road for another four years.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. And VOTE HARDER!!!!!!11!1!!1!!!!!
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:00 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
a) They're too afraid that whatever they do will upset a potentially narrow win and
b) Narrowly winning means they get claim that everything's "normal" while kicking the can down the road for another four years.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. And VOTE HARDER!!!!!!11!1!!1!!!!!
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:00 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
I'm not terribly concerned about the immunity for official acts, although it will cause a major clusterfuck in deciding what is official and what is not. That will end up back in the Supreme Court multiple times most likely.
No, what really concerns me is "immunized conduct can’t be used as evidence in a trial for conduct for which a former president is not otherwise immune." That is a major major loophole that will make it virtually impossible to ever establish intent.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:01 AM on July 1 [29 favorites]
No, what really concerns me is "immunized conduct can’t be used as evidence in a trial for conduct for which a former president is not otherwise immune." That is a major major loophole that will make it virtually impossible to ever establish intent.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:01 AM on July 1 [29 favorites]
They're never gonna call a plane to send us to the Shithole Country. They can't. Because we're already here. This is the shithole country.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:02 AM on July 1 [12 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:02 AM on July 1 [12 favorites]
Apologize for the spoilers, but despite this ruling, TFG would 100% subject Biden to show trials for a variety of official acts and the Supreme Court would just decide there were crucial distinctions in play that allowed for blah blah motherfucking blah blah.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:03 AM on July 1 [19 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:03 AM on July 1 [19 favorites]
Once again I'm left asking the question "Why Trump?".
Because he's the ideal face for the conservative agenda.
He wants power but doesn't want to do anything with that power. He has no personal ideology or goals beyond having people fawn over him. He'll just do whatever his backers and advisors tell him, which has already resulted in almost every conservative fantasy coming true.
And crucially, as Mr.Know-it-some notes, he is also electable. Maybe some think tank or Federalist Society robot might be more capable of enacting their agenda but such a person would never win either the base or the general election. Trump has a certain cunning and media savvy that has lead to a sizable portion of conservatives almost literally worshipping him and enough of the rest grudgingly acknowledging him to push him over the top.
Anyone pushing a conservative agenda couldn't ask for a better candidate.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:04 AM on July 1 [32 favorites]
Because he's the ideal face for the conservative agenda.
He wants power but doesn't want to do anything with that power. He has no personal ideology or goals beyond having people fawn over him. He'll just do whatever his backers and advisors tell him, which has already resulted in almost every conservative fantasy coming true.
And crucially, as Mr.Know-it-some notes, he is also electable. Maybe some think tank or Federalist Society robot might be more capable of enacting their agenda but such a person would never win either the base or the general election. Trump has a certain cunning and media savvy that has lead to a sizable portion of conservatives almost literally worshipping him and enough of the rest grudgingly acknowledging him to push him over the top.
Anyone pushing a conservative agenda couldn't ask for a better candidate.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:04 AM on July 1 [32 favorites]
I thought the 'debate' narrative was the worst thing from last week (US focused - France getting ready to go hard right is also pretty bad, Gaza is truly awful and the Sudan might be the worst). The eviscerating Chevron was the worst, but clearly this one is hands down the worst of all.
Hope for Orban, maybe get Stalin (I want to say Hitler cause of all the nazis populating the fascist party, but didnt want to violate Godwin). Doubt we get Mao or Pol Pot, but hey, so probably did the Chinese and Cambodians.
Please please please women save us (again). Assuming the Magas dont use their love of violence to destroy the elections.
Great job Garland and Smith!
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:04 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Hope for Orban, maybe get Stalin (I want to say Hitler cause of all the nazis populating the fascist party, but didnt want to violate Godwin). Doubt we get Mao or Pol Pot, but hey, so probably did the Chinese and Cambodians.
Please please please women save us (again). Assuming the Magas dont use their love of violence to destroy the elections.
Great job Garland and Smith!
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:04 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Street protests are not going to solve a goddamn thing, and are going to get a lot of protestors killed. It won't start with drone strikes, but it will get there pretty quickly.
I don't mean politely with signs and banners. Also, forcing a government to show its true face by beating and murdering its citizens, particularly en masse, can definitely (obv., not always) be a destabilizing force for dictatorships.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:17 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
I don't mean politely with signs and banners. Also, forcing a government to show its true face by beating and murdering its citizens, particularly en masse, can definitely (obv., not always) be a destabilizing force for dictatorships.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:17 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
As a criminal defense attorney, I was amused to see the dissent begin with "The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power." Well, no kidding; indictments tend to paint stark portraits of BAD PEOPLE doing BAD THINGS. The reality is more subtle. I would regard this motion as a delaying tactic, but if you read the syllabus opinion (I haven't had time to read the full thing) there's nothing really revolutionary in there. Nobody's abusing the process; nobody's trashing the justice system. This is criminal procedure, albeit conducted at a level we've not seen before. It's a little early to tell, but assuming that the feds have something solid on Trump, they should be able to make a case. I was also amused to see so many commenters who want to protest that Trump should be locked up, presumably without due process. It'll be okay; the Constitution has survived worse than this. Just ask the Native Americans, or the Japanese, or a Black person.
posted by BReed at 9:17 AM on July 1 [12 favorites]
posted by BReed at 9:17 AM on July 1 [12 favorites]
I want to say Hitler cause of all the nazis populating the fascist party, but didnt want to violate Godwin
Mike Godwin himself came out of hiding almost 7 years ago to let us know that it was perfectly OK to compare modern neofascists to Nazis.
posted by Strange Interlude at 9:18 AM on July 1 [38 favorites]
Mike Godwin himself came out of hiding almost 7 years ago to let us know that it was perfectly OK to compare modern neofascists to Nazis.
posted by Strange Interlude at 9:18 AM on July 1 [38 favorites]
I feel so fucking betrayed.
Trump lost. We voted him out of office in 2020. He then staged a fucking coup and our institutions (barely) held firm and he ended up skipping town on Inauguration Day like the fucking loser he is. And then it turns out he stole a bunch of nuclear secrets on the way out the door.
How in the hell are we at the point where not only have all of his transgressions been wiped clean, but he's just one election away from returning the power?
Why anything?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:20 AM on July 1 [73 favorites]
Trump lost. We voted him out of office in 2020. He then staged a fucking coup and our institutions (barely) held firm and he ended up skipping town on Inauguration Day like the fucking loser he is. And then it turns out he stole a bunch of nuclear secrets on the way out the door.
How in the hell are we at the point where not only have all of his transgressions been wiped clean, but he's just one election away from returning the power?
Why anything?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:20 AM on July 1 [73 favorites]
Trump has called Liz Cheney guilty of treason, and suggested there be military tribunals. Given that he's commander in chief, wouldn't calling a tribunal together be an official act? Even if a tribunal found no crime, isn't this a license to terrorize?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:21 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:21 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Why anything?
A party trying to convince you that there is no meaning, and no truth beyond raw power is a hallmark of fascism. Don't buy it.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:23 AM on July 1 [42 favorites]
A party trying to convince you that there is no meaning, and no truth beyond raw power is a hallmark of fascism. Don't buy it.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:23 AM on July 1 [42 favorites]
Jackson: "To fully appreciate the oddity of making the criminal immunity determination turn on the character of the President's responsibilities, consider what the majority says is one of the President's 'conclusive and preclusive' prerogatives: 'the President's power to remove...those who wield executive power on his behalf.' ... While the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death."
posted by mittens at 9:24 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
posted by mittens at 9:24 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
A party trying to convince you that there is no meaning, and no truth beyond raw power is a hallmark of fascism. Don't buy it.
Then how about the other party fucking do something for a change?
"I know the institutions won't save us, but what if today was the day they decided to try and save us?"
This is a perfect summation of how I'm feeling right now. Thank you.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:25 AM on July 1 [17 favorites]
Then how about the other party fucking do something for a change?
"I know the institutions won't save us, but what if today was the day they decided to try and save us?"
This is a perfect summation of how I'm feeling right now. Thank you.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:25 AM on July 1 [17 favorites]
A party trying to convince you that there is no meaning, and no truth beyond raw power is a hallmark of fascism. Don't buy it.
Then how about the other party fucking do something for a change?
"I know the institutions won't save us, but what if today was the day they decided to try and save us?"
This is a perfect summation of how I'm feeling right now. Thank you.
Can't wait to see nothing from Democrats but more exhortations to vote after this, a case about being immune from penalty after attempts to invalidate the results of voting.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:27 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
Then how about the other party fucking do something for a change?
"I know the institutions won't save us, but what if today was the day they decided to try and save us?"
This is a perfect summation of how I'm feeling right now. Thank you.
Can't wait to see nothing from Democrats but more exhortations to vote after this, a case about being immune from penalty after attempts to invalidate the results of voting.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:27 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
Then how about the other party fucking do something for a change?
Last comment: This is a knock-on effect of living in a country with no left. The comfortable, wealthy, centrist Dem leadership will embrace fascism before sacrificing their own privilege.
It doesn't follow from this that the rest of us should embrace nihilism.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:27 AM on July 1 [55 favorites]
Last comment: This is a knock-on effect of living in a country with no left. The comfortable, wealthy, centrist Dem leadership will embrace fascism before sacrificing their own privilege.
It doesn't follow from this that the rest of us should embrace nihilism.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:27 AM on July 1 [55 favorites]
We try to understand what his retribution might look like by speaking with people who have the most to lose in a second Trump administration: people who believe Trump will be coming for them.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:31 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:31 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
ryanshepard show its true face by beating and murdering its citizens, particularly en masse, can definitely (obv., not always) be a destabilizing force for dictatorships.
I think it's safe to assume that this is not one such case. Around 50% of the US population would cheer if police simply executed protesters on the spot.
Slackermagee Naah, they'll ask us to give them money in addition to telling us to vote harder.
I am utterly disperited and despairing. I have no chance of fleeing the country, I'm old and have no skill in such demand that any country I'd want to move to will take me anyway.
I don't know what to do.
posted by sotonohito at 9:32 AM on July 1 [22 favorites]
I think it's safe to assume that this is not one such case. Around 50% of the US population would cheer if police simply executed protesters on the spot.
Slackermagee Naah, they'll ask us to give them money in addition to telling us to vote harder.
I am utterly disperited and despairing. I have no chance of fleeing the country, I'm old and have no skill in such demand that any country I'd want to move to will take me anyway.
I don't know what to do.
posted by sotonohito at 9:32 AM on July 1 [22 favorites]
After the Chevron reversal the other day, and per TPM’s morning newsletter, the essence of the Roberts Court in this era has been consolidating the power of judges to decide things, to make them arbiters of facts. On the face, this seems to align with that. What’s an official act? Only a judge can decide.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:35 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 9:35 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
>Why anything?
20% of this country wants a revolution
20% will bandwagon with them for the LULZ
20% will dither in the crossfire
20% will make themselves small in the crisis
20% will actively oppose
You want a better democracy, you're going to need better voters.
posted by torokunai at 9:44 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
20% of this country wants a revolution
20% will bandwagon with them for the LULZ
20% will dither in the crossfire
20% will make themselves small in the crisis
20% will actively oppose
You want a better democracy, you're going to need better voters.
posted by torokunai at 9:44 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
If Trump wins on top of all this, I’m old enough that I could be convinced to get out in the streets and just burn this whole motherfucker down. And I’m a well-off white dude. At the very least let’s have an all-inclusive work stoppage across every industry and agree to buy nothing but groceries and medical supplies for say 30 days. We’ll see how the system likes that.
You don’t know me IRL, but I am typically Mr. Cautious, so … yeah. I mean as a young person trying my hand in the music scene, my nickname was “The Accountant”. I’m that exciting.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:47 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
You don’t know me IRL, but I am typically Mr. Cautious, so … yeah. I mean as a young person trying my hand in the music scene, my nickname was “The Accountant”. I’m that exciting.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:47 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
Surely thi... oh, wait ...
posted by essexjan at 9:54 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
posted by essexjan at 9:54 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
the Outback 6 (No rules, just Right)
Holy fuck this is so good. I’m stealing it.
posted by azpenguin at 9:56 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Holy fuck this is so good. I’m stealing it.
posted by azpenguin at 9:56 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
assuming that the feds have something solid on Trump, they should be able to make a case
How'd they get that something solid? Did they inquire about official acts, like e.g. the President calling the secretary of State of Georgia about the election? When building their case, did they consider the President's motives in acting the way that he did? Then they don't have something solid anymore.
If the President took a bribe to issue a pardon or appoint an ambassador, the prosecution would not be able to tell the jury what act he took the bribe to perform. If the President designates someone a terrorist and has them killed, prosecutors would be unable to describe to a jury why he may have done that, or even what specifically he did. It's not that just that he is immune to prosecution for his actions; his actions are immune to investigation.
posted by penduluum at 9:57 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
How'd they get that something solid? Did they inquire about official acts, like e.g. the President calling the secretary of State of Georgia about the election? When building their case, did they consider the President's motives in acting the way that he did? Then they don't have something solid anymore.
If the President took a bribe to issue a pardon or appoint an ambassador, the prosecution would not be able to tell the jury what act he took the bribe to perform. If the President designates someone a terrorist and has them killed, prosecutors would be unable to describe to a jury why he may have done that, or even what specifically he did. It's not that just that he is immune to prosecution for his actions; his actions are immune to investigation.
posted by penduluum at 9:57 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
This is a knock-on effect of living in a country with no left. The comfortable, wealthy, centrist Dem leadership will embrace fascism before sacrificing their own privilege.
Quoted for truth.
Speaking of the Left, AOC has announced on Twitter that she plans to file articles of impeachment once Congress returns to session. She doesn't specify against who, but I'd assume at least Thomas.
posted by coffeecat at 9:58 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
Quoted for truth.
Speaking of the Left, AOC has announced on Twitter that she plans to file articles of impeachment once Congress returns to session. She doesn't specify against who, but I'd assume at least Thomas.
posted by coffeecat at 9:58 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
"After the Chevron reversal the other day, and per TPM’s morning newsletter, the essence of the Roberts Court in this era has been consolidating the power of judges to decide things, to make them arbiters of facts. On the face, this seems to align with that. What’s an official act? Only a judge can decide".
Yea.... they quickly are going to lost that authority under Trump2, absolutely guaranteed.
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:00 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Yea.... they quickly are going to lost that authority under Trump2, absolutely guaranteed.
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:00 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
I bet Manchin and Sinema weren't the only fifth columnists in that party. That's why they continue to prop up Biden.
A younger, more driven leader would be able to take this new ruling to expel the six judges who ruled in favour of a lawless president, in clear violation of the Constitution.
A feeble old man like Joe cannot conceive of making such an effort.
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:01 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
A younger, more driven leader would be able to take this new ruling to expel the six judges who ruled in favour of a lawless president, in clear violation of the Constitution.
A feeble old man like Joe cannot conceive of making such an effort.
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:01 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, 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.
When a Supreme Court justice says "I dissent" instead of "I respectfully dissent," that's about the closest you can say to "Fuck that!" in an official SCOTUS opinion. RBG did that in Bush v. Gore, but I can't think of any other time.
posted by jonp72 at 10:02 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
When a Supreme Court justice says "I dissent" instead of "I respectfully dissent," that's about the closest you can say to "Fuck that!" in an official SCOTUS opinion. RBG did that in Bush v. Gore, but I can't think of any other time.
posted by jonp72 at 10:02 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
A feeble old man like Joe cannot conceive of making such an effort.
I highly object to calling Joe Biden feeble because he had a bad debate performance because of a cold and a stutter.
Yes, the optics are bad. Yes, you probably didn't get the candidates you wanted in 2016 or 2020.
But calling Joe Biden "feeble" is just downright catastrophizing rooted in ageism and ableism.
posted by jonp72 at 10:04 AM on July 1 [42 favorites]
I highly object to calling Joe Biden feeble because he had a bad debate performance because of a cold and a stutter.
Yes, the optics are bad. Yes, you probably didn't get the candidates you wanted in 2016 or 2020.
But calling Joe Biden "feeble" is just downright catastrophizing rooted in ageism and ableism.
posted by jonp72 at 10:04 AM on July 1 [42 favorites]
ageism and ableism
The alternative--that Biden is energetic and has all his faculties, and simply chooses to drive the country off a cliff rather than endangering the precious norms of the establishment that has fed and clothed him for half a century--is somehow even more frightening.
posted by mittens at 10:12 AM on July 1 [28 favorites]
The alternative--that Biden is energetic and has all his faculties, and simply chooses to drive the country off a cliff rather than endangering the precious norms of the establishment that has fed and clothed him for half a century--is somehow even more frightening.
posted by mittens at 10:12 AM on July 1 [28 favorites]
This is the type of situation where I try to feel flat instead of angry. This has always been the inevitable end of the Democratic Party's games. They decided they'd rather get rich and roll the dice on fascism, knowing that eventually you always lose, than do anything to get in the way of wealthy interests. They did this out of depraved indifference to the wellbeing of average people, as has been pointed out my entire adult life. God knows what things will look like this time next year.
posted by Frowner at 10:12 AM on July 1 [48 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 10:12 AM on July 1 [48 favorites]
> more driven leader would be able to take this new ruling to expel the six judges who ruled in
I for one don't want an "active, driven leader" heading the Executive. Congress is Article I of the Constitution, and we get the government we send to DC – send clowns, expect a circus.
The Executive's job is to faithfully execute the will of Congress.
The economic crisis of the 1930s saw ~80% reformist majorities in Congress backing FDR's initiatives... That was nice.
posted by torokunai at 10:13 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
I for one don't want an "active, driven leader" heading the Executive. Congress is Article I of the Constitution, and we get the government we send to DC – send clowns, expect a circus.
The Executive's job is to faithfully execute the will of Congress.
The economic crisis of the 1930s saw ~80% reformist majorities in Congress backing FDR's initiatives... That was nice.
posted by torokunai at 10:13 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
The solution is more AOCs and fewer MTGs in the 435 elect. I fail to see why this is hard to internalize; where this balance goes so goes the nation.
posted by torokunai at 10:17 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
posted by torokunai at 10:17 AM on July 1 [14 favorites]
A younger, more driven leader would be able to take this new ruling to expel the six judges who ruled in favour of a lawless president, in clear violation of the Constitution.
So, you want a fascist, -- as long as it's a virile, young fascist who agrees with you?
posted by The Bellman at 10:19 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
So, you want a fascist, -- as long as it's a virile, young fascist who agrees with you?
posted by The Bellman at 10:19 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
The alternative--that Biden is energetic and has all his faculties, and simply chooses to drive the country off a cliff rather than endangering the precious norms of the establishment that has fed and clothed him for half a century--is somehow even more frightening.
As somebody who has to deal with ageism and ableism in daily life, I would prefer this be the analysis.
posted by jonp72 at 10:22 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
As somebody who has to deal with ageism and ableism in daily life, I would prefer this be the analysis.
posted by jonp72 at 10:22 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
The supreme court gave itself the power to decide if things are constitutional or not. (in the early 1800's), and folks just sort of went with it. This is also not the first time they went on an absolute far right tirade for the forces of evil (good reading here, and here) FDR at the behest of labor unions undid a lot of it, but it was a bloody event, one I fear we may need to repeat.
They will take as much power as we give them. The supreme court has no army, has no way to enforce its rulings, and honestly has been ignored by presidents in the past, and can be so again in the future.
The only thing binding us to these obviously bad decisions is us. I suggest you all call your congress person and tell them to do whatever they can do. Perhaps packing the court, perhaps impeaching some of the more obviously corrupt ones, imposing term limits, etc. Make it clear you will hold them responsible for this, even and especially if they are a democrat.
Also there may come a time when you have to get out into the streets and put your body on the line. I am not talking about holding a sign in the park for a few hours and going home, I am talking a general strike, or a labor stoppage, things that the ruling class understands, money. Do your self a favor and make some cookies and take them to your neighbor, and talk to them about this. Mutual aid is going to be very important in the near future. Start building ties with your community, have them over for dinner, etc.
Time is running out, the tick tick tick of climate change is not going to allow us to put this off, we must fix this, and it has to be very very soon.
Good luck everyone.
posted by stilgar at 10:24 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
They will take as much power as we give them. The supreme court has no army, has no way to enforce its rulings, and honestly has been ignored by presidents in the past, and can be so again in the future.
The only thing binding us to these obviously bad decisions is us. I suggest you all call your congress person and tell them to do whatever they can do. Perhaps packing the court, perhaps impeaching some of the more obviously corrupt ones, imposing term limits, etc. Make it clear you will hold them responsible for this, even and especially if they are a democrat.
Also there may come a time when you have to get out into the streets and put your body on the line. I am not talking about holding a sign in the park for a few hours and going home, I am talking a general strike, or a labor stoppage, things that the ruling class understands, money. Do your self a favor and make some cookies and take them to your neighbor, and talk to them about this. Mutual aid is going to be very important in the near future. Start building ties with your community, have them over for dinner, etc.
Time is running out, the tick tick tick of climate change is not going to allow us to put this off, we must fix this, and it has to be very very soon.
Good luck everyone.
posted by stilgar at 10:24 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
Also there may come a time when you have to get out into the streets and put your body on the line. I am not talking about holding a sign in the park for a few hours and going home, I am talking a general strike, or a labor stoppage, things that the ruling class understands, money.
If Trump plans to use the Insurrection Act to suppress nonviolent protests, as he said he wants to do, resistance might have to take the form of an "army of shadows" like the French Resistance.
posted by jonp72 at 10:30 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
If Trump plans to use the Insurrection Act to suppress nonviolent protests, as he said he wants to do, resistance might have to take the form of an "army of shadows" like the French Resistance.
posted by jonp72 at 10:30 AM on July 1 [7 favorites]
jonp72 "ageism"
It is utterly revolting how people are weaponizing that term to try and shut up anyone who admits the truth about Biden.
We're facing the loss of the entire nation to Christofascists because Buden is feeble and senile but it's us admitting that who are the problem? No. The problem was that we let blather about "ageism" shut us up 4 years ago.
I will proudly wear the label of ageist if that's what it takes to be honest and say Biden is a feeble, senile, disaster and his ego is going to cost us the country.
posted by sotonohito at 10:33 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
It is utterly revolting how people are weaponizing that term to try and shut up anyone who admits the truth about Biden.
We're facing the loss of the entire nation to Christofascists because Buden is feeble and senile but it's us admitting that who are the problem? No. The problem was that we let blather about "ageism" shut us up 4 years ago.
I will proudly wear the label of ageist if that's what it takes to be honest and say Biden is a feeble, senile, disaster and his ego is going to cost us the country.
posted by sotonohito at 10:33 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
hey guys, it's time for some game theory!
i doubt biden will use any of the new powers just bestowed on the presidency by the supreme court to do anything; his entire brand is 'let's all just go back to how things used to be, how does that sound, huh?' but at some point, even if it's not this go-round, someone will be elected president who will take full advantage of the official acts immunity thing. like this ruling isn't trump-specific, it's forever, or at least until some notional future supreme court reconsiders, which given the 6-3 majority and the slow turnover is not likely to be any time soon.
the point is that depending on future presidents not to do a dictatorship when all that is required is for a single president to decide they are now a dictator is not a viable strategy. so long as elections keep happening and the united states is still around, it is a virtual certainty that someone is going heed that call and turn the u.s. into a dictatorship.
if biden is really interested in preserving the republic, his immediate response should be to seize power in exactly the way the supreme court has licensed him to and do whatever is necessary to put a stop to presidential immunity. this is pretty much an existential issue.
posted by logicpunk at 10:33 AM on July 1 [47 favorites]
i doubt biden will use any of the new powers just bestowed on the presidency by the supreme court to do anything; his entire brand is 'let's all just go back to how things used to be, how does that sound, huh?' but at some point, even if it's not this go-round, someone will be elected president who will take full advantage of the official acts immunity thing. like this ruling isn't trump-specific, it's forever, or at least until some notional future supreme court reconsiders, which given the 6-3 majority and the slow turnover is not likely to be any time soon.
the point is that depending on future presidents not to do a dictatorship when all that is required is for a single president to decide they are now a dictator is not a viable strategy. so long as elections keep happening and the united states is still around, it is a virtual certainty that someone is going heed that call and turn the u.s. into a dictatorship.
if biden is really interested in preserving the republic, his immediate response should be to seize power in exactly the way the supreme court has licensed him to and do whatever is necessary to put a stop to presidential immunity. this is pretty much an existential issue.
posted by logicpunk at 10:33 AM on July 1 [47 favorites]
But calling Joe Biden "feeble" is just downright catastrophizing rooted in ageism and ableism.
Normally totally agree with these sentiments, but the vast majority of the American public has decided this is the case, and just as importantly (likely more importantly) the national media-policito complex has decided this is the case, so while this point is true, it just doesn't matters. The NYT will not make this the only issue of import in this election. When is the last time they did a story about anything else on the Administration's accomplishments.
The election is WAY too important to make a stand against ageism. There are plenty of vital reasons to decide to roll with Biden, but IMO he's going to lose because of this. It's hard baked in, and no amount of rallies or commercials or tiktoks will change that.
Either our side accepts the risks with him, or (my take); remove the sclerotic and basically useless national democratic leadership and try to actually hinder or stop Trumpism.
Biden had his turn, he did a lot of good things (progressive legislation) and some really bad ones (Gaza) but his worst was choosing not to be the best one term President in US History instead of his Ginsberg-Feinstein-esque unwillingness to give up his grip on power. Well, that and the single worst cabinet choice in US History, Merrick Garland. How do you lost a nuclear sectors case against Trump and his atrocious lawyers?
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:38 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Normally totally agree with these sentiments, but the vast majority of the American public has decided this is the case, and just as importantly (likely more importantly) the national media-policito complex has decided this is the case, so while this point is true, it just doesn't matters. The NYT will not make this the only issue of import in this election. When is the last time they did a story about anything else on the Administration's accomplishments.
The election is WAY too important to make a stand against ageism. There are plenty of vital reasons to decide to roll with Biden, but IMO he's going to lose because of this. It's hard baked in, and no amount of rallies or commercials or tiktoks will change that.
Either our side accepts the risks with him, or (my take); remove the sclerotic and basically useless national democratic leadership and try to actually hinder or stop Trumpism.
Biden had his turn, he did a lot of good things (progressive legislation) and some really bad ones (Gaza) but his worst was choosing not to be the best one term President in US History instead of his Ginsberg-Feinstein-esque unwillingness to give up his grip on power. Well, that and the single worst cabinet choice in US History, Merrick Garland. How do you lost a nuclear sectors case against Trump and his atrocious lawyers?
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:38 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
All the talk of “bold and unhesitating action” makes me wonder how much they really want a Strong Man.
posted by mazola at 10:41 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by mazola at 10:41 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
what really concerns me is "immunized conduct can’t be used as evidence in a trial for conduct for which a former president is not otherwise immune."
It’s bad enough it concerns Amy Coney Barrett enough to dissent on that point. This opinion is trash.
posted by corb at 10:41 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
It’s bad enough it concerns Amy Coney Barrett enough to dissent on that point. This opinion is trash.
posted by corb at 10:41 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
Stinger's point above was the best comment I've ever seen on this subject, esp. on the Court. They are the primary retrograde power in US history and they have NO basis for that. I wish I had the words, thanks for saying it, cause it's been driving me crazy that isn't a widespread.
Well, that and the climate change unstoppable freight train gathering speed everyday. We dont even want to try and slow it down with the mass switch to renewables (think of the jobs at least).
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:42 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Well, that and the climate change unstoppable freight train gathering speed everyday. We dont even want to try and slow it down with the mass switch to renewables (think of the jobs at least).
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:42 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
"Stinger's"?
posted by bz at 10:44 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by bz at 10:44 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
autocorrect since it didn't catch the Dune reference
posted by torokunai at 10:49 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by torokunai at 10:49 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
All the talk of “bold and unhesitating action” makes me wonder how much they really want a Strong Man.
I want a Strong Woman or Strong Enby, actually.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:57 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
I want a Strong Woman or Strong Enby, actually.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:57 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
If you think Biden can use this presidential immunity, you are trapped in the centrist rules-fetish. This isnt a new rule, its a continuation of republicans m.o. - rules are for suckers, power is all that matters. You are trying to play chess with a party holding guns, of course they are going to move the rook diagonally and no, you can't.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 10:57 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 10:57 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
Considering the possibilities I'm looking at running away from this country really fast depending on the election. Like, day-after-the-election fast.
He, and the Project 2025 group, want to very literally define my existence as pornographic and imprison me for existing, and I have no doubts that torture for funsies by the New Brownshits will be part of that imprisonment.
One stroke of a pen after the use of a printer and executive orders ban abortion, birth control, and a lot of other things.
I hear Finland is nice.
posted by mephron at 10:57 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
He, and the Project 2025 group, want to very literally define my existence as pornographic and imprison me for existing, and I have no doubts that torture for funsies by the New Brownshits will be part of that imprisonment.
One stroke of a pen after the use of a printer and executive orders ban abortion, birth control, and a lot of other things.
I hear Finland is nice.
posted by mephron at 10:57 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Either our side accepts the risks with him, or (my take); remove the sclerotic and basically useless national democratic leadership
More wishful thinking, and wishful thinking does not help. Who's going to remove the Dem leadership? How are they to be removed? By what process does this happen? Who replaces them? Who chooses who replaces them? And on what criteria?
I get that you're frustrated, but this smacks of "if we run a Progressive! FIREbrand! the people will rally to us!!1!" and no they fucking won't.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 10:57 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
More wishful thinking, and wishful thinking does not help. Who's going to remove the Dem leadership? How are they to be removed? By what process does this happen? Who replaces them? Who chooses who replaces them? And on what criteria?
I get that you're frustrated, but this smacks of "if we run a Progressive! FIREbrand! the people will rally to us!!1!" and no they fucking won't.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 10:57 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
And before you comment: no, I don't have any faith in the establishment to not make things worse.
posted by mephron at 10:58 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by mephron at 10:58 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
now there's like 0 chance of Trump's federal prosecutions wrapping up before November
Why would they have to wrap up before November? Aren't courts open in November and December?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:00 AM on July 1
Why would they have to wrap up before November? Aren't courts open in November and December?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:00 AM on July 1
jonp72 "ageism"
It is utterly revolting how people are weaponizing that term to try and shut up anyone who admits the truth about Biden.
We're facing the loss of the entire nation to Christofascists because Buden is feeble and senile but it's us admitting that who are the problem? No. The problem was that we let blather about "ageism" shut us up 4 years ago.
I will proudly wear the label of ageist if that's what it takes to be honest and say Biden is a feeble, senile, disaster and his ego is going to cost us the country.
If you truly believed that Joe Biden was feeble and senile, there's a mechanism for dealing with that & that means having Joe Biden resign & making Kamala Harris president. (You can't say that Biden is too feeble and senile to defeat Trump & then say he's spry enough to govern the country.) But I don't see that coming from the folks who posted "Kamala is a cop" on Twitter in 2020.
posted by jonp72 at 11:02 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
It is utterly revolting how people are weaponizing that term to try and shut up anyone who admits the truth about Biden.
We're facing the loss of the entire nation to Christofascists because Buden is feeble and senile but it's us admitting that who are the problem? No. The problem was that we let blather about "ageism" shut us up 4 years ago.
I will proudly wear the label of ageist if that's what it takes to be honest and say Biden is a feeble, senile, disaster and his ego is going to cost us the country.
If you truly believed that Joe Biden was feeble and senile, there's a mechanism for dealing with that & that means having Joe Biden resign & making Kamala Harris president. (You can't say that Biden is too feeble and senile to defeat Trump & then say he's spry enough to govern the country.) But I don't see that coming from the folks who posted "Kamala is a cop" on Twitter in 2020.
posted by jonp72 at 11:02 AM on July 1 [16 favorites]
So, you want a fascist, -- as long as it's a virile, young fascist who agrees with you?
The hard right should not be celebrating this ruling; they should be soiling themselves with naked fear.
The door has been kicked open for unfettered executive power -- either directly (as an official act, I declare X an enemy of the state and a target for Seal Team 6, go get 'em, boys) or indirectly (as President, anything I order for any reason can get tied up in the courts for so long, muddling up the question of whether it's covered by official act immunity, that there are no timely and effective recourses against anything I choose to do). This has happened at a time when they do not control said executive office.
We tell jokes about "Biden should just send out the military to round up all his opponents now," but they're not so funny on the same day when Trump's quite literally declared a political enemy preemptively guilty of a capital crime and that the military, of whom he would be Commander-in-Chief, should have the power to decide whether she lives or dies. That power effectively rests in the hands of Joe Biden right now. The right does not fear that at all because they know that he will never use it.
If we lived in a fantasyland in which the parties could take turns wielding that power, knowing that both sides were principled enough not to abuse it beyond reason, that would be one thing. Obviously, we do not. So, right now, Joe is holding a lit bomb and running against someone who's shouting at the top of his lungs that, if he wins in November and gains custody of said bomb, he will use that bomb to blow up Joe and everything and everyone he loves. The stakes have risen. He can either:
a) pray that the Dems win every Presidential election from now until the Republican base regains some level of self-analysis and dignity and shame, by margins that cannot be stolen or overruled by electoral skullduggery, or:
b) if biden is really interested in preserving the republic, his immediate response should be to seize power in exactly the way the supreme court has licensed him to and do whatever is necessary to put a stop to presidential immunity. this is pretty much an existential issue.
A President is not a Green Lantern, we have famously repeated. But SCOTUS just slipped a green ring onto Biden's hand and whispered "in brightest day, in darkest night, you'll never face trial, so do as you might" into his ear. There aren't a lot of good answers to what he COULD do with it -- but he has four months to decide on doing something or anything.
Good luck, folks.
posted by delfin at 11:03 AM on July 1 [33 favorites]
The hard right should not be celebrating this ruling; they should be soiling themselves with naked fear.
The door has been kicked open for unfettered executive power -- either directly (as an official act, I declare X an enemy of the state and a target for Seal Team 6, go get 'em, boys) or indirectly (as President, anything I order for any reason can get tied up in the courts for so long, muddling up the question of whether it's covered by official act immunity, that there are no timely and effective recourses against anything I choose to do). This has happened at a time when they do not control said executive office.
We tell jokes about "Biden should just send out the military to round up all his opponents now," but they're not so funny on the same day when Trump's quite literally declared a political enemy preemptively guilty of a capital crime and that the military, of whom he would be Commander-in-Chief, should have the power to decide whether she lives or dies. That power effectively rests in the hands of Joe Biden right now. The right does not fear that at all because they know that he will never use it.
If we lived in a fantasyland in which the parties could take turns wielding that power, knowing that both sides were principled enough not to abuse it beyond reason, that would be one thing. Obviously, we do not. So, right now, Joe is holding a lit bomb and running against someone who's shouting at the top of his lungs that, if he wins in November and gains custody of said bomb, he will use that bomb to blow up Joe and everything and everyone he loves. The stakes have risen. He can either:
a) pray that the Dems win every Presidential election from now until the Republican base regains some level of self-analysis and dignity and shame, by margins that cannot be stolen or overruled by electoral skullduggery, or:
b) if biden is really interested in preserving the republic, his immediate response should be to seize power in exactly the way the supreme court has licensed him to and do whatever is necessary to put a stop to presidential immunity. this is pretty much an existential issue.
A President is not a Green Lantern, we have famously repeated. But SCOTUS just slipped a green ring onto Biden's hand and whispered "in brightest day, in darkest night, you'll never face trial, so do as you might" into his ear. There aren't a lot of good answers to what he COULD do with it -- but he has four months to decide on doing something or anything.
Good luck, folks.
posted by delfin at 11:03 AM on July 1 [33 favorites]
Point of clarification from the moderators: Is ageism and ableism OK if you're left of the Democratic Party?
posted by jonp72 at 11:04 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
posted by jonp72 at 11:04 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
"immunized conduct can’t be used as evidence in a trial for conduct for which a former president is not otherwise immune."
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.posted by soundguy99 at 11:06 AM on July 1 [20 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Let's avoid doom and gloom comments and please let's not mention suicide lightly. Also, for clarification: ageism goes directly against our content policy, so please feel free to flag any comments you think should be reviewed by the mods. If you see anything you want to discuss directly with us, please contact us.
posted by loup (staff) at 11:12 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 11:12 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
It is utterly revolting how people are weaponizing that term to try and shut up anyone who admits the truth about Biden.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
posted by y2karl at 11:12 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
...The sheer malicious hatred the elderly exhibit towards younger people is staggering.
They want to kill us via climate change.
They want to make us poor.
They want to keep us from retiring.
They want to let us die from lack of healthcare.
Yet, because "ageism" is a weaponized term that exists only to attempt to shame critics into silence, no one describes any of the vicious attacks on the young by the old as ageism.
The real thing, actual genuine discrimination in the workplace based on age, is important and bad. But we can't talk about that because the word that used to be useful for discussing that issue has been turned into a political cudgel wielded against anyone under the age of 60.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
posted by y2karl at 11:12 AM on July 1 [18 favorites]
> ableism OK
this really calls back to my freshman dorm BS sessions in '85-'86 when we talked about whether Reagan's diminishing mental acuity was a liability or not. Back then I figured since he was a lame duck already there wasn't a whole lot to object to even if he was a disinterested observer through 1988.
Then Iran-Contra reared its ugly head and it became clear that a fish does kinda rot from the top in government.
In a vacuum, focusing on who is the more mentally competent, Trump or Biden, would be perfectly understandable.
We are not living in a vacuum though.
posted by torokunai at 11:13 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
this really calls back to my freshman dorm BS sessions in '85-'86 when we talked about whether Reagan's diminishing mental acuity was a liability or not. Back then I figured since he was a lame duck already there wasn't a whole lot to object to even if he was a disinterested observer through 1988.
Then Iran-Contra reared its ugly head and it became clear that a fish does kinda rot from the top in government.
In a vacuum, focusing on who is the more mentally competent, Trump or Biden, would be perfectly understandable.
We are not living in a vacuum though.
posted by torokunai at 11:13 AM on July 1 [2 favorites]
The hard right should not be celebrating this ruling; they should be soiling themselves with naked fear.
One of the big salient differences between the two parties is that one of them is run by people willing, eager, and salivating to take the kind of action you're talking about and the other is run by people horrified by the idea. Part of the point of this ruling is that the majority understand that this decision will never, ever be used for any reason except to benefit a Republican.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:14 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
One of the big salient differences between the two parties is that one of them is run by people willing, eager, and salivating to take the kind of action you're talking about and the other is run by people horrified by the idea. Part of the point of this ruling is that the majority understand that this decision will never, ever be used for any reason except to benefit a Republican.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:14 AM on July 1 [44 favorites]
Can the Biden stuff move over to that other post that is open and actually about Biden?
Anyway, the last few days I've thinking about those openly corrupt judges Thomas and Alito, because I wonder if they are gambling men? It looks like they are playing some game with high stakes, almost daring Congress to impeach them. And all of the conservative judges are making a mockery of the court and the rule of law with such speed that it feels like they have a deadline.
posted by mumimor at 11:15 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
Anyway, the last few days I've thinking about those openly corrupt judges Thomas and Alito, because I wonder if they are gambling men? It looks like they are playing some game with high stakes, almost daring Congress to impeach them. And all of the conservative judges are making a mockery of the court and the rule of law with such speed that it feels like they have a deadline.
posted by mumimor at 11:15 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
Thomas and Alito are receiving their bribes AFTER they make the favorable rulings so they count as "tips for good service". They even just ruled that was okay a week or so ago.
posted by charred husk at 11:16 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
posted by charred husk at 11:16 AM on July 1 [23 favorites]
So, right now, Joe is holding a lit bomb and running against someone who's shouting at the top of his lungs that, if he wins in November and gains custody of said bomb, he will use that bomb to blow up Joe and everything and everyone he loves. The stakes have risen. He can either:
This is what's so scary about the current moment. Obviously the Outback 6 are aware of this, right? They must obviously know the ramifications of their ruling, and yet they did it anyway? Are they confident that Biden won't do anything with that power? Are they daring Biden to exercise this newfound power knowing that whatever he does will be considered an overreach that will tank the election for him?
Anyway, the last few days I've thinking about those openly corrupt judges Thomas and Alito, because I wonder if they are gambling men? It looks like they are playing some game with high stakes, almost daring Congress to impeach them. And all of the conservative judges are making a mockery of the court and the rule of law with such speed that it feels like they have a deadline.
Yeah, I've been wondering that too. Sometimes when I'm feeling optimistic I'm imaging that they're playing defense or trying to outrun some change in the electorate which isn't yet apparent to the rest of us (even though I know that demographics won't save us). Other times I feel like they're just running out the clock waiting for Trump to get into office.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:25 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
This is what's so scary about the current moment. Obviously the Outback 6 are aware of this, right? They must obviously know the ramifications of their ruling, and yet they did it anyway? Are they confident that Biden won't do anything with that power? Are they daring Biden to exercise this newfound power knowing that whatever he does will be considered an overreach that will tank the election for him?
Anyway, the last few days I've thinking about those openly corrupt judges Thomas and Alito, because I wonder if they are gambling men? It looks like they are playing some game with high stakes, almost daring Congress to impeach them. And all of the conservative judges are making a mockery of the court and the rule of law with such speed that it feels like they have a deadline.
Yeah, I've been wondering that too. Sometimes when I'm feeling optimistic I'm imaging that they're playing defense or trying to outrun some change in the electorate which isn't yet apparent to the rest of us (even though I know that demographics won't save us). Other times I feel like they're just running out the clock waiting for Trump to get into office.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:25 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial [AP]
Good initial synthesis from AP.
posted by mazola at 11:31 AM on July 1
Good initial synthesis from AP.
posted by mazola at 11:31 AM on July 1
Appointing Supreme Court Justices is an official act of the President. Biden should announce that "presidential immunity" is the product of a corrupt Supreme Court, is a massive threat to national security, and must be reversed or eliminated; in consultation with his DOJ, White House counsel, and most especially his military leaders, he is examining all options available to him to "vacate" the seats of at least Alito and Thomas, if not Roberts as well for allowing their open abuse of office. Then withdraw all of their security details.
Biden doesn't have to be the guy who would abuse the unlimited power that the Supreme Court just handed to the presidency, he just needs to make SCOTUS ponder their own vulnerability to someone who would.
posted by SpaceBass at 11:32 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
Biden doesn't have to be the guy who would abuse the unlimited power that the Supreme Court just handed to the presidency, he just needs to make SCOTUS ponder their own vulnerability to someone who would.
posted by SpaceBass at 11:32 AM on July 1 [26 favorites]
This is what's so scary about the current moment. Obviously the Outback 6 are aware of this, right? They must obviously know the ramifications of their ruling, and yet they did it anyway? Are they confident that Biden won't do anything with that power? Are they daring Biden to exercise this newfound power knowing that whatever he does will be considered an overreach that will tank the election for him?
I'd bet literally anyone that given some power, the democrats won't do shit with it!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:32 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
I'd bet literally anyone that given some power, the democrats won't do shit with it!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:32 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]
FWIW, the SCOTUSblog analysis is up, and it's the most clearly written take on the ruling that I've seen yet.
It doesn't hypothesize on the potential impacts, so I imagine a lot of us will be frustrated with it, but it lays out the facts and makes it easy to understand.
posted by martin q blank at 11:34 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
It doesn't hypothesize on the potential impacts, so I imagine a lot of us will be frustrated with it, but it lays out the facts and makes it easy to understand.
posted by martin q blank at 11:34 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]
This decision just gave presidents immunity from criminal prosecution. Not impeachment and conviction. If Biden were to do any of the power-grabby things you're imagining, the Democrats would join with the Republicans to impeach and convict him. There's no passing this "power" around like it's a mystical sword; only one party to the swordfight even believes the sword exists. They'll deny it's real even as it beheads them.
posted by penduluum at 11:34 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by penduluum at 11:34 AM on July 1 [5 favorites]
All the stuff about people wanting a "leftist fascist" (oxymoron, but ok) is missing the point:
The Supreme Court didn't ACTUALLY grant the US President unchecked monarchal power. It granted itself the right to decide what acts a President takes can be considered criminal and which cannot.
If Biden did try to use the power of immunity to do something drastic it wouldn't work, they'd say it was outside his official duties no matter what it was and toss him in prison.
But they will also rule that anything Trump does is 100% in his official capicity and cannot be considered criminal.
For all that I complain about the Democrats being spineless cowards, this isn't a power they can take up and use. They wouldn't even if they could, but the point is that they can't. This isn't a generic Green Lantern ring, it's a Republican specific Green Lantern ring.
It's like the Chevron ruling. They didn't, actually, say that the EPA can't make regulations. They said that the MAGA 6 get to decide which regulations are legit.
If the EPA goes after Exxon for pollution, the MAGA 6 will rule that the EPA doesn't have that power.
If Trump's EPA shuts down all wind farms nationwide because he hates wind the MAGA 6 will rule that is a power the EPA has.
It's not really about executive power, though it pretends to be. It's about the MAGA Court claiming power for itself. I'm doubtful they can hold their position as a hexumvirate though, once a Republican President starts Green Lanterning it up they won't be able to restrain him.
posted by sotonohito at 11:38 AM on July 1 [56 favorites]
The Supreme Court didn't ACTUALLY grant the US President unchecked monarchal power. It granted itself the right to decide what acts a President takes can be considered criminal and which cannot.
If Biden did try to use the power of immunity to do something drastic it wouldn't work, they'd say it was outside his official duties no matter what it was and toss him in prison.
But they will also rule that anything Trump does is 100% in his official capicity and cannot be considered criminal.
For all that I complain about the Democrats being spineless cowards, this isn't a power they can take up and use. They wouldn't even if they could, but the point is that they can't. This isn't a generic Green Lantern ring, it's a Republican specific Green Lantern ring.
It's like the Chevron ruling. They didn't, actually, say that the EPA can't make regulations. They said that the MAGA 6 get to decide which regulations are legit.
If the EPA goes after Exxon for pollution, the MAGA 6 will rule that the EPA doesn't have that power.
If Trump's EPA shuts down all wind farms nationwide because he hates wind the MAGA 6 will rule that is a power the EPA has.
It's not really about executive power, though it pretends to be. It's about the MAGA Court claiming power for itself. I'm doubtful they can hold their position as a hexumvirate though, once a Republican President starts Green Lanterning it up they won't be able to restrain him.
posted by sotonohito at 11:38 AM on July 1 [56 favorites]
I really hope that there's an assembled team of the very best speechwriters from the past fifty years somewhere in Washington putting together a speech titled "I Am Not A King, I Am A President" for Biden to deliver on July 4th.
Oh who am I kidding. He's probably going to just wish everyone a non-partisan Happy Independence Day.
(Prove us wrong, Joe!)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:38 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Oh who am I kidding. He's probably going to just wish everyone a non-partisan Happy Independence Day.
(Prove us wrong, Joe!)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:38 AM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Did not have Ralph Nader acting like a dipshit on Twitter and getting served tea by Elie Mystal on my bingo card but here we are.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:39 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:39 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Oh who am I kidding. He's probably going to just wish everyone a non-partisan Happy Independence Day.
Not just nonpartisan, but bipartisan! Because comity with racists who want him to fail is the most important star in the national firmament where the former senator from MBNA is concerned.
posted by Gadarene at 11:43 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Not just nonpartisan, but bipartisan! Because comity with racists who want him to fail is the most important star in the national firmament where the former senator from MBNA is concerned.
posted by Gadarene at 11:43 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]
This decision just gave presidents immunity from criminal prosecution. Not impeachment and conviction. If Biden were to do any of the power-grabby things you're imagining, the Democrats would join with the Republicans to impeach and convict him.
yeah? who's going to vote to impeach the guy who now has several previously-criminal-but-now-perfectly-fine ways to deal with irksome judges/senators/representatives.
if the president offers a pardon and a ride on marine 1 to anyone who 'takes care' of the chief justice, that's an official act, son, and without a chief justice, there can't be an impeachment of the president. gotta wait 'til the next chief justice comes along.
wait, who gets to appoint the chief justice again?
posted by logicpunk at 11:44 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
yeah? who's going to vote to impeach the guy who now has several previously-criminal-but-now-perfectly-fine ways to deal with irksome judges/senators/representatives.
if the president offers a pardon and a ride on marine 1 to anyone who 'takes care' of the chief justice, that's an official act, son, and without a chief justice, there can't be an impeachment of the president. gotta wait 'til the next chief justice comes along.
wait, who gets to appoint the chief justice again?
posted by logicpunk at 11:44 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]
One assumes the administration, knowing the opinion would come out today, will have prepared a statement outlining what they plan to do about this?
— Will Rogers
posted by kirkaracha at 11:44 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
— Will Rogers
posted by kirkaracha at 11:44 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Either our side accepts the risks with him, or (my take); remove the sclerotic and basically useless national democratic leadership
More wishful thinking, and wishful thinking does not help. Who's going to remove the Dem leadership? How are they to be removed? By what process does this happen? Who replaces them? Who chooses who replaces them? And on what criteria?
I get that you're frustrated, but this smacks of "if we run a Progressive! FIREbrand! the people will rally to us!!1!" and no they fucking won't.
Respectfully, the perception of Biden as feeble is baked into the narrative, and beloved by the national media. Nothing is going to change that. I agree with all your 'how do you do its' - I dont know how, I'm not an expert in the nuances of nomination regulations and 'norms'. And yes, it'd be hard and potentially very risky under any circumstances. But these regs and norms are not immutable laws of nature.
I was very much a Biden is our guy, and we need to roll with him. But after Thursday, I do not think that any longer. He's different than the 77 year old of 2020. He's unable to deal in real time with the firehose of vicious spew from the Golden Toilet. Who cares what I think, but I think he should step aside and let someone else who can fight. Progressive, yes I'd like that, but Amy Klobuchar, or any Centrist Dem who'd actually fight would be fine by me. Liz Freaking Cheney is fine by me, anyone who tries to beat back the coming dictatorship is fine by me.
Stilgar, sorry, autocorrect and I need to periodically step out of this chat cause it's making me despondent beyond belief.
Ableist and Agesim, yes agreed these are terrible terrible things, bit (IMO) do not supersede the need to prevent an American dictatorship. It's obviously ok to say that precedent is wrong, but it's also ok to feel that Joe Biden is not up to the task. I'm sorry if I seemed insensitive.
posted by WatTylerJr at 11:50 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
More wishful thinking, and wishful thinking does not help. Who's going to remove the Dem leadership? How are they to be removed? By what process does this happen? Who replaces them? Who chooses who replaces them? And on what criteria?
I get that you're frustrated, but this smacks of "if we run a Progressive! FIREbrand! the people will rally to us!!1!" and no they fucking won't.
Respectfully, the perception of Biden as feeble is baked into the narrative, and beloved by the national media. Nothing is going to change that. I agree with all your 'how do you do its' - I dont know how, I'm not an expert in the nuances of nomination regulations and 'norms'. And yes, it'd be hard and potentially very risky under any circumstances. But these regs and norms are not immutable laws of nature.
I was very much a Biden is our guy, and we need to roll with him. But after Thursday, I do not think that any longer. He's different than the 77 year old of 2020. He's unable to deal in real time with the firehose of vicious spew from the Golden Toilet. Who cares what I think, but I think he should step aside and let someone else who can fight. Progressive, yes I'd like that, but Amy Klobuchar, or any Centrist Dem who'd actually fight would be fine by me. Liz Freaking Cheney is fine by me, anyone who tries to beat back the coming dictatorship is fine by me.
Stilgar, sorry, autocorrect and I need to periodically step out of this chat cause it's making me despondent beyond belief.
Ableist and Agesim, yes agreed these are terrible terrible things, bit (IMO) do not supersede the need to prevent an American dictatorship. It's obviously ok to say that precedent is wrong, but it's also ok to feel that Joe Biden is not up to the task. I'm sorry if I seemed insensitive.
posted by WatTylerJr at 11:50 AM on July 1 [11 favorites]
Quotes from ScotusBlog article:
As an initial matter, Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.
So a president taking bribes for pardons or vetoes would be legal?
Turning to some of the specific allegations against Trump, the majority ruled that Trump cannot be prosecuted for his alleged efforts to “leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors.”
How are a state's electors any part of the president of the United States? How can this possibly be legal? It's not even logical.
With regard to the allegation that Trump attempted to pressure his former vice president, Mike Pence, in his role as president of the senate, to reject the states’ electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures, the court deemed Trump “presumptively immune” from prosecution on the theory that the president and vice president are acting officially when they discuss their official responsibilities. On the other hand, Roberts observed, the vice president’s role as president of the senate is not an executive branch role. The court therefore left it for the district court to decide whether prosecuting Trump for this conduct would intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch.
What the actual fuck?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:56 AM on July 1 [29 favorites]
As an initial matter, Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.
So a president taking bribes for pardons or vetoes would be legal?
Turning to some of the specific allegations against Trump, the majority ruled that Trump cannot be prosecuted for his alleged efforts to “leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors.”
How are a state's electors any part of the president of the United States? How can this possibly be legal? It's not even logical.
With regard to the allegation that Trump attempted to pressure his former vice president, Mike Pence, in his role as president of the senate, to reject the states’ electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures, the court deemed Trump “presumptively immune” from prosecution on the theory that the president and vice president are acting officially when they discuss their official responsibilities. On the other hand, Roberts observed, the vice president’s role as president of the senate is not an executive branch role. The court therefore left it for the district court to decide whether prosecuting Trump for this conduct would intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch.
What the actual fuck?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:56 AM on July 1 [29 favorites]
Unless I'm missing something, ageism would be to assume that Biden can't handle the demands of the office or the campaign because of his advanced years, even though there is no evidence that he is slipping. When he very publicly demonstrates that he absolutely cannot consistently do what is required anymore (although he could at a younger age), that's not ageism, that's just reality. Being anti-ageism doesn't mean I have to believe that everyone is as capable at 80 as they were at 35.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:07 PM on July 1 [24 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:07 PM on July 1 [24 favorites]
So, you want a fascist, -- as long as it's a virile, young fascist who agrees with you?
I have been told, so incredibly often, that we have to play with the hand that's been dealt to us.
We've been dealt five of a kind from a stacked deck and now the response is "But we must be honorable"?!
The next guy is ALSO getting five of a kind!
posted by Slackermagee at 12:09 PM on July 1 [16 favorites]
I have been told, so incredibly often, that we have to play with the hand that's been dealt to us.
We've been dealt five of a kind from a stacked deck and now the response is "But we must be honorable"?!
The next guy is ALSO getting five of a kind!
posted by Slackermagee at 12:09 PM on July 1 [16 favorites]
Fuckity fuck. Nothing better to say. Each of the recent Supreme decisions has been worse than the one before.
posted by jokeefe at 12:11 PM on July 1 [14 favorites]
posted by jokeefe at 12:11 PM on July 1 [14 favorites]
Who cares what I think, but I think he should step aside and let someone else who can fight. Progressive, yes I'd like that, but Amy Klobuchar, or any Centrist Dem who'd actually fight would be fine by me.
The only possible option for Biden's replacement is Harris. For one thing, the Democrats absolutely cannot risk frustrating Black voters by choosing a white person over the current vice-president. But as a much more practical matter, only Harris can inherit Biden's $$$$$$ campaign war chest. Anyone else would be starting from scratch. The Democratic nominee this fall will be Biden or Harris. Nothing else is going to happen.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:13 PM on July 1 [15 favorites]
The only possible option for Biden's replacement is Harris. For one thing, the Democrats absolutely cannot risk frustrating Black voters by choosing a white person over the current vice-president. But as a much more practical matter, only Harris can inherit Biden's $$$$$$ campaign war chest. Anyone else would be starting from scratch. The Democratic nominee this fall will be Biden or Harris. Nothing else is going to happen.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:13 PM on July 1 [15 favorites]
What the actual fuck?
Yeah. My impression is that a bunch of SCOTUS watchers and Law People were generally anticipating the wider "official acts are immune, non-official acts are not, get back to us when you've figured out which is which" opinion, which would have pushed any real decision past the election. It's all the other crap specifically naming Trump's coup attempts official and kneecapping anyone's ability to even investigate whether an act is official or not that is freaking people out.
posted by soundguy99 at 12:14 PM on July 1 [22 favorites]
Yeah. My impression is that a bunch of SCOTUS watchers and Law People were generally anticipating the wider "official acts are immune, non-official acts are not, get back to us when you've figured out which is which" opinion, which would have pushed any real decision past the election. It's all the other crap specifically naming Trump's coup attempts official and kneecapping anyone's ability to even investigate whether an act is official or not that is freaking people out.
posted by soundguy99 at 12:14 PM on July 1 [22 favorites]
Republicans are serious about establishing a Fascist dictatorship. The people running the NYTimes and other mainstream media had better wake the fuck up. We're running out of time.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:23 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:23 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Everything's coming up Milhouse Trump, the recent convictions notwithstanding. Having so many judges in his back pocket has proven to be quite valuable.
posted by tommasz at 12:24 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 12:24 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
The crazy thing to remember is that this isn't explicitly the product of Trump's Republican Party.
Thomas -- Bush I
Robert -- Bush II
Alito -- Bush II
Kavanaugh -- Trump's, but with a nod from Justice Kennedy
Gorsuch and ACB -- Trump's, but at very least Gorsuch would've been considered a mainstream Republican nominee.
This was always the party's agenda. Trump is a chaotic and fucked catalyst for what looked for a period to be the failing agenda of mainstream Republican electeds.
posted by kensington314 at 12:28 PM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Thomas -- Bush I
Robert -- Bush II
Alito -- Bush II
Kavanaugh -- Trump's, but with a nod from Justice Kennedy
Gorsuch and ACB -- Trump's, but at very least Gorsuch would've been considered a mainstream Republican nominee.
This was always the party's agenda. Trump is a chaotic and fucked catalyst for what looked for a period to be the failing agenda of mainstream Republican electeds.
posted by kensington314 at 12:28 PM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Vehement Dissent From Supreme Court’s Liberal Wing Laments Vast Expansion of Presidential Power
slyt
posted by y2karl at 12:33 PM on July 1 [3 favorites]
slyt
posted by y2karl at 12:33 PM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Clarence Thomas: accused of sexual harassment
John Roberts: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Samuel Alito: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Brett Kavanaugh: accused of sexual harassment; nominated by a president who lost the popular vote who has also been accused of sexual assault
Neil Gorsuch: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Amy Coney Barrett: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
posted by kirkaracha at 12:36 PM on July 1 [27 favorites]
John Roberts: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Samuel Alito: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Brett Kavanaugh: accused of sexual harassment; nominated by a president who lost the popular vote who has also been accused of sexual assault
Neil Gorsuch: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
Amy Coney Barrett: nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
posted by kirkaracha at 12:36 PM on July 1 [27 favorites]
Vehement Dissent From Supreme Court’s Liberal Wing Laments Vast Expansion of Presidential Power
"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hmm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:38 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hmm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:38 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
Vehement Dissent From Supreme Court’s Liberal Wing Laments Vast Expansion of Presidential Power
aka A Quiet Place: the Day Before
posted by y2karl at 12:38 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
aka A Quiet Place: the Day Before
posted by y2karl at 12:38 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Liberals need to stop this “republicans lost the popular vote and therefore they’re illegitimate!!!!1”. No, that’s not how it works. The electoral college sucks but it’s what we have, republicans didn’t create it to game the system, it’s the rules we’re playing with. Let’s get rid of it of course, but don’t fool yourself into believing that if the dems won the electoral college but lost the popular vote you would somehow think the dem pres would be illegitimate. Just stupid.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:39 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:39 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
It's not that the Republicans lost the popular vote and they are therefore illegitimate. They lost the popular vote and therefore they don't represent the popular vote. They were not what the people wanted. Don't blame the people. (Bush II, 2nd term, won the popular vote, BTW)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:48 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:48 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
I'll leave the problem of being a hypocrite to those in that other, imaginary timeline.
In this timeline Republicans have repeatedly failed to win the popular vote. And I don't see any problem with calling them illegitimate. And even though the net effect of labeling a president as illegitimate hasn't really done much, why would you restrict that particular insult? To be needlessly fair?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:48 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
In this timeline Republicans have repeatedly failed to win the popular vote. And I don't see any problem with calling them illegitimate. And even though the net effect of labeling a president as illegitimate hasn't really done much, why would you restrict that particular insult? To be needlessly fair?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:48 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
Isn't it both things? We don't have to quibble about this. We have to win on the unjust and racist-at-its-origin system that we have.
And, we have to acknowledge that the voting system as it is structured is unjust, racist-at-its-origin, and needing reform. Because it created a set of outcomes that are undemocratic.
And, it's important to acknowledge that Republicans have a much easier time winning on those terms than on fair terms. This is in part because of our self-concept as fellow countrypersons. It's incredibly demobilizing to feel like you're part of a minority rump of the electorate when you aren't, to feel like you're in a country full of people who chose this and aren't worth saving. I see this all the time on MetaFilter, and in my own friend group, and I see it creep into my own sense of things, that the majority of people in the US would entertain a Trump presidency, or that forty percent would, or whatever. The implication that we're an unsalvageable country. At its core it's a nihilistic viewpoint that is essentially void of a politics.
It's important to know that these things, technically, are not true. We are part of the formally and informally disenfranchised majority who did not ask for this. It's important to talk about that and to act accordingly as activists and voters.
posted by kensington314 at 1:00 PM on July 1 [35 favorites]
And, we have to acknowledge that the voting system as it is structured is unjust, racist-at-its-origin, and needing reform. Because it created a set of outcomes that are undemocratic.
And, it's important to acknowledge that Republicans have a much easier time winning on those terms than on fair terms. This is in part because of our self-concept as fellow countrypersons. It's incredibly demobilizing to feel like you're part of a minority rump of the electorate when you aren't, to feel like you're in a country full of people who chose this and aren't worth saving. I see this all the time on MetaFilter, and in my own friend group, and I see it creep into my own sense of things, that the majority of people in the US would entertain a Trump presidency, or that forty percent would, or whatever. The implication that we're an unsalvageable country. At its core it's a nihilistic viewpoint that is essentially void of a politics.
It's important to know that these things, technically, are not true. We are part of the formally and informally disenfranchised majority who did not ask for this. It's important to talk about that and to act accordingly as activists and voters.
posted by kensington314 at 1:00 PM on July 1 [35 favorites]
one voter converted from your right is worth two disaffected voters in the bush
posted by torokunai at 1:05 PM on July 1
posted by torokunai at 1:05 PM on July 1
Is preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States an official act?
Asking for a friend.
posted by mazola at 1:09 PM on July 1 [16 favorites]
Asking for a friend.
posted by mazola at 1:09 PM on July 1 [16 favorites]
as far as I can tell, this completely invalidates the classified documents[...]hoarding case
Can you explain your reasoning? All the allegedly illegal actions at the center of the classified documents indictment are things he did when he was no longer president.
(But no matter: that's the one that was randomly assigned to the corrupt and/or incompetent and/or neofascist brainwormed Judge Cannon, so it's been sabotaged through other means.)
posted by nobody at 1:12 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Can you explain your reasoning? All the allegedly illegal actions at the center of the classified documents indictment are things he did when he was no longer president.
(But no matter: that's the one that was randomly assigned to the corrupt and/or incompetent and/or neofascist brainwormed Judge Cannon, so it's been sabotaged through other means.)
posted by nobody at 1:12 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
The Trump Biden debate put in perspective. (via)
So I wanna say this. At the debate on Wednesday, Joe Biden had a bad night. That's it. He had a bad night. Let's just say that.posted by kirkaracha at 1:41 PM on July 1 [40 favorites]
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump is a bad person. There's a big difference between the two.
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump gave us the Dobbs decision.
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump called some countries "shithole countries."
Joe Biden had a bad night, yeah; Donald said that there were people in Charlottesville who were good people.
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump wants to take away your health care.
Joe Biden had a bad night; OK, how much we gonna talk about this? Donald Trump gave us four bad years and he will give us four more bad years very quickly.
You know how we know that? Because he's told us that with the Project 2025. He told us what he wants to do.
And one more thing: if Donald Trump gets four more years, he's gonna put more people on that Supreme Court, which would take him not just through our lives, through your children's life.
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump is a monster of a human being. Compare the two.
Everyone stop clutching the pearls, everyone get over it. Everyone get out there, make phone calls, knock on doors, and work.
Joe Biden had a bad night, but Joe Biden has had a very good presidency. Thank you everybody.
Vehement Dissent From Supreme Court’s Liberal Wing Laments Vast Expansion of Presidential Power
Liberals OWN Six Republicans with COMMON SENSE!!!! 🤯 #destroyed
posted by penduluum at 1:44 PM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Liberals OWN Six Republicans with COMMON SENSE!!!! 🤯 #destroyed
posted by penduluum at 1:44 PM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Our acquiesense to corrupt rules and institutions makes us accomplices to our enemies and soon to be rulers. No amount of Ruby slipper heel-knocking will return us to democracy, rule of law and the norms you grew up with. Win or lose there is no time machine and no going back
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 1:48 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 1:48 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
I would really hate to be a Secret Service agent right about now. If I were advising Biden, I’d have calculated him the same way the Majority has: he’s too much of an enabler and certainly won’t flex his newfound immunity the way we all know Trump would in Biden’s shoes. I’d also advise him, his family, VP Harris and her family, to have a safety plan to flee the extradition jurisdiction of the US if the Dems lose in November.
I’m tired of living in interesting times.
posted by edithkeeler at 1:51 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
I’m tired of living in interesting times.
posted by edithkeeler at 1:51 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
torokunai You're presupposing that there's much success converting right wing voters. So far that doesn't seem to be working well for the Democrats.
Maybe, and I know it's a crazy thought, but possibly if the Democrats tried reaching out to and protecting the rights of minority voters it might help them? Instead of acting like white racists are the only people in the universe who matter?
edithkeeler Meh. Unless there's an escape plan for the roughly 50% of America who will be facing violence and abuse under Trump I don't want elites to be able to flee either. I have no interest in watching our betters get to flee the hellscape they decided to condemn us to.
If they had skin in the game, as they like to say in DC cocktail parties, they'd care more.
posted by sotonohito at 2:04 PM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Maybe, and I know it's a crazy thought, but possibly if the Democrats tried reaching out to and protecting the rights of minority voters it might help them? Instead of acting like white racists are the only people in the universe who matter?
edithkeeler Meh. Unless there's an escape plan for the roughly 50% of America who will be facing violence and abuse under Trump I don't want elites to be able to flee either. I have no interest in watching our betters get to flee the hellscape they decided to condemn us to.
If they had skin in the game, as they like to say in DC cocktail parties, they'd care more.
posted by sotonohito at 2:04 PM on July 1 [9 favorites]
edithkeeler: " If I were advising Biden, I’d have calculated him the same way the Majority has: he’s too much of an enabler and certainly won’t flex his newfound immunity the way we all know Trump would in Biden’s shoes. "
I have to assume that the right-wing majority on the court came to this decision based on two understandings:
1. Biden will not exercise this newfound power.
2. Trump will.
posted by adamrice at 2:10 PM on July 1 [19 favorites]
I have to assume that the right-wing majority on the court came to this decision based on two understandings:
1. Biden will not exercise this newfound power.
2. Trump will.
posted by adamrice at 2:10 PM on July 1 [19 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Wishing violence on other people (yes, even them) is against our content policy.
posted by loup (staff) at 2:21 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 2:21 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
"Well, we just lost our democracy. The Supreme Court's ruling this morning is pretty much the worst case and went much farther than anyone expected. The majority made the President into a king, saying that he/she has absolute immunity for official acts related to constitutionally-granted powers. Now a President, the constitutionally-authorized commander in chief, can order the military to assassinate his/her political rivals and may not be prosecuted for it. The Court was clear that courts may not ever look at the motives behind the President's official acts.
And they did Trump a huge favor by remanding the case down to the district court to start the process all over again of deciding which of Trump's actions were "official" or "unofficial" acts -- even though both the district and appeals courts already did that. That process will make it impossible for the case to go to trial before November, meaning that if Trump gets elected he can appoint an Attorney General who will fire Jack Smith and make the entire thing go away. (they also wrote in a footnote that the district court should dismiss some of the charges based upon the Fischer ruling last week on "obstruction of an official proceeding") They also effectively made it impossible for the Georgia case to go forward quickly to trial by muddying the waters as to whether Trump talking to Georgia officials was an "official act." And in a concurring opinion, Thomas told Judge Cannon to rule that Smith wasn't properly appointed -- which even if it eventually gets overruled, will delay that case as well for at least a year. So the Court ensured this morning that there will be no more trials of Trump before the election.
The only silver lining in the ruling is that they ruled against Trump's argument that the President may only be prosecuted after a Congressional impeachment.
The November election is now a five-alarm fire. If Trump gets back into office he will know that he can do whatever he wants as long as he can put forward some kind of argument that it is an "official act." He will use the full powers of the executive branch to destroy his political enemies and entrench himself in power. And he will know that the Supreme Court will support him. The first time we were lucky that he mostly surrounded himself with incompetents. This time that won't be the case.
If we care at all about democracy, we all have to do everything we can to ensure that Trump does not get elected in November."
— Kevin Schofield, columnist at South Seattle Emerald, from a post he made on facebook this morning.
posted by bz at 2:28 PM on July 1 [22 favorites]
And they did Trump a huge favor by remanding the case down to the district court to start the process all over again of deciding which of Trump's actions were "official" or "unofficial" acts -- even though both the district and appeals courts already did that. That process will make it impossible for the case to go to trial before November, meaning that if Trump gets elected he can appoint an Attorney General who will fire Jack Smith and make the entire thing go away. (they also wrote in a footnote that the district court should dismiss some of the charges based upon the Fischer ruling last week on "obstruction of an official proceeding") They also effectively made it impossible for the Georgia case to go forward quickly to trial by muddying the waters as to whether Trump talking to Georgia officials was an "official act." And in a concurring opinion, Thomas told Judge Cannon to rule that Smith wasn't properly appointed -- which even if it eventually gets overruled, will delay that case as well for at least a year. So the Court ensured this morning that there will be no more trials of Trump before the election.
The only silver lining in the ruling is that they ruled against Trump's argument that the President may only be prosecuted after a Congressional impeachment.
The November election is now a five-alarm fire. If Trump gets back into office he will know that he can do whatever he wants as long as he can put forward some kind of argument that it is an "official act." He will use the full powers of the executive branch to destroy his political enemies and entrench himself in power. And he will know that the Supreme Court will support him. The first time we were lucky that he mostly surrounded himself with incompetents. This time that won't be the case.
If we care at all about democracy, we all have to do everything we can to ensure that Trump does not get elected in November."
— Kevin Schofield, columnist at South Seattle Emerald, from a post he made on facebook this morning.
posted by bz at 2:28 PM on July 1 [22 favorites]
That leaves tax fraud, and state-level crimes. NY Criminal Statute of Limitations. In 2019, Trump became a resident of Florida; Florida's Civil Statute of Limitations Laws & Criminal Statute of Limitations.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:41 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:41 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
In the great oval room
There was a big gold chair
And a comb-over of hair
And a picture of a wall going up everywhere
And there were two small hands
And a pair of tan fans
And a tweet and a bray and the Justice's say:
"You're immune from the fray"
Goodnight room
Goodnight loon
Goodnight walls going up everywhere soon
Goodnight hands
Goodnight fans
Goodnight tweets
Goodnight brays
Goodnight to the Justice's say:
"You're immune from the fray"
Goodnight democracy
Goodnight autonomy
Goodnight to the slide
From freedom to tyranny
Goodnight intelligence
Lost to negligence
Goodnight brave souls
Fallen from leaks untold
Goodnight America
No longer a tower
Goodnight to the end
Of its global power
Goodnight Constitution
In quiet dissolution
Goodnight, goodnight
To the dimming of the light.
posted by metatuesday at 3:05 PM on July 1 [16 favorites]
There was a big gold chair
And a comb-over of hair
And a picture of a wall going up everywhere
And there were two small hands
And a pair of tan fans
And a tweet and a bray and the Justice's say:
"You're immune from the fray"
Goodnight room
Goodnight loon
Goodnight walls going up everywhere soon
Goodnight hands
Goodnight fans
Goodnight tweets
Goodnight brays
Goodnight to the Justice's say:
"You're immune from the fray"
Goodnight democracy
Goodnight autonomy
Goodnight to the slide
From freedom to tyranny
Goodnight intelligence
Lost to negligence
Goodnight brave souls
Fallen from leaks untold
Goodnight America
No longer a tower
Goodnight to the end
Of its global power
Goodnight Constitution
In quiet dissolution
Goodnight, goodnight
To the dimming of the light.
posted by metatuesday at 3:05 PM on July 1 [16 favorites]
“The President Is Now a King”: The Most Blistering Lines From Dissents in the Trump Immunity Case
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
posted by robbyrobs at 3:05 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
posted by robbyrobs at 3:05 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
Unless I'm missing something, ageism would be to assume that Biden can't handle the demands of the office or the campaign because of his advanced years, even though there is no evidence that he is slipping. When he very publicly demonstrates that he absolutely cannot consistently do what is required anymore (although he could at a younger age), that's not ageism, that's just reality. Being anti-ageism doesn't mean I have to believe that everyone is as capable at 80 as they were at 35.
Maybe ageism isn't the right word, but I do think it is ableism, because I think what people saw on debate night was a man with a lifelong stutter struggling with word retrieval (e.g., Biden substituting "malfeasance" when in context he was struggling with saying "malpractice") while having a cold in a rapid-fire stressful situation. A stutter and a cold is not evidence of senility.
Besides, there's a lot of work being done here with the phrase "demands of the office or the campaign." Almost none of the people calling for Biden's replacement on cognitive grounds are actually saying that Biden is unfit to be in office. If they truly believed that, they should be calling for Biden's resignation today, but they're not doing that. Most of the people who are calling for Biden's replacement are doing so because they think he is not up to campaigning, not because the Biden Administration is unfit to govern. It's all just optics & we should recognize that.
If I'm wrong and Biden drops dead tomorrow, we already have someone in the vice-presidency who can take over for him with no interruption in continuity of government. The discussion about replacing Biden with Harris or Whitmer or Pritzker or Newsom etc. etc. is mostly just wishcasting about coming up with One. Weird. Trick. that will allow the Democrats to retain the advantages of incumbency without actually running an incumbent. It doesn't work like that. That's not how any of this works.
posted by jonp72 at 3:12 PM on July 1 [18 favorites]
Maybe ageism isn't the right word, but I do think it is ableism, because I think what people saw on debate night was a man with a lifelong stutter struggling with word retrieval (e.g., Biden substituting "malfeasance" when in context he was struggling with saying "malpractice") while having a cold in a rapid-fire stressful situation. A stutter and a cold is not evidence of senility.
Besides, there's a lot of work being done here with the phrase "demands of the office or the campaign." Almost none of the people calling for Biden's replacement on cognitive grounds are actually saying that Biden is unfit to be in office. If they truly believed that, they should be calling for Biden's resignation today, but they're not doing that. Most of the people who are calling for Biden's replacement are doing so because they think he is not up to campaigning, not because the Biden Administration is unfit to govern. It's all just optics & we should recognize that.
If I'm wrong and Biden drops dead tomorrow, we already have someone in the vice-presidency who can take over for him with no interruption in continuity of government. The discussion about replacing Biden with Harris or Whitmer or Pritzker or Newsom etc. etc. is mostly just wishcasting about coming up with One. Weird. Trick. that will allow the Democrats to retain the advantages of incumbency without actually running an incumbent. It doesn't work like that. That's not how any of this works.
posted by jonp72 at 3:12 PM on July 1 [18 favorites]
If anybody cares, Biden is speaking tonight about the SC ruling. 7PM eastern
posted by bluesky43 at 3:19 PM on July 1 [10 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 3:19 PM on July 1 [10 favorites]
that will allow the Democrats to retain the advantages of incumbency without actually running an incumbent. It doesn't work like that. That's not how any of this works.
But the advantage the Dems have isn't just the incumbency, it's the absolute gift that there are republicans and independents ready to vote for almost anyone but Trump. Those are the folks that matter in this election, and those are the folks most likely to be swayed by a fresh candidate.
I'll still vote for Biden, but I sure as hell would campaign for a better nominee.
posted by OHenryPacey at 3:20 PM on July 1 [3 favorites]
But the advantage the Dems have isn't just the incumbency, it's the absolute gift that there are republicans and independents ready to vote for almost anyone but Trump. Those are the folks that matter in this election, and those are the folks most likely to be swayed by a fresh candidate.
I'll still vote for Biden, but I sure as hell would campaign for a better nominee.
posted by OHenryPacey at 3:20 PM on July 1 [3 favorites]
MSNBC is now reporting Biden will speak at 7:45.
posted by bluesky43 at 3:31 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 3:31 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
But the advantage the Dems have isn't just the incumbency, it's the absolute gift that there are republicans and independents ready to vote for almost anyone but Trump. Those are the folks that matter in this election, and those are the folks most likely to be swayed by a fresh candidate.
If that were the case, polling data would show Harris or Pritzker or Whitmer or Newsom or Shapiro doing significantly better in the polls against Donald Trump than Joe Biden. But in many cases, Biden does better than or about as well as the rest of the Democratic bench. I would love to be proven wrong otherwise, because that would mean that there's a much easier solution to this. But there's no polls that say Kamala Harris or Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom etc. would beat Donald Trump by +5% in absolute vote share or two-party vote share in the way Biden beat Trump in 2020. If there is a specific Democratic candidate beating Donald Trump by 5% in the two-party vote share in a reliable, legit poll, please cite it.
I think we're underestimating how much people just like Donald Trump & want to inflict more of him on the rest of us.
posted by jonp72 at 3:41 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
If that were the case, polling data would show Harris or Pritzker or Whitmer or Newsom or Shapiro doing significantly better in the polls against Donald Trump than Joe Biden. But in many cases, Biden does better than or about as well as the rest of the Democratic bench. I would love to be proven wrong otherwise, because that would mean that there's a much easier solution to this. But there's no polls that say Kamala Harris or Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom etc. would beat Donald Trump by +5% in absolute vote share or two-party vote share in the way Biden beat Trump in 2020. If there is a specific Democratic candidate beating Donald Trump by 5% in the two-party vote share in a reliable, legit poll, please cite it.
I think we're underestimating how much people just like Donald Trump & want to inflict more of him on the rest of us.
posted by jonp72 at 3:41 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
At this stage of the game a 5% is a huge gap. The election is months away and most people are voting along party lines. I think the big threat is Biden publicly deteriorating again, and then he would have to be replaced way too late and then there’s no runway to ingratiate Harris with the public.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:46 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:46 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
MSNBC is now reporting Biden will speak at 7:45.
Drinking and praying that this is him handing the gun to Kamala Harris, someone who may actually use the fucking thing that SCOTUS has seen fit to invent out of whole cloth.
Which is weird, given how much I'm not a fan of the cop shit she was pulling prior to being VP.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:51 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Drinking and praying that this is him handing the gun to Kamala Harris, someone who may actually use the fucking thing that SCOTUS has seen fit to invent out of whole cloth.
Which is weird, given how much I'm not a fan of the cop shit she was pulling prior to being VP.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:51 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Are they daring Biden to exercise this newfound power knowing that whatever he does will be considered an overreach that will tank the election for him?
Biden would be stupid to do much more than call this an obviously overbroad decision (and perhaps wrongly decided) before the election. He would be a hero if, after the election (presuming Trump wins), he declared Trump and a few Supreme Court justices terrorists and ordered them hauled off to a CIA black site and they just so happened to die on the way, and then let the normal operation of law decide who would be inaugurated in January.
posted by wierdo at 3:52 PM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Biden would be stupid to do much more than call this an obviously overbroad decision (and perhaps wrongly decided) before the election. He would be a hero if, after the election (presuming Trump wins), he declared Trump and a few Supreme Court justices terrorists and ordered them hauled off to a CIA black site and they just so happened to die on the way, and then let the normal operation of law decide who would be inaugurated in January.
posted by wierdo at 3:52 PM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Curious about what his response will be. I suspect he's going to high road this. But, given the powers of a King, the high road is to ensure nobody else has the powers of a King, and if Biden has the courage for that, well, then I'm very wrong about him.
posted by dis_integration at 3:52 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 3:52 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
As the late, great Bill Paxton said, "We're on an express elevator to hell, going down!"
posted by kirkaracha at 3:55 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 3:55 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
polling data would show Harris or Pritzker or Whitmer or Newsom or Shapiro doing significantly better in the polls against Donald Trump than Joe Biden
Gonna guess that for the average winnable voter the name recognition ranking here goes something like
1. Random tight-end from their favorite college team
2. Local barista and/or regular greeter at Wal-Mart
3. Harris
4. Newsom if Fox viewer
5. Whitmer
6. Pritzker/Shapiro tied for never having been heard of in the first place
These folks aren't known quantities and they aren't going to poll well in the extreme abstract. Their polling would change if they entered the race and there were considerable "breaking news" style coverage of them everywhere for weeks during the period where most people start tuning into the race. Would it go up? Would it go down? These are not predictable variables, but polling data about as-of-today unknown or unconsidered people doesn't seem strong, to me.
posted by kensington314 at 3:57 PM on July 1 [9 favorites]
Gonna guess that for the average winnable voter the name recognition ranking here goes something like
1. Random tight-end from their favorite college team
2. Local barista and/or regular greeter at Wal-Mart
3. Harris
4. Newsom if Fox viewer
5. Whitmer
6. Pritzker/Shapiro tied for never having been heard of in the first place
These folks aren't known quantities and they aren't going to poll well in the extreme abstract. Their polling would change if they entered the race and there were considerable "breaking news" style coverage of them everywhere for weeks during the period where most people start tuning into the race. Would it go up? Would it go down? These are not predictable variables, but polling data about as-of-today unknown or unconsidered people doesn't seem strong, to me.
posted by kensington314 at 3:57 PM on July 1 [9 favorites]
I always read all of these USA politics threads and never comment because all y'all seem to know way more than I do. As well as me using words like a sledgehammer.
Whatever you want to attribute it to, Biden performed poorly at the debate and folks are justifiably concerned in the face of what we're up against. Continuing the semantic argument about terminology concerning Biden's debate performance is a derail that has already been addressed by the mods. No reason to keep using language some find offensive. There's plenty of ways to address your fears as well as his disturbingly poor debate appearance without alienating allies.
I strongly dislike Biden! I'm in favor of full-bore socialism! The American political discourse is utter nonsense and insulting to anyone even slightly intelligent! BUT I WILL LITERALLY VOTE FOR HIM EVEN IF HE'S ACTUALLY DEAD BECAUSE THE OTHER GUY IS VLAD THE IMPALER.
Carry on. I don't do nuance well.
posted by SystematicAbuse at 3:58 PM on July 1 [31 favorites]
Whatever you want to attribute it to, Biden performed poorly at the debate and folks are justifiably concerned in the face of what we're up against. Continuing the semantic argument about terminology concerning Biden's debate performance is a derail that has already been addressed by the mods. No reason to keep using language some find offensive. There's plenty of ways to address your fears as well as his disturbingly poor debate appearance without alienating allies.
I strongly dislike Biden! I'm in favor of full-bore socialism! The American political discourse is utter nonsense and insulting to anyone even slightly intelligent! BUT I WILL LITERALLY VOTE FOR HIM EVEN IF HE'S ACTUALLY DEAD BECAUSE THE OTHER GUY IS VLAD THE IMPALER.
Carry on. I don't do nuance well.
posted by SystematicAbuse at 3:58 PM on July 1 [31 favorites]
You know where all this is heading, right? Changing the 22nd Amendment back to having no limits to how many terms a president can serve.
Yes, his AmCon goons are already op-ed'ing this.
posted by symbioid at 4:03 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Yes, his AmCon goons are already op-ed'ing this.
posted by symbioid at 4:03 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Where is the Biden speaking at 745 link? I haven’t found any information on it
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:04 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:04 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
President Biden Delivers Remarks on Supreme Court Immunity Ruling [C-SPAN]. President Biden delivers remarks on the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that presidents have immunity for official acts but not unofficial ones.
posted by mazola at 4:07 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by mazola at 4:07 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
I strongly dislike Biden! I'm in favor of full-bore socialism! The American political discourse is utter nonsense and insulting to anyone even slightly intelligent! BUT I WILL LITERALLY VOTE FOR HIM EVEN IF HE'S ACTUALLY DEAD BECAUSE THE OTHER GUY IS VLAD THE IMPALER.
Maybe I should get a bumper sticker that says, VOTE FOR THE CADAVER. IT'S IMPORTANT.
posted by jonp72 at 4:18 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Maybe I should get a bumper sticker that says, VOTE FOR THE CADAVER. IT'S IMPORTANT.
posted by jonp72 at 4:18 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Biden is going to speak in a few minutes about the Court's Ruling today. The official White House live stream is here.
posted by interogative mood at 4:41 PM on July 1 [3 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 4:41 PM on July 1 [3 favorites]
Yup he’s high-roading it. And here I was wishing he’d announce he’s ordering the military to “create” a few vacancies on the Court.
I’m assuming he’s going to try to make this a campaign issue, but I’m not sure it’s going to resonate. It’s of a cloth with his campaign’s messaging to date on Trump’s lack of fitness, and that really doesn’t move the needle with the independents out there who are hyper focused on the economy.
posted by Room 101 at 4:46 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
I’m assuming he’s going to try to make this a campaign issue, but I’m not sure it’s going to resonate. It’s of a cloth with his campaign’s messaging to date on Trump’s lack of fitness, and that really doesn’t move the needle with the independents out there who are hyper focused on the economy.
posted by Room 101 at 4:46 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
I guess he needed the extra 45 minutes to weaken that sauce.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:51 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:51 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
It was a "vote harder" response, which is all I expected, strongly worded and showed his alertness, good stuff I guess, except that I have a fantasy (and I know it's a fantasy) of some kind of actual response, like "fine, I am packing the Court."
posted by joannemerriam at 4:53 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by joannemerriam at 4:53 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
When they go low, they win.
When we go high, we die.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:54 PM on July 1 [20 favorites]
When we go high, we die.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:54 PM on July 1 [20 favorites]
Welp
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:54 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:54 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
The message, for folks who missed it:
"This is not good. Please vote accordingly."
What a bunch of nothing.
posted by Philipschall at 4:54 PM on July 1 [15 favorites]
"This is not good. Please vote accordingly."
What a bunch of nothing.
posted by Philipschall at 4:54 PM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Yup he’s high-roading it. And here I was wishing he’d announce he’s ordering the military to “create” a few vacancies on the Court.
He wants to save our Democracy, not end it. I'm a bit disturbed by this idea of preemptively crowing Biden King to avoid King Trump.
posted by interogative mood at 4:55 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
He wants to save our Democracy, not end it. I'm a bit disturbed by this idea of preemptively crowing Biden King to avoid King Trump.
posted by interogative mood at 4:55 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
The high road leads to a cliff.
posted by It Was Capitalism All Along at 4:57 PM on July 1 [22 favorites]
posted by It Was Capitalism All Along at 4:57 PM on July 1 [22 favorites]
Agree. But uncrowning King Biden could happen after the election. But Biden is an institutionalist and the speech he gave is predictable given his past.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:59 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by bluesky43 at 4:59 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
He wants to save our Democracy, not end it. I'm a bit disturbed by this idea of preemptively crowing Biden King to avoid King Trump.
I am finally convinced that the Democratic Party cannot physically see that we are In The Crisis. There is not a road from this point where Democracy is just "preserved". If the other party wins, even once, its all over. And yet all they can do is close their eyes and pretend that they won't have to get dirty.
Magical thinking that a leftist candidate will win is one thing, thinking that they will ever have 60 senators to enact reforms is Spice Dream Golden Path nonsense.
They do not have this and will never be equipped to handle the current threat.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:05 PM on July 1 [32 favorites]
I am finally convinced that the Democratic Party cannot physically see that we are In The Crisis. There is not a road from this point where Democracy is just "preserved". If the other party wins, even once, its all over. And yet all they can do is close their eyes and pretend that they won't have to get dirty.
Magical thinking that a leftist candidate will win is one thing, thinking that they will ever have 60 senators to enact reforms is Spice Dream Golden Path nonsense.
They do not have this and will never be equipped to handle the current threat.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:05 PM on July 1 [32 favorites]
I thought the point was just to show that Biden was lucid enough to give a speech. It may not have been the speech you wanted, but that was not the speech of a feeble or senile man.
posted by jonp72 at 5:06 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by jonp72 at 5:06 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
man everyone who supported Biden should be ashamed. World historical shit is happening, the united states of america just lost its democracy (in principle if not yet in practice) and the old fool told me to vote harder. He’s not the man for this moment. His moment was 50 years ago. we’re fucked
posted by dis_integration at 5:07 PM on July 1 [17 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 5:07 PM on July 1 [17 favorites]
It was the speech of a man clear out of ideas and probably in shock or mourning for what this country is turning into. Which is fine for any of the rest of us but the president. Dude has a job to do, get out there and do it, give us something better than "please decide about this with a vote."
posted by cmyk at 5:10 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
posted by cmyk at 5:10 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
> they should be calling for Biden's resignation today
That's exactly what I am doing, right after that "vote harder" statement. Put the black lady cop in charge.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:11 PM on July 1
That's exactly what I am doing, right after that "vote harder" statement. Put the black lady cop in charge.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:11 PM on July 1
What would/should/could the black lady cop do?
posted by mazola at 5:12 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by mazola at 5:12 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
In a few days there will be legions of Democratic consultants triumphantly brandishing polls indicating that the events of the past few days have resulted in a 0.4% uptick in support among key demographics in nine states, one of which is a swing state.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:13 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:13 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
She should immediately order the DOJ to investigate Alito and Thomas. She should order the IRS to audit the executives of any media outlet that gives Trump air time. She should have every single GOP campaign staffer put on the no-fly list. She should order the CIA to drag Trump off to Guantanamo - and she should keep going harder ad harder until someone takes her power away.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:16 PM on July 1 [19 favorites]
posted by bashos_frog at 5:16 PM on July 1 [19 favorites]
Tough crowd. I thought it was a perfectly fine, if short, speech. There was never a chance that Biden was going to just up and arrest members of the Supreme Court or whatever the hell it is some of you think he should have done. He said the decision was bad, explained why it was bad, linked it to other bad decisions, and said we need to make sure we don't let some asshat take advantage.
That's exactly what needed to be said at this moment in time.
I am angry and sad about this whole thing, but one of the reasons I like Biden is that he doesn't appeal to my baser instincts. He is what a President should be, in that respect.
posted by wierdo at 5:17 PM on July 1 [26 favorites]
That's exactly what needed to be said at this moment in time.
I am angry and sad about this whole thing, but one of the reasons I like Biden is that he doesn't appeal to my baser instincts. He is what a President should be, in that respect.
posted by wierdo at 5:17 PM on July 1 [26 favorites]
JFC give the poor fucking guy a day before he starts ganking justices and senators. Seriously, just a day.
What I think we might see here is every politician who's been name-checked in this thread spread out over the next couple of days and give the really direct, vehement speeches about how all of this is an existential threat to democracy, and after a couple of weeks we can have a pretty good idea of who the ticket ought to be, and Biden can say I'm stumping for these folks.
Getting Harris out there? That's kinda where I leave the realm of the plausible.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:18 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
What I think we might see here is every politician who's been name-checked in this thread spread out over the next couple of days and give the really direct, vehement speeches about how all of this is an existential threat to democracy, and after a couple of weeks we can have a pretty good idea of who the ticket ought to be, and Biden can say I'm stumping for these folks.
Getting Harris out there? That's kinda where I leave the realm of the plausible.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:18 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
California got gun control when the Black Panthers used their (up til that point) legal rights to openly bring firearms to the capital.
The same principle is in play right now, whether the Dems can see it or not.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:18 PM on July 1 [14 favorites]
The same principle is in play right now, whether the Dems can see it or not.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:18 PM on July 1 [14 favorites]
She should immediately order the DOJ to investigate Alito and Thomas. She should order the IRS to audit the executives of any media outlet that gives Trump air time. She should have every single GOP campaign staffer put on the no-fly list. She should order the CIA to drag Trump off to Guantanamo - and she should keep going harder ad harder until someone takes her power away.
Presumably to protect rule of law eh?
posted by mazola at 5:19 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Presumably to protect rule of law eh?
posted by mazola at 5:19 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Presumably, one could protect the rule of law by using all the (currently) legal means at one's disposal. If the President does it, it's not illegal, according to SCOTUS - and that won't change until there is a reason for it to change.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:22 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
posted by bashos_frog at 5:22 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
Presumably to protect rule of law eh?
The Supreme Court just threw that away. The only question now is, at the end of the coming fray, do we end up with people in power who'll put it back, or not.
posted by mrgoat at 5:23 PM on July 1 [13 favorites]
The Supreme Court just threw that away. The only question now is, at the end of the coming fray, do we end up with people in power who'll put it back, or not.
posted by mrgoat at 5:23 PM on July 1 [13 favorites]
MSNBC just had a commentator on (don't remember the name but he seemed extremely versed in the facts and possible futures). He said the ruling specifically precluded using one part of Smith's case in the hearing that will likely happen in September with Chutkin) but there were three aspects of the case that are still in play. Unfortunately he did not outline the three aspects still in play (or if he did I missed it). Anybody with expertise (not guessing) know these details?
posted by bluesky43 at 5:27 PM on July 1
posted by bluesky43 at 5:27 PM on July 1
man everyone who supported Biden should be ashamed. World historical shit is happening, the united states of america just lost its democracy (in principle if not yet in practice) and the old fool told me to vote harder. He’s not the man for this moment. His moment was 50 years ago. we’re fucked
Does that include all the Black voters in the Southern primary states in 2020 who got him the nomination? Because many of those Black voters made a strategic choice under the assumption that white voters wouldn't oust Donald Trump in the middle of a pandemic he mismanaged unless white voters were presented with a candidate as normie as Biden. Who's to say they were wrong?
I voted Bernie in the 2016 Minnesota caucus, but regretted it. I voted Warren in the 2020 primaries, Biden in the general. Biden is the incumbent president & you have no proof from polls or anything else but your fears and your own gut that any other Democrat will get you a better outcome. I just want to somebody to show me a poll with a different Democrat who has enough national name recognition that they can win by a 5% margin or more in a head-to-head matchup with Trump. Is there a different Democrat on the bench who can sweep all the swing states we need to win the Electoral College? If you have that, I can shut up, but if you don't have that, then you can argue until you're blue in the face, but you don't have an argument.
If you step out of the frame of American exceptionalism for a moment, every world leader in the G7 who was an incumbent after the ebbing of the COVID pandemic is underwater on their favorability ratings right now (cite). At the time of the G7 Summit, Biden had favorability ratings of -18.5%, but that actually made the second most popular leader at the summit! Emmanuel Macron is -31. Justin Trudeau is -38. Fumio Kishida of Japan is -40. Rishi Sunak of the UK is -54. Olaf Scholz is -51. You've got democratic socialists (Scholz), conservatives (Sunak and Kishida), neoliberals (Macron), and just plain old liberals (Trudeau) & they're all underwater after the social traumas and economic shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic. The only one doing better than Biden was Giorgia Meloni who was at -10 & her party has historical roots in the Italian Neo-fascist movement.
If I'm right & Trump is viable because Biden is the victim of a country undergoing post-COVID malaise, then swapping Biden out with some shinier, newer Democrat is not going to get you a better outcome, because people will still complain the vibes are bad.
posted by jonp72 at 5:31 PM on July 1 [33 favorites]
Does that include all the Black voters in the Southern primary states in 2020 who got him the nomination? Because many of those Black voters made a strategic choice under the assumption that white voters wouldn't oust Donald Trump in the middle of a pandemic he mismanaged unless white voters were presented with a candidate as normie as Biden. Who's to say they were wrong?
I voted Bernie in the 2016 Minnesota caucus, but regretted it. I voted Warren in the 2020 primaries, Biden in the general. Biden is the incumbent president & you have no proof from polls or anything else but your fears and your own gut that any other Democrat will get you a better outcome. I just want to somebody to show me a poll with a different Democrat who has enough national name recognition that they can win by a 5% margin or more in a head-to-head matchup with Trump. Is there a different Democrat on the bench who can sweep all the swing states we need to win the Electoral College? If you have that, I can shut up, but if you don't have that, then you can argue until you're blue in the face, but you don't have an argument.
If you step out of the frame of American exceptionalism for a moment, every world leader in the G7 who was an incumbent after the ebbing of the COVID pandemic is underwater on their favorability ratings right now (cite). At the time of the G7 Summit, Biden had favorability ratings of -18.5%, but that actually made the second most popular leader at the summit! Emmanuel Macron is -31. Justin Trudeau is -38. Fumio Kishida of Japan is -40. Rishi Sunak of the UK is -54. Olaf Scholz is -51. You've got democratic socialists (Scholz), conservatives (Sunak and Kishida), neoliberals (Macron), and just plain old liberals (Trudeau) & they're all underwater after the social traumas and economic shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic. The only one doing better than Biden was Giorgia Meloni who was at -10 & her party has historical roots in the Italian Neo-fascist movement.
If I'm right & Trump is viable because Biden is the victim of a country undergoing post-COVID malaise, then swapping Biden out with some shinier, newer Democrat is not going to get you a better outcome, because people will still complain the vibes are bad.
posted by jonp72 at 5:31 PM on July 1 [33 favorites]
Trump seeks to set aside New York verdict hours after Supreme Court ruling [AP].
posted by mazola at 5:39 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by mazola at 5:39 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
I don't know about that, but I would wager there are a fair amount of people out there, like myself, who only held their nose and voted for Biden because he promised to be a one-term president, and we'd have 4 years to find someone decent to replace him before the job became too much.
I think he's had a very, very successful first term, SCOTUS decisions notwithstanding. He has had a lot of wins. But I don't think the next four will be as easy for him, even if he does manage to eke out a victory.
Right now I'm rooting for old age and bad diet to take them both.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:41 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
I think he's had a very, very successful first term, SCOTUS decisions notwithstanding. He has had a lot of wins. But I don't think the next four will be as easy for him, even if he does manage to eke out a victory.
Right now I'm rooting for old age and bad diet to take them both.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:41 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
If there’s one thing I associate with Trump it’s good vibes.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:41 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:41 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]
Jonp72. It’s really clear you strongly believe Biden’s the only person for this moment. Understandable amd your every right to do so. But For a lot of the rest of us it seems crystal clear that he is not that man.
Latest is that The Supreme Court basically just said there is an ‘official acts’ dictator available for republican presidents and Biden just did the typical sclerotic milquetoast democratic insider “tsk tsk” ‘please vote’ crap.
So forgive some of us for being convinced he’s absolutely not that man. He cannot fight the impending darkness. He’s a lifetime clubby insider who doesn’t seem to understand the rising tide of republicanism is fascism. Age whatever. He’s not the person who leads the fight against this nightmare. .
posted by WatTylerJr at 5:41 PM on July 1 [10 favorites]
Latest is that The Supreme Court basically just said there is an ‘official acts’ dictator available for republican presidents and Biden just did the typical sclerotic milquetoast democratic insider “tsk tsk” ‘please vote’ crap.
So forgive some of us for being convinced he’s absolutely not that man. He cannot fight the impending darkness. He’s a lifetime clubby insider who doesn’t seem to understand the rising tide of republicanism is fascism. Age whatever. He’s not the person who leads the fight against this nightmare. .
posted by WatTylerJr at 5:41 PM on July 1 [10 favorites]
Hopefully, Merchan will say "LOL No." one more time, and give him the max.
That's some real chutzpah to try and spin any of that case as "official acts".
posted by bashos_frog at 5:44 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
That's some real chutzpah to try and spin any of that case as "official acts".
posted by bashos_frog at 5:44 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Jonp72. It’s really clear you strongly believe Biden’s the only person for this moment. Understandable amd your every right to do so. But For a lot of the rest of us it seems crystal clear that he is not that man.
I don't necessarily believe Biden is the only man for the moment. But I do think he is the best option we have right now unless somebody actually produces some evidence that somebody else (especially a Democrat on the bench with much lower name recognition than Biden or Harris) is going to produce a better outcome. Incumbency matters.
I'll quote Josh Micah Marshall here:
A few readers have proposed that Biden should remain in the race but announce either that he will step down soon after being sworn in for a second term or after some defined interval. So he will step down after one year or something like that. This reassures those worried about not just his age now but by the end of a second term. As I have expressed to these readers, I’m almost certain this is a very, very bad idea. You cannot run a winning campaign based on validating your opponent’s central premise. I’m going to say that again: You cannot run a winning campaign based on validating your opponent’s central premise. Campaigns are about strength and weakness. You cannot say you embody weakness and win. There’s no splitting this difference. Might Biden not be able to serve out his term? Sure, maybe. That’s what vice presidents are for. If that happens it happens. There’s an app for that. The vice presidency. You cannot make that the brand of your campaign and win.
I'm not going to disregard that advice just because you are making an appeal to the majority fallacy about what "everyone" knows.
posted by jonp72 at 5:49 PM on July 1 [12 favorites]
I don't necessarily believe Biden is the only man for the moment. But I do think he is the best option we have right now unless somebody actually produces some evidence that somebody else (especially a Democrat on the bench with much lower name recognition than Biden or Harris) is going to produce a better outcome. Incumbency matters.
I'll quote Josh Micah Marshall here:
A few readers have proposed that Biden should remain in the race but announce either that he will step down soon after being sworn in for a second term or after some defined interval. So he will step down after one year or something like that. This reassures those worried about not just his age now but by the end of a second term. As I have expressed to these readers, I’m almost certain this is a very, very bad idea. You cannot run a winning campaign based on validating your opponent’s central premise. I’m going to say that again: You cannot run a winning campaign based on validating your opponent’s central premise. Campaigns are about strength and weakness. You cannot say you embody weakness and win. There’s no splitting this difference. Might Biden not be able to serve out his term? Sure, maybe. That’s what vice presidents are for. If that happens it happens. There’s an app for that. The vice presidency. You cannot make that the brand of your campaign and win.
I'm not going to disregard that advice just because you are making an appeal to the majority fallacy about what "everyone" knows.
posted by jonp72 at 5:49 PM on July 1 [12 favorites]
If there’s one thing I associate with Trump it’s good vibes.
Don't mock this. This is a reason that might get Trump back in the White House. People look at the past with rose-colored glasses & the news media has done a horrible job in showing how Trump caused unnecessary death & economic suffering during the pandemic. So you can't assume voters are going to share your understanding of Trump = bad vibes.
posted by jonp72 at 5:52 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Don't mock this. This is a reason that might get Trump back in the White House. People look at the past with rose-colored glasses & the news media has done a horrible job in showing how Trump caused unnecessary death & economic suffering during the pandemic. So you can't assume voters are going to share your understanding of Trump = bad vibes.
posted by jonp72 at 5:52 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
jonp72 - respectfully I disagree with your analysis. Take Trudeau as an example. He’s been in office too long and past his sell-by date. Instead of grooming a leader and stepping aside, he is instead setting fire to the future of the Liberal party. Another candidate would bring the Liberals to victory, except they forgot to build bench strength and nobody wants to clean up Trudeau’s mess at this late date. It is what it is. On the bright side, Canada remains a democracy and we’ll be able to kick the other bums out in 10 years.
Another candidate would be great for the Democrats if the party had vision. Biden could lean into his immunity and order actions against both the Supreme Court and Trump himself. The whole country is at risk of falling to fascism, it’s a major national security risk and it’s only slightly dramatic to order extreme actions. After cleaning up the mess, Biden steps aside, the Republicans might be without a candidate, and the Democrats start over with a clean leader. Wouldn’t that be a win for the American people.
posted by shock muppet at 5:59 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
Another candidate would be great for the Democrats if the party had vision. Biden could lean into his immunity and order actions against both the Supreme Court and Trump himself. The whole country is at risk of falling to fascism, it’s a major national security risk and it’s only slightly dramatic to order extreme actions. After cleaning up the mess, Biden steps aside, the Republicans might be without a candidate, and the Democrats start over with a clean leader. Wouldn’t that be a win for the American people.
posted by shock muppet at 5:59 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
Wouldn’t that be a win for the American people.
Maybe? The ensuing civil war would be unpredictable.
posted by mazola at 6:04 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
Maybe? The ensuing civil war would be unpredictable.
posted by mazola at 6:04 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]
He wants to save our Democracy, not end it. I'm a bit disturbed by this idea of preemptively crowing Biden King to avoid King Trump.
The Republicans are in full triumph right now, because Trump has skated free from the grasp of the law yet again, half the nation views Biden as Mr. Magoo headed for hospice care, and the administrative state and the checks-and-balances system just died and Biden's response was essentially "please vote, if it wouldn't be too much trouble." Trump's central premise is that Biden is weak and feeble and Biden is proving him correct.
I am not rushing to kick Biden to the curb because I agree that there is no one who can step in and save the day. He's the dead horse we've got, and we need to ride him to November. That means that one of two things needs to happen, very quickly.
1) King Biden, at least in the short term. If they are convinced that he would never use immunity in ways that would hurt them, that is precisely what he would need to set his morals aside and do. They will not recognize any danger from this situation unless it bites them on the face.
2) Evidence that he truly grasps the urgency of the moment, and addressing the nation with real passion. Laying out a plan of action, both in the short term and if reelected. Giving people something tangible to vote FOR, rather than simply being the alternative choice.
Whether he is capable of either #1 or #2 is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by delfin at 6:08 PM on July 1 [26 favorites]
The Republicans are in full triumph right now, because Trump has skated free from the grasp of the law yet again, half the nation views Biden as Mr. Magoo headed for hospice care, and the administrative state and the checks-and-balances system just died and Biden's response was essentially "please vote, if it wouldn't be too much trouble." Trump's central premise is that Biden is weak and feeble and Biden is proving him correct.
I am not rushing to kick Biden to the curb because I agree that there is no one who can step in and save the day. He's the dead horse we've got, and we need to ride him to November. That means that one of two things needs to happen, very quickly.
1) King Biden, at least in the short term. If they are convinced that he would never use immunity in ways that would hurt them, that is precisely what he would need to set his morals aside and do. They will not recognize any danger from this situation unless it bites them on the face.
2) Evidence that he truly grasps the urgency of the moment, and addressing the nation with real passion. Laying out a plan of action, both in the short term and if reelected. Giving people something tangible to vote FOR, rather than simply being the alternative choice.
Whether he is capable of either #1 or #2 is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by delfin at 6:08 PM on July 1 [26 favorites]
The US might be headed into a civil war either way. Better to do it when the government is anti-fascist.
posted by shock muppet at 6:10 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
posted by shock muppet at 6:10 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]
ha ha this sucks man
posted by DoctorFedora at 6:11 PM on July 1 [21 favorites]
posted by DoctorFedora at 6:11 PM on July 1 [21 favorites]
fwiw...
US Supreme Court leaves Judge Tanya Chutkan to parse Trump immunity - "Chutkan, born in Jamaica and nominated as a judge by Democratic former President Barack Obama, gained courtroom experience as a public defender representing people accused of murder and sexual assault. Chutkan has previously shown little patience for Trump's delay tactics and his attacks on the criminal justice system."
posted by kliuless at 6:20 PM on July 1 [13 favorites]
US Supreme Court leaves Judge Tanya Chutkan to parse Trump immunity - "Chutkan, born in Jamaica and nominated as a judge by Democratic former President Barack Obama, gained courtroom experience as a public defender representing people accused of murder and sexual assault. Chutkan has previously shown little patience for Trump's delay tactics and his attacks on the criminal justice system."
posted by kliuless at 6:20 PM on July 1 [13 favorites]
at least one law professor takes some solace in this...
Trump Isn't Going to Like the Supreme Court's Immunity Decision - "This is where the majority bestows a major gift on the prosecutors: 'There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity — perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader.' With that single line, Roberts neatly disposes of what might otherwise have been Trump's strongest defense: that running for reelection is among the official duties of the president."
posted by kliuless at 6:28 PM on July 1 [18 favorites]
Trump Isn't Going to Like the Supreme Court's Immunity Decision - "This is where the majority bestows a major gift on the prosecutors: 'There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity — perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader.' With that single line, Roberts neatly disposes of what might otherwise have been Trump's strongest defense: that running for reelection is among the official duties of the president."
posted by kliuless at 6:28 PM on July 1 [18 favorites]
ScotusBlog: Turning to some of the specific allegations against Trump, the majority ruled that Trump cannot be prosecuted for his alleged efforts to “leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors.”
This is like the very definition of abuse of power.
posted by flug at 6:46 PM on July 1 [33 favorites]
This is like the very definition of abuse of power.
posted by flug at 6:46 PM on July 1 [33 favorites]
It may not have been the speech you wanted, but that was not the speech of a feeble or senile man.
He didn't take questions. I wasn't expecting him to declare a state of emergency and any thing like that, but he's clearly still hiding from any public contexts that don't suite him - it's not a good look.
posted by coffeecat at 8:38 PM on July 1 [3 favorites]
He didn't take questions. I wasn't expecting him to declare a state of emergency and any thing like that, but he's clearly still hiding from any public contexts that don't suite him - it's not a good look.
posted by coffeecat at 8:38 PM on July 1 [3 favorites]
This evening, I went to a meeting of a few Democratic ward chairs (leaders of smallish areas of Dems). We’re planning how to activate volunteers and voters in our area. This was in the works for a few weeks, but it’s more critical every day.
At our meeting, someone brought up that he had seen Sen. Cory Booker on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. Booker’s key idea there is to “turn your worry into work”.
posted by NotLost at 8:48 PM on July 1 [15 favorites]
At our meeting, someone brought up that he had seen Sen. Cory Booker on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. Booker’s key idea there is to “turn your worry into work”.
posted by NotLost at 8:48 PM on July 1 [15 favorites]
Trump seeks to set aside New York verdict hours after Supreme Court ruling [AP].
Time for Biden to declare a national security emergency as an act in his official duties as Commander-in-Chief and to defend the Constitution. No time like now. Trump must be detained and imprisoned, before it is too late.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:10 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
Time for Biden to declare a national security emergency as an act in his official duties as Commander-in-Chief and to defend the Constitution. No time like now. Trump must be detained and imprisoned, before it is too late.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:10 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
I thought Biden's speech was pretty OK (not great, but OK) and he did a good job of projecting some tough vibes, a far cry from the debate performance. He said what he had to say and walked away before he could fuck it up by stumbling over questions.
I am finally convinced that the Democratic Party cannot physically see that we are In The Crisis. There is not a road from this point where Democracy is just "preserved".
Political parties don't give a single flying fuck about democracy. They care about the continued power of the party itself and nothing else. They also understand that politics goes in cycles so, while they might be underdogs today, their time in the sun will come and they merely have to hold station until then. Any kind of radical agenda puts that at risk, so they just hold tight while it's their turn to sit in the dark.
posted by dg at 9:23 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
I am finally convinced that the Democratic Party cannot physically see that we are In The Crisis. There is not a road from this point where Democracy is just "preserved".
Political parties don't give a single flying fuck about democracy. They care about the continued power of the party itself and nothing else. They also understand that politics goes in cycles so, while they might be underdogs today, their time in the sun will come and they merely have to hold station until then. Any kind of radical agenda puts that at risk, so they just hold tight while it's their turn to sit in the dark.
posted by dg at 9:23 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
Only partially through the thread after a long day pretending the law means something, so maybe it’s been addressed, but it seems to me that this decision would have absolved Nixon of all of his crimes, so long as he was willing to own them (rather than assuming they had to be covered up.) Dirty tricks and ratfucking are immunized so long as they receive the Presidental imprimatur as official acts. See also Iran-Contra.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:27 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:27 PM on July 1 [11 favorites]
Harris - Cheney 2024
It's not just a popularity contest among voters, but also among donors and party brass. There's about 2 weeks left before the window closes and imo the above is the only possibility that stands any chance of beating the Trump-Fox-Roberts-AEI-KidRock-Westboro agenda.
posted by CookTing at 9:37 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
It's not just a popularity contest among voters, but also among donors and party brass. There's about 2 weeks left before the window closes and imo the above is the only possibility that stands any chance of beating the Trump-Fox-Roberts-AEI-KidRock-Westboro agenda.
posted by CookTing at 9:37 PM on July 1 [4 favorites]
So far only one thing has ever stopped Trump: Voters.
I hear a lot of people hoping for someone else to do the job, but in the end the only way to get him to go away is to vote against him.
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:41 PM on July 1 [17 favorites]
I hear a lot of people hoping for someone else to do the job, but in the end the only way to get him to go away is to vote against him.
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:41 PM on July 1 [17 favorites]
California got gun control when the Black Panthers used their (up til that point) legal rights to openly bring firearms to the capital.
The same principle is in play right now, whether the Dems can see it or not.
Sure is good to know your rights.
posted by non canadian guy at 9:46 PM on July 1
The same principle is in play right now, whether the Dems can see it or not.
Sure is good to know your rights.
posted by non canadian guy at 9:46 PM on July 1
Traditionally when the President gives a statement like this they don’t take questions. It would be unusual for him to take questions.
posted by interogative mood at 9:57 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 9:57 PM on July 1 [5 favorites]
Also, if the Democrats retain the Presidency, this same Court will find a way to limit this decision to its facts.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:14 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:14 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]
He wants to save our Democracy, not end it. I'm a bit disturbed by this idea of preemptively crowing Biden King to avoid King Trump.Democracy does not just exist as an abstract ideal, it is practiced. There's no neutral referee here to hand out red cards when the rules are broken, and given that the GOP and their base has shown zero interest in them, it is up the Democratic Party to restore deterrence by reminding them why those rules were developed in the first place. Democrats have argued that a 2nd Trump term would end democracy as we know it, it's time they act like it. The Supreme Court has issued Biden a get out of jail free card - let him use it.
posted by ndr at 10:15 PM on July 1 [17 favorites]
For my sins I have read this whole thread, and this is the only meaningful advice or plan that matters:
So far only one thing has ever stopped Trump: Voters.
I hear a lot of people hoping for someone else to do the job, but in the end the only way to get him to go away is to vote against him.
posted by elwoodwiles
Way too much blahblahblah and fantasising and navel-gazing and chest-beating and finger-pointing and demanding going on here (and elsewhere) about all this.
Just fucking vote. That is all that is left that does not involve violence and chaos, and lots of it.
Your hallowed institutions have failed and are not going to save you. Only voting in overwhelming numbers can do that.
Make sure you are registered, and check that frequently. Drag along as many Dem voting people as you can to the booth on election day, or before for those who can vote early.
And keep doing it for the rest of your life. Every single one of you. There are no other realistic peaceful options on the table to save you. This is a long haul recovery plan.
However much you hate or blame Teh Evool Dem Party Machine, even if justified, you will hate the alternative infinitely more if they win. At least with the Dems you and democracy will survive to get another go at moving towards your Utopia.
And that is no small win.
posted by Pouteria at 11:09 PM on July 1 [17 favorites]
So far only one thing has ever stopped Trump: Voters.
I hear a lot of people hoping for someone else to do the job, but in the end the only way to get him to go away is to vote against him.
posted by elwoodwiles
Way too much blahblahblah and fantasising and navel-gazing and chest-beating and finger-pointing and demanding going on here (and elsewhere) about all this.
Just fucking vote. That is all that is left that does not involve violence and chaos, and lots of it.
Your hallowed institutions have failed and are not going to save you. Only voting in overwhelming numbers can do that.
Make sure you are registered, and check that frequently. Drag along as many Dem voting people as you can to the booth on election day, or before for those who can vote early.
And keep doing it for the rest of your life. Every single one of you. There are no other realistic peaceful options on the table to save you. This is a long haul recovery plan.
However much you hate or blame Teh Evool Dem Party Machine, even if justified, you will hate the alternative infinitely more if they win. At least with the Dems you and democracy will survive to get another go at moving towards your Utopia.
And that is no small win.
posted by Pouteria at 11:09 PM on July 1 [17 favorites]
Strict Scrutiny podcast: Supreme Court Hands Donald Trump Presidential Immunity for "Official Acts".
posted by Pendragon at 11:19 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
posted by Pendragon at 11:19 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]
Voting is not going to do anything to fix the Supreme Court, especially given the Senate map.
I'm sorry about that.
If the answer is for the Democrats to win every presidential election from now until forever, that's not sustainable AND it's not going to work given Corner Post and Loper Bright and Jarkesy and, and....
Expanding the court is the only answer.
Guess how many elected Democrats are opposed to that?
posted by Gadarene at 11:29 PM on July 1 [14 favorites]
I'm sorry about that.
If the answer is for the Democrats to win every presidential election from now until forever, that's not sustainable AND it's not going to work given Corner Post and Loper Bright and Jarkesy and, and....
Expanding the court is the only answer.
Guess how many elected Democrats are opposed to that?
posted by Gadarene at 11:29 PM on July 1 [14 favorites]
I did some reading about presidential immunity on Wikipedia and it seems that the now infamous SEAL Team 6 hypothetical had originated as early as this year: Judge Florence Pan had raised this very question on Jan 9, 2024 during the DC Circuit Court of Appeals hearing of Trump's election obstruction case, here's a CNN recording of the exchange between the Judge and Trump's lawyer at the time. Interesting example of a meme being created in a more rarefied setting, between two justices.
posted by polymodus at 12:25 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 12:25 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
> Expanding the court is the only answer.
Merge the court - "If the Democrats win the Presidency and the Senate, and if they are not inclined to betray the country to plutocratic interests (who would be glad to compensate them for the electoral cost of doing so), they will reform the Federal judiciary in some manner next year... if a Biden administration wants to do the right thing for the country, rather than for their industry, here is my proposal."[1,2]
on gaming out an alternative ticket...
Superdelegates - "Why, if Biden is considering withdrawing, will his administration completely rule out the possibility of withdrawing? Because if there is continued, credible, will-he-won't-he chatter, that will weaken him and render his continued candidacy less tenable. And in order to successfully withdraw, he must withdraw from a position of strength rather than weakness within the Democratic Party firmament. Any succession must be a negotiated succession, and Joe Biden is his own BATNA."[3,4]
also btw...
State capacity and authoritarianism - "It is in fact correct and true that solving our muliplying polycrises demands a state capable of overcoming narrow vetoes and forging some broad consensus that can break through the gridlock, get most of us moving in the same direction, actually do stuff."[5,6,7]
Merge the court - "If the Democrats win the Presidency and the Senate, and if they are not inclined to betray the country to plutocratic interests (who would be glad to compensate them for the electoral cost of doing so), they will reform the Federal judiciary in some manner next year... if a Biden administration wants to do the right thing for the country, rather than for their industry, here is my proposal."[1,2]
on gaming out an alternative ticket...
Superdelegates - "Why, if Biden is considering withdrawing, will his administration completely rule out the possibility of withdrawing? Because if there is continued, credible, will-he-won't-he chatter, that will weaken him and render his continued candidacy less tenable. And in order to successfully withdraw, he must withdraw from a position of strength rather than weakness within the Democratic Party firmament. Any succession must be a negotiated succession, and Joe Biden is his own BATNA."[3,4]
also btw...
State capacity and authoritarianism - "It is in fact correct and true that solving our muliplying polycrises demands a state capable of overcoming narrow vetoes and forging some broad consensus that can break through the gridlock, get most of us moving in the same direction, actually do stuff."[5,6,7]
If Democrats are really pro-democracy, they have to do more than argue only reelecting them can save democracy. They must bequeath to the public a system in which citizens actually have meaningful choices, rather than cling to and capitalize on an it's-us-or-Adolf dynamic. Are Democrats pro-democracy, or just pro conditions that help them win their next election?posted by kliuless at 12:36 AM on July 2 [11 favorites]
The reforms I favor Congress could pass in a day. Elections for single-winner, at-large positions like Senator and President should be by approval voting, which favors candidates everyone can live with over candidates that members of conflictual factions most ardently support, and which encourages the emergence of multiple parties. Elections to the House of Representative should be by some form of proportional representation, whether it's my unlikely dorky favorite (random ballot), a conventional party-list based system, single-transferable-vote, or the clever hybrid MMP.
Perhaps you have different reforms in mind. This is a democracy! But you are not objectively pro-democracy if you are not working to reform a system that, by virtue of widely understood social dynamics, will predictably, recurringly, almost inevitably, yield polarization, gridlock, and incapacity.
[...]
We need state capacity now more than ever. We can do better than succumb to authoritarianism or gin up some war to find it.
But we will do one of those things if we don't do anything else to restore a capable state.
Electoral reform is possible. It is easy. Nothing is more urgent, or more hopeful.
Expanding the court is the only answer.
Which can only be done by electing enough Dems to the House, and the Senate in particular, who will support it. Which can only be done via voting.
What is the alternative? What other constitutional mechanism is available?
I would also suggest that after this SC decision there is a good chance that there are now fewer Dems in both chambers, or standing for election for the first time, opposed to expanding the court.
posted by Pouteria at 12:36 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
Which can only be done by electing enough Dems to the House, and the Senate in particular, who will support it. Which can only be done via voting.
What is the alternative? What other constitutional mechanism is available?
I would also suggest that after this SC decision there is a good chance that there are now fewer Dems in both chambers, or standing for election for the first time, opposed to expanding the court.
posted by Pouteria at 12:36 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
The reforms I favor Congress could pass in a day. Elections for single-winner, at-large positions like Senator and President should be by approval voting
at this point filed under "ok what fuckin planet", sorry
posted by away for regrooving at 12:44 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
at this point filed under "ok what fuckin planet", sorry
posted by away for regrooving at 12:44 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
Electoral reform is possible. It is easy. Nothing is more urgent, or more hopeful.
Good luck getting that through before the election, or any time thereafter. To describe it as aspirational would be very kind indeed. Easy it most certainly is not. Borderline delusional would be more accurate.
It is the most difficult reform of all in the US, because the Repubs and their oligarchical masters will not have a bar of it if it in any way reduces their hold on power, which any fairer electoral system inevitably will.
They only have the power they do because of the distorted electoral system. Especially in the Senate. They will never willingly give that up.
posted by Pouteria at 12:51 AM on July 2 [7 favorites]
Good luck getting that through before the election, or any time thereafter. To describe it as aspirational would be very kind indeed. Easy it most certainly is not. Borderline delusional would be more accurate.
It is the most difficult reform of all in the US, because the Repubs and their oligarchical masters will not have a bar of it if it in any way reduces their hold on power, which any fairer electoral system inevitably will.
They only have the power they do because of the distorted electoral system. Especially in the Senate. They will never willingly give that up.
posted by Pouteria at 12:51 AM on July 2 [7 favorites]
Re: Voting being the only best action: at a party this weekend with a bunch of USians living in Germany there was a lot of talk about going back to knock on doors in October. And of course, "where are you registered?" and contemplations about how to change if possible. This was, of course, before this latest crazy fucking move. Which, maybe is not as crazy as it at first seems... though of course, that's not true, from Heather Cox Richardson's newsletter:
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.
*Nausea increases*
The idea of expanding the Supreme Court to better reflect the citizenry, both in number and in political affiliation, is past due. Similarly with gerrymandering and the Electoral College (in conversation recently heard it described as "An idea to moderate big swings in political fads... but a failed idea that does not actually work..." which is very much the case. Make it so that voters in Montana and California have the same number of electoral college votes: same with members of the House of Rep... and while we're at it, lets just go with State-funded elections and cut private funding out altogether.
Try the veal! I'll be here all week! Enjoy the Poconos! Next up Mikey Marimba and his International Big Band!
posted by From Bklyn at 3:48 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
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.
*Nausea increases*
The idea of expanding the Supreme Court to better reflect the citizenry, both in number and in political affiliation, is past due. Similarly with gerrymandering and the Electoral College (in conversation recently heard it described as "An idea to moderate big swings in political fads... but a failed idea that does not actually work..." which is very much the case. Make it so that voters in Montana and California have the same number of electoral college votes: same with members of the House of Rep... and while we're at it, lets just go with State-funded elections and cut private funding out altogether.
Try the veal! I'll be here all week! Enjoy the Poconos! Next up Mikey Marimba and his International Big Band!
posted by From Bklyn at 3:48 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
Biden could always order the military to execute Trump. Obama demonstrated that the president has that power pretty conclusively.
Nah, the conservative majority on the court would just declare that to have been an unofficial act.
You're assuming, much like the authors of this decision have, that the conservative Supremes will still be alive and not also in front of the firing squad.
posted by srboisvert at 3:52 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
Nah, the conservative majority on the court would just declare that to have been an unofficial act.
You're assuming, much like the authors of this decision have, that the conservative Supremes will still be alive and not also in front of the firing squad.
posted by srboisvert at 3:52 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
> “ Under this opinion, Joe Biden could just order the military to execute Trump…”
Darth Biden
posted by xtian at 4:55 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
Darth Biden
posted by xtian at 4:55 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
The problem, it seems, is the standard that official acts are presumptively immune and then setting up a standard for overriding that presumption that is so high that it's basically insurmountable. There's no escape valve for saying, sure, this sounds like an official act but the way the president did it was so egregious and illegal that they are no longer immune from prosecution. It should be a high bar, but not so insurmountable that there is literally nothing anyone can do in the face of treason or using one's official power for personal and corrupt reasons.
As much as I hate to say it ACB's opinion was close to what I expected: there is no explicit immunity, but the former exec can argue that congress lacks the power to make any official duty of the executive illegal, and therefore any law being applied to their official duties is unconstitutionally exercised.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 5:04 AM on July 2
As much as I hate to say it ACB's opinion was close to what I expected: there is no explicit immunity, but the former exec can argue that congress lacks the power to make any official duty of the executive illegal, and therefore any law being applied to their official duties is unconstitutionally exercised.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 5:04 AM on July 2
Which can only be done by electing enough Dems to the House, and the Senate in particular, who will support it. Which can only be done via voting. [emphasis mine]
No. That can't be done via voting. Not unless you plan to unseat an incumbent by backing someone else in the primary who might not be strong enough to win the general election. The places that elect Democrats who don't support major reforms are often the places where just getting any Democrat into office is critical. It's fucking disingenuous to suggest that the solution is for people to vote their conscience when every. single. time. people do, they're criticized for risking everything by putting their personal priorities ahead of pragmatic reality.
And also, way to throw the blame back on the voters for not voting hard enough. For the first two years of Biden's presidency, Democrats controlled the House and the Senate. Why wasn't that enough to push through reforms which could have stopped Trump? Why should you blame the voters for not voting hard enough and giving a majority that could get past Manchin and Sinema when Manchin and Sinema were the Democrats who were the ones blocking major reforms? Why do they get a pass? Because they have (had) a D in front of their names?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:38 AM on July 2 [9 favorites]
No. That can't be done via voting. Not unless you plan to unseat an incumbent by backing someone else in the primary who might not be strong enough to win the general election. The places that elect Democrats who don't support major reforms are often the places where just getting any Democrat into office is critical. It's fucking disingenuous to suggest that the solution is for people to vote their conscience when every. single. time. people do, they're criticized for risking everything by putting their personal priorities ahead of pragmatic reality.
And also, way to throw the blame back on the voters for not voting hard enough. For the first two years of Biden's presidency, Democrats controlled the House and the Senate. Why wasn't that enough to push through reforms which could have stopped Trump? Why should you blame the voters for not voting hard enough and giving a majority that could get past Manchin and Sinema when Manchin and Sinema were the Democrats who were the ones blocking major reforms? Why do they get a pass? Because they have (had) a D in front of their names?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:38 AM on July 2 [9 favorites]
Joe Biden had a bad night; Donald Trump is a monster of a human being. Compare the two.
The list of comparisons is accurate and apt. I'd rather vote for anyone than Donald Trump, and Biden will have my vote if he is the Democratic candidate.
But let's keep things spin free, shall we? Biden didn't just have a bad night. Obama had a bad night that first debate with Romney. But Obama wasn't 81 years old.
Joe Biden is showing his age. Or more to the point--the symptoms of old age, like reduced mobility and reduced mental capacity--are becoming more and more apparent in Biden.
Here's the thing: that reduction is a ratchet at best. Biden won't ever go back to being sharp and sprightly. He might "level out" and have episodes like the debate once in a blue moon. But maybe it'll get worse. We have no idea, and maybe Biden's doctors and Biden himself have no idea, too.
I'll vote for the guy, but let's not pretend that he doesn't have some age-related problems. They could affect his ability to do the job and they will definitely affect his public image and electability.
posted by zardoz at 5:39 AM on July 2 [17 favorites]
The list of comparisons is accurate and apt. I'd rather vote for anyone than Donald Trump, and Biden will have my vote if he is the Democratic candidate.
But let's keep things spin free, shall we? Biden didn't just have a bad night. Obama had a bad night that first debate with Romney. But Obama wasn't 81 years old.
Joe Biden is showing his age. Or more to the point--the symptoms of old age, like reduced mobility and reduced mental capacity--are becoming more and more apparent in Biden.
Here's the thing: that reduction is a ratchet at best. Biden won't ever go back to being sharp and sprightly. He might "level out" and have episodes like the debate once in a blue moon. But maybe it'll get worse. We have no idea, and maybe Biden's doctors and Biden himself have no idea, too.
I'll vote for the guy, but let's not pretend that he doesn't have some age-related problems. They could affect his ability to do the job and they will definitely affect his public image and electability.
posted by zardoz at 5:39 AM on July 2 [17 favorites]
As much as I'd love Biden to (legally, officially) drop That Guy and his enablers into an oubliette forever, we know he's not going to. Still, he needs to do something big to demonstrate what kind of power the Supreme Court has just handed him, and I think I know what it is.
Erase all student loan debt. All of it. One stroke of the pen.
Go on, Joe. Show 'em what you're made of.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:51 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
Erase all student loan debt. All of it. One stroke of the pen.
Go on, Joe. Show 'em what you're made of.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:51 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
Now that I’ve fully read Sotomayor’s dissent, I echo recommendations to anyone of a mind that they read it as well. Not only is it satisfyingly scathing (like, scathing on the level of a Scalia dissent), it’s a superb dismantling of the Roberts opinion using originalism against the originalists. She displays a command of the law and history far superior to the hand-waving Roberts gives.
posted by Room 101 at 5:54 AM on July 2 [14 favorites]
posted by Room 101 at 5:54 AM on July 2 [14 favorites]
seems to me that this decision would have absolved Nixon of all of his crimes
Yes. I read the decision to repudiate all of Watergate. Under this opinion, it seems to me Nixon could not have been prosecuted for the key actions that got him in trouble--the taped conversations with Haldeman and pushing the CIA to obstruct the FBI investigation--and that Ford's pardon was unnecessary.
I’m surprised by the many people who are surprised that the Court extended immunity to include a privilege against evidentiary use of immune acts. Legislative Speech-or-Debate immunity has long included such an evidentiary privilege--government cannot use immune legislative acts (e.g., a floor speech or vote) to prove a bribery case. (This was recently applied in the Bob Menendez prosecution). If an evidentiary privilege is inherent in one immunity, it is not surprising that it is inherent in the other.
And so I am curious why Justice Barrett, who appeared skeptical of immunity during oral argument, drew that as her line and declined to join that portion of the Roberts opinion.
posted by edithkeeler at 6:01 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
Yes. I read the decision to repudiate all of Watergate. Under this opinion, it seems to me Nixon could not have been prosecuted for the key actions that got him in trouble--the taped conversations with Haldeman and pushing the CIA to obstruct the FBI investigation--and that Ford's pardon was unnecessary.
I’m surprised by the many people who are surprised that the Court extended immunity to include a privilege against evidentiary use of immune acts. Legislative Speech-or-Debate immunity has long included such an evidentiary privilege--government cannot use immune legislative acts (e.g., a floor speech or vote) to prove a bribery case. (This was recently applied in the Bob Menendez prosecution). If an evidentiary privilege is inherent in one immunity, it is not surprising that it is inherent in the other.
And so I am curious why Justice Barrett, who appeared skeptical of immunity during oral argument, drew that as her line and declined to join that portion of the Roberts opinion.
posted by edithkeeler at 6:01 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
In 2016 I was called "crazy" and "overreacting" because I described Trump as a threat to the republic.
"Both parties are the same"
"But her emails"
"No Bush No Clinton"
and on and on....
We have god-kings now, not Presidents. Unless some miracle occurs (a constitutional amendment undoing today's ruling), the country as we know it is in Stage 4 and it only takes one bad election to finish her off once and for all. =/
Getting to the point:
* Passports, if you can
* Jobs overseas, if you can
* Citizenship elsewhere, if you can
(If you are in a position to stay and resist, may the Gods of Democracy be with you.)
Edited to add: Back in December, I got it wrong. Roberts did anoint Biden as the first King of the United States after all.
posted by andreaazure at 6:14 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
"Both parties are the same"
"But her emails"
"No Bush No Clinton"
and on and on....
We have god-kings now, not Presidents. Unless some miracle occurs (a constitutional amendment undoing today's ruling), the country as we know it is in Stage 4 and it only takes one bad election to finish her off once and for all. =/
Getting to the point:
* Passports, if you can
* Jobs overseas, if you can
* Citizenship elsewhere, if you can
(If you are in a position to stay and resist, may the Gods of Democracy be with you.)
Edited to add: Back in December, I got it wrong. Roberts did anoint Biden as the first King of the United States after all.
posted by andreaazure at 6:14 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
Erase all student loan debt. All of it. One stroke of the pen.
From Max Kennelly, a law person on Bluesky:
"It's a bit problematic how Biden has (a) narrow, limited power to have his agency draw up a student loan forgiveness process consistent with the statutes passed by Congress; but (b) complete immunity to tell everyone at Dept of Edu, "mark those loans as $0 or I'll put you in a pine box."
Pointing out the absurdity of the 1-2 punch of the overturning of Chevron plus the immunity decision.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:27 AM on July 2 [29 favorites]
From Max Kennelly, a law person on Bluesky:
"It's a bit problematic how Biden has (a) narrow, limited power to have his agency draw up a student loan forgiveness process consistent with the statutes passed by Congress; but (b) complete immunity to tell everyone at Dept of Edu, "mark those loans as $0 or I'll put you in a pine box."
Pointing out the absurdity of the 1-2 punch of the overturning of Chevron plus the immunity decision.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:27 AM on July 2 [29 favorites]
I acknowledge that it may be the case that Trump is now immune from basically any illegal act as president but Biden still can’t unilaterally erase student loan debt. However, what a brilliant move by the court. The dems make their whole shtick be “we would like to do more good things, but we just can’t”. Now the perception is that presidents can do what’s they want, but dems still have to repeat their excuses.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:35 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:35 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
> Borderline delusional would be more accurate. It is the most difficult reform of all in the US, because the Repubs and their oligarchical masters will not have a bar of it if it in any way reduces their hold on power, which any fairer electoral system inevitably will.
fwiw, all-candidate primary/RCV is on the ballot in colorado (approval voting didn't make it in 2020)
-Gov. Polis signs bill that will delay implementation of proposed Colorado election overhaul
-Opinion: Proposed changes to Colorado election laws need greater reality testing before we try to go statewide
posted by kliuless at 6:36 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
fwiw, all-candidate primary/RCV is on the ballot in colorado (approval voting didn't make it in 2020)
If the measure passes, Colorado would join only a couple of other states that conduct their elections in similar ways. Voters in Alaska approved a similar new system in 2020 for its primary and general elections. A similar reform to primaries and general elections is up for final approval by Nevada voters this year after passing initially in 2022. Oregon voters will consider shifting to ranked-choice voting, too, and Maine recently instituted RCV. California adopted a version of “all-candidate” primaries in 2011.altho...
-Gov. Polis signs bill that will delay implementation of proposed Colorado election overhaul
-Opinion: Proposed changes to Colorado election laws need greater reality testing before we try to go statewide
posted by kliuless at 6:36 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
I am all for voting but it’s not going to be enough. For the majority of Americans we’re back to the Clinton/Trump vibe:”It can’t be that bad plus he’ll cut my taxes….”
We’d have to have such an overwhelming number of new voters enter at this point AND vote for Biden that the lines to vote would be 3 days long. And the GOP has the infrastructure in place to contest every election in every state so minor issues will drag this out. I worry Jan. 6 was just a dry run for Nov. 2020.
Given that Biden and team will do nothing whatsoever, maybe the Fed Chair will drop the interest rate and juice the economy for a few months prior to the election and give Biden credit. Maybe Sotomayor will give a public speech, maybe some Republicans will grow a spine, maybe the NY judge will lock him up… I mean, as long as we’re dreaming….
Note the media is still banging the “Biden should drop out” drum - how quickly did we forget Trump’s conviction? Basically the next day this was forgotten.
Everyone I know is freaking out - I’m freaking out and I’m a white dude with a solid job in a blue state.
posted by Farce_First at 7:08 AM on July 2 [11 favorites]
We’d have to have such an overwhelming number of new voters enter at this point AND vote for Biden that the lines to vote would be 3 days long. And the GOP has the infrastructure in place to contest every election in every state so minor issues will drag this out. I worry Jan. 6 was just a dry run for Nov. 2020.
Given that Biden and team will do nothing whatsoever, maybe the Fed Chair will drop the interest rate and juice the economy for a few months prior to the election and give Biden credit. Maybe Sotomayor will give a public speech, maybe some Republicans will grow a spine, maybe the NY judge will lock him up… I mean, as long as we’re dreaming….
Note the media is still banging the “Biden should drop out” drum - how quickly did we forget Trump’s conviction? Basically the next day this was forgotten.
Everyone I know is freaking out - I’m freaking out and I’m a white dude with a solid job in a blue state.
posted by Farce_First at 7:08 AM on July 2 [11 favorites]
This reminds me of the notion of "ex cathedra" with regards to Papal power. When the Pope is speaking "ex cathedra" it's like a set of divine quotation marks making it clear that the Pope's word is the word of God. If it's something that's politically hot, the cards are quick to rush in to say it's not ex cathedra.
Except in this case it's going to be politicians rushing in to say that the president was acting in his official capacity to accept emoluments and how dare you question otherwise.
posted by plinth at 7:09 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
Except in this case it's going to be politicians rushing in to say that the president was acting in his official capacity to accept emoluments and how dare you question otherwise.
posted by plinth at 7:09 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
The End of Liberal Institutionalism (Hamilton Nolan's How Things Work newsletter)
Here are two very concrete things that should become, today, immediately, the standard position of any progressive: Getting rid of the filibuster, which allows a minority to thwart the will of the majority in the Senate; and either expanding the Supreme Court (best) or putting term limits on the Supreme Court (not as good, but better than nothing). There should not be a single day’s extra discussion about these things. They must become rock solid planks of the party platform. In the long run of history, after many of Joe Biden’s positive accomplishments as president have been dismantled and erased by right wing courts, it will become clear that his inability to get to the right place on those two issues was one of his administration’s most deadly miscalculations.posted by box at 7:13 AM on July 2 [19 favorites]
I'm just astonished that Biden is doing... nothing in the face of this judicial coup. I know I shouldn't be, but I am.
Just "vote harder". Is he afraid of the Supreme Court or something? YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT. DO SOMETHING.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:14 AM on July 2 [14 favorites]
Just "vote harder". Is he afraid of the Supreme Court or something? YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT. DO SOMETHING.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:14 AM on July 2 [14 favorites]
What do they think is going to happen?
Supreme Court: 'We Wear Gold Crowns Now'
posted by logicpunk at 7:17 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
Supreme Court: 'We Wear Gold Crowns Now'
posted by logicpunk at 7:17 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
as is so often the case the only realistic solution is totally unhinged political violence
consider this the standing bombastic lowercase pronouncement of the day for all days in the foreseeable future
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:21 AM on July 2 [9 favorites]
consider this the standing bombastic lowercase pronouncement of the day for all days in the foreseeable future
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:21 AM on July 2 [9 favorites]
It's fascinating how the bloodless technocrat faction here keeps writing impassioned (for certain value of impassioned) pleas for people to stop saying they won't vote and to just vote even if they don't like it.
Fascinating because if you look at those comments in isolation you'd think the entire thread was filled with people declaring that they were never voting again, and certainly never voting for Biden. And, there are exactly zero comments saying that as far as I can tell.
I think it really underscores the difference in thinking between the two groups.
On the one side you've got the passionelss, bloodless, robotic, technocrats. Biden has no power to singlehandedly overturn this decision, ergo Biden is limited to a robotoic monotone statement that, on balance, all things considered, giving the other side it's due respect, it appears that possibly the Supreme Court may have been, to an extent, in error with this ruling. Once that's done there's nothing more to be done.
Since all that can be done is voting ergo anyone who make statements questioning Biden or arguing that more should be done is a person declaring they won't vote. QED.
But no, that's not what we're saying at all.
It goes back to all the Green Lantern accusations. The passionless technocrats see that there are no further legalistic passionless things to do and conclude that anyone who asks for more is asking for impossibilities and must be fools.
But to those of us who are emotionally invested it gives the impression that they don't actually care which leads us to conclude that there is something they could do if it was an issue they really did care about.
After Roe fell an interviewer asked VP Harris what she's say to those who ask why the administration isn't doing more. Her response was a platonic ideal example of what I'm talking about. She had this look of utter confusion, followed by contemptuous condescension and her answer was two words: "Do what?"
Because, to her technocratic way of thinking, there was no Executive Order that Biden could issue to fix it, he said he thought, on balance, maybe, it seemd the decision could possibly be in error, so that was that. WTF more do those clowns want?
What us clowns want is some goddamn PASSION!
We don't think Biden is doing all he can because he doesn't seem to care. His response to the MAGA Court shattering the administrative establishment, giving Republican Presidents dictatorial power, and so on was a shrug and "we don't have enough votes in the senate to resolve this". To people like me that gives the impression that he doesn't care.
We want thundering denunciations. We want white hot rage filled speeches. We want our leadership to acknowledge our concerns and feelings and show that they share them to at least some extent. We want Biden to stop acting like a malfunctioning Disney automaton and actually display the sort of passion, fury, and rage he shows when college kids say they have it hard or a young woman says he's wrong.
And he won't. Because that's not who he is. He's a technocrat, same as Harris, same as Pelosi, same as Schumer.
So no, technocratic people here, our rage and despiar and demands for more don't mean we're not going to vote. K? You can stop worrying about that. We're voting, we're just doing it resentfully and half convinced that the people we're voting for don't really give a shit.
posted by sotonohito at 7:42 AM on July 2 [48 favorites]
Fascinating because if you look at those comments in isolation you'd think the entire thread was filled with people declaring that they were never voting again, and certainly never voting for Biden. And, there are exactly zero comments saying that as far as I can tell.
I think it really underscores the difference in thinking between the two groups.
On the one side you've got the passionelss, bloodless, robotic, technocrats. Biden has no power to singlehandedly overturn this decision, ergo Biden is limited to a robotoic monotone statement that, on balance, all things considered, giving the other side it's due respect, it appears that possibly the Supreme Court may have been, to an extent, in error with this ruling. Once that's done there's nothing more to be done.
Since all that can be done is voting ergo anyone who make statements questioning Biden or arguing that more should be done is a person declaring they won't vote. QED.
But no, that's not what we're saying at all.
It goes back to all the Green Lantern accusations. The passionless technocrats see that there are no further legalistic passionless things to do and conclude that anyone who asks for more is asking for impossibilities and must be fools.
But to those of us who are emotionally invested it gives the impression that they don't actually care which leads us to conclude that there is something they could do if it was an issue they really did care about.
After Roe fell an interviewer asked VP Harris what she's say to those who ask why the administration isn't doing more. Her response was a platonic ideal example of what I'm talking about. She had this look of utter confusion, followed by contemptuous condescension and her answer was two words: "Do what?"
Because, to her technocratic way of thinking, there was no Executive Order that Biden could issue to fix it, he said he thought, on balance, maybe, it seemd the decision could possibly be in error, so that was that. WTF more do those clowns want?
What us clowns want is some goddamn PASSION!
We don't think Biden is doing all he can because he doesn't seem to care. His response to the MAGA Court shattering the administrative establishment, giving Republican Presidents dictatorial power, and so on was a shrug and "we don't have enough votes in the senate to resolve this". To people like me that gives the impression that he doesn't care.
We want thundering denunciations. We want white hot rage filled speeches. We want our leadership to acknowledge our concerns and feelings and show that they share them to at least some extent. We want Biden to stop acting like a malfunctioning Disney automaton and actually display the sort of passion, fury, and rage he shows when college kids say they have it hard or a young woman says he's wrong.
And he won't. Because that's not who he is. He's a technocrat, same as Harris, same as Pelosi, same as Schumer.
So no, technocratic people here, our rage and despiar and demands for more don't mean we're not going to vote. K? You can stop worrying about that. We're voting, we're just doing it resentfully and half convinced that the people we're voting for don't really give a shit.
posted by sotonohito at 7:42 AM on July 2 [48 favorites]
Did people think that the thing restricting Joe Biden from acting dramatically, decisively and unilaterally to improve the lives of people in the US and around the world was that he was afraid of being tried in a criminal court?
posted by penduluum at 7:47 AM on July 2 [8 favorites]
posted by penduluum at 7:47 AM on July 2 [8 favorites]
"Trump sentencing likely delayed. Manhattan DA's office says it would not oppose a brief delay to brief issues surrounding immunity decision." (Joshua J Friedman, Bsky) (ETA AP link also.)
posted by mittens at 8:08 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
posted by mittens at 8:08 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Every day of the Trump presidency brought some new horrifying news about the active dismantling of our nation's institutions and the revelation that what many of us thought were laws, were merely norms. When I read the headlines each morning, the ending sting from the theme song from the show The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret would run through my head.
As soon as I read about this court's decision, all I could hear was the return of that sting: "...thiiiings are gonna get woooooose."
posted by UltraMorgnus at 8:19 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
As soon as I read about this court's decision, all I could hear was the return of that sting: "...thiiiings are gonna get woooooose."
posted by UltraMorgnus at 8:19 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
Every day of the Trump presidency brought some new horrifying news about the active dismantling of our nation's institutions and the revelation that what many of us thought were laws, were merely norms.
And the SC's contribution is to make mostly everything a President does contingent on norms.
posted by mazola at 8:23 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
And the SC's contribution is to make mostly everything a President does contingent on norms.
posted by mazola at 8:23 AM on July 2 [3 favorites]
Traditionally when the President gives a statement like this they don’t take questions. It would be unusual for him to take questions.
I think you're confusing what became normal under Trump for how these things often work. It's by no means unusual for a president to take questions after a press conference.
What we need more than ever is a president capable and willing of going on the offensive - going on all the main cable news stations, top radio shows/podcasts, and giving interviews on this topic - you know, being a leader. Biden is utterly failing to do that so far, and all signs point to part of the reason being his cognitive decline (see the recent reporting by Carl Bernstein).
posted by coffeecat at 8:23 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
I think you're confusing what became normal under Trump for how these things often work. It's by no means unusual for a president to take questions after a press conference.
What we need more than ever is a president capable and willing of going on the offensive - going on all the main cable news stations, top radio shows/podcasts, and giving interviews on this topic - you know, being a leader. Biden is utterly failing to do that so far, and all signs point to part of the reason being his cognitive decline (see the recent reporting by Carl Bernstein).
posted by coffeecat at 8:23 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
That was a statement by the President not a press conference.
posted by mazola at 8:27 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
posted by mazola at 8:27 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
The trouble is, this is what happens when you make the worst/easiest choices over and over and over for a long time - eventually, there's no way out. The Democratic party has been making the worst choice at almost every fork in the road for my entire life, so when we have a genuine emergency, we have a president who is unfit to meet it, an unpopular vice president, a treacherous court, a perilously balanced Congress and a federal government whose ability to act has been diminished and diminished and diminished except for policing functions.
The Democratic party has refused both common sense and principle every time a major choice has arisen - they neither do the cunning thing (like not risking running Hilary Clinton due to unpopularity, no matter what they think of the cause of the unpopularity) nor do they do the principled thing (like actually leading on welfare and the public option). They just choose "what enriches politicians" and "what doesn't piss off the wealthy" every time, and that means your choices get fewer and fewer and your resilience declines and declines.
Biden won't do anything. That's not who he is, that's not who his advisers are, that's not who senior Democrats are. If they were capable of responding to and dealing with existential threats, Trump would not have been a candidate in 2016 and the electorate would have had "we are playing for the Supreme Court" as their primary understanding of the election, which many even fairly educated people did not, as I know from talking about this.
Oh, Biden et al probably don't want to be jailed or executed by President Trump and will probably have to flee the country next year, but the only action they're going to take right now is to make sure they have someplace to go and their money will be accessible. To be fair to them, they probably don't want any of us to be beaten in the street or killed by death squads, but they aren't going to turn a hand to prevent it. That's not the type of people they are.
Miserably, our absolute best real short-term option probably is to vote for the genocidaire and hope that the whole country panics enough for him to win again, and hope that enough of our gerontocracy is dead or completely incapacitated by 2028 that things won't be so bad.
It's easy to say that we need to rise up, take to the streets, etc, and obviously stuff like that will happen, but you have only to look at Duarte or Orban etc etc etc to see that this is harder to do than it seems on the internet. Or even the history of the USSR, if one is a communist. The revolution was a very long time coming - it wasn't just "the tsar is bad, let's storm the palace".
posted by Frowner at 8:43 AM on July 2 [35 favorites]
The Democratic party has refused both common sense and principle every time a major choice has arisen - they neither do the cunning thing (like not risking running Hilary Clinton due to unpopularity, no matter what they think of the cause of the unpopularity) nor do they do the principled thing (like actually leading on welfare and the public option). They just choose "what enriches politicians" and "what doesn't piss off the wealthy" every time, and that means your choices get fewer and fewer and your resilience declines and declines.
Biden won't do anything. That's not who he is, that's not who his advisers are, that's not who senior Democrats are. If they were capable of responding to and dealing with existential threats, Trump would not have been a candidate in 2016 and the electorate would have had "we are playing for the Supreme Court" as their primary understanding of the election, which many even fairly educated people did not, as I know from talking about this.
Oh, Biden et al probably don't want to be jailed or executed by President Trump and will probably have to flee the country next year, but the only action they're going to take right now is to make sure they have someplace to go and their money will be accessible. To be fair to them, they probably don't want any of us to be beaten in the street or killed by death squads, but they aren't going to turn a hand to prevent it. That's not the type of people they are.
Miserably, our absolute best real short-term option probably is to vote for the genocidaire and hope that the whole country panics enough for him to win again, and hope that enough of our gerontocracy is dead or completely incapacitated by 2028 that things won't be so bad.
It's easy to say that we need to rise up, take to the streets, etc, and obviously stuff like that will happen, but you have only to look at Duarte or Orban etc etc etc to see that this is harder to do than it seems on the internet. Or even the history of the USSR, if one is a communist. The revolution was a very long time coming - it wasn't just "the tsar is bad, let's storm the palace".
posted by Frowner at 8:43 AM on July 2 [35 favorites]
like not risking running Hilary Clinton due to unpopularity, no matter what they think of the cause of the unpopularity)
She was not unpopular. She even won the popular vote, lol. I will always contradict this "unpopular" narrative, these things are true despite yes, some not liking her.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:52 AM on July 2 [16 favorites]
She was not unpopular. She even won the popular vote, lol. I will always contradict this "unpopular" narrative, these things are true despite yes, some not liking her.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:52 AM on July 2 [16 favorites]
the day after the revolution you'll still be dealing with the same dysfunctional politics we have now.
just more long guns in the streets.
your voting is not how progress is effected in this country since the right can find a vote to cancel yours.
Changing peoples' minds is a lot more powerful since that is a vote multiplier.
The right has captured a lot of the media and internet messaging landscape.
The solution is to have a matching position to fight back from, and thus far I don't see much of it outside of like Dean Baker's operation.
posted by torokunai at 8:53 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
just more long guns in the streets.
your voting is not how progress is effected in this country since the right can find a vote to cancel yours.
Changing peoples' minds is a lot more powerful since that is a vote multiplier.
The right has captured a lot of the media and internet messaging landscape.
The solution is to have a matching position to fight back from, and thus far I don't see much of it outside of like Dean Baker's operation.
posted by torokunai at 8:53 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
When I'm talking about being cunning, I'm talking about understanding how the electoral college works - Clinton was very popular in some parts of the country and some demographics, but between her personal history and misogyny, she was a riskier candidate from an electoral college standpoint. Cunning means gaming all that shit out even if it goes against your values or wishes. The Democrats are neither cunning nor principled, they're just the party of the easiest path, and that's why we're here.
posted by Frowner at 8:58 AM on July 2 [18 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 8:58 AM on July 2 [18 favorites]
Democracy is not guaranteed to produce optimal outcomes.
I still say we should give it a try.
posted by mittens at 9:08 AM on July 2 [13 favorites]
I still say we should give it a try.
posted by mittens at 9:08 AM on July 2 [13 favorites]
Clinton was very popular in some parts of the country and some demographics, but between her personal history and misogyny, she was a riskier candidate from an electoral college standpoint.
Yes, yes, we know. That's different from "unpopular," is all I'm sayin'.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:12 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Yes, yes, we know. That's different from "unpopular," is all I'm sayin'.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:12 AM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Not everyone is immune from consequences: "Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and a longtime ally of former President Donald J. Trump, has been disbarred from the practice of law effective immediately, a New York State appellate court ruled on Tuesday." (NYT)
posted by mittens at 9:21 AM on July 2 [9 favorites]
posted by mittens at 9:21 AM on July 2 [9 favorites]
Almost none of the people calling for Biden's replacement on cognitive grounds are actually saying that Biden is unfit to be in office.
The thing nobody likes to acknowledge is that most of the presidency is a machine; the campaigning is essentially a mummer’s play put on for the rubes. Biden’s machine will be making most of the key decisions, not Biden: this is why the Dems voted for Biden even though they had doubts about him, because Bidens’ machine is Obama’s machine, and Obama’s machine was damn good. Trump’s machine is less a machine and more a collection of Patrick Batemans in a FedSoc clown car, but it is still the primary thing making the decisions, not him.
Thus, the campaigning and the relation building and the “bully pulpit” is the part of the office that matters, and Biden just can’t handle it. He’s a lawyer who can’t litigate or negotiate anymore; he needs to be put out to pasture. God grant that when it’s my time, someone does as much to me, removing me from public facing positions before it becomes obvious I am past my prime.
SCOTUS feels comfortable handing more power to the president because it knows Biden is a placeholder who won’t use it and they apparently, I assume, have no fear of answering for their sins otherwise. I cannot express my horror at this decision enough. Or how much I feel everyone should be planning exit strategies.
posted by corb at 9:38 AM on July 2 [23 favorites]
The thing nobody likes to acknowledge is that most of the presidency is a machine; the campaigning is essentially a mummer’s play put on for the rubes. Biden’s machine will be making most of the key decisions, not Biden: this is why the Dems voted for Biden even though they had doubts about him, because Bidens’ machine is Obama’s machine, and Obama’s machine was damn good. Trump’s machine is less a machine and more a collection of Patrick Batemans in a FedSoc clown car, but it is still the primary thing making the decisions, not him.
Thus, the campaigning and the relation building and the “bully pulpit” is the part of the office that matters, and Biden just can’t handle it. He’s a lawyer who can’t litigate or negotiate anymore; he needs to be put out to pasture. God grant that when it’s my time, someone does as much to me, removing me from public facing positions before it becomes obvious I am past my prime.
SCOTUS feels comfortable handing more power to the president because it knows Biden is a placeholder who won’t use it and they apparently, I assume, have no fear of answering for their sins otherwise. I cannot express my horror at this decision enough. Or how much I feel everyone should be planning exit strategies.
posted by corb at 9:38 AM on July 2 [23 favorites]
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.
In which case, a well-meaning Democratic POTUS may have to swallow hard and take one for the team, and act in ways that WILL end up in litigation but will take some time to work their way through the court system to reach SCOTUS. Say, for example, an elderly Democratic POTUS who's under siege at the moment, is being threatened with criminal prosecution anyway if he loses the upcoming election, is aware of the peril that his cherished institutions are in and understands the gravity of the situation? That would be the kind of guy who ought to seek forgiveness, not permission in these circumstances.
To put it in blunt metaphor form: SCOTUS just handed Biden a loaded shotgun, to be held by whoever is POTUS at the time. Trump is leering at him like Jack Palance in Shane, and explaining loudly that as soon as he gains custody of that shotgun, he will use it repeatedly with extremely malicious intent. And Biden's first statement is "I reject this shotgun and will never, ever fire it."
That is what the opposition is counting on. The GOP has no fear of expanded Presidential immunity because the shotgun of overreach will never be pointed directly at THEM, because... well, decorum, precedent, dignity, and whatnot are important.
Biden and company can try to find some method of breaking the shotgun in half, so that no one can ever use it. I don't know what that would or could be. Even if Congress could do something, the Rs would stonewall it because they're sure that all they have to do is wait seven months and they win America. Legal moves won't be settled by November, and would end up before the same court that handed out the shotgun in the first place.
Or they can point it directly at their opponents and teach them firsthand why giving out this powerful weapon was a mistake of Biblical proportions.
Or they can simply wait and hold the high ground and know that their principles are intact... and we know what happens after that.
posted by delfin at 9:45 AM on July 2 [22 favorites]
In which case, a well-meaning Democratic POTUS may have to swallow hard and take one for the team, and act in ways that WILL end up in litigation but will take some time to work their way through the court system to reach SCOTUS. Say, for example, an elderly Democratic POTUS who's under siege at the moment, is being threatened with criminal prosecution anyway if he loses the upcoming election, is aware of the peril that his cherished institutions are in and understands the gravity of the situation? That would be the kind of guy who ought to seek forgiveness, not permission in these circumstances.
To put it in blunt metaphor form: SCOTUS just handed Biden a loaded shotgun, to be held by whoever is POTUS at the time. Trump is leering at him like Jack Palance in Shane, and explaining loudly that as soon as he gains custody of that shotgun, he will use it repeatedly with extremely malicious intent. And Biden's first statement is "I reject this shotgun and will never, ever fire it."
That is what the opposition is counting on. The GOP has no fear of expanded Presidential immunity because the shotgun of overreach will never be pointed directly at THEM, because... well, decorum, precedent, dignity, and whatnot are important.
Biden and company can try to find some method of breaking the shotgun in half, so that no one can ever use it. I don't know what that would or could be. Even if Congress could do something, the Rs would stonewall it because they're sure that all they have to do is wait seven months and they win America. Legal moves won't be settled by November, and would end up before the same court that handed out the shotgun in the first place.
Or they can point it directly at their opponents and teach them firsthand why giving out this powerful weapon was a mistake of Biblical proportions.
Or they can simply wait and hold the high ground and know that their principles are intact... and we know what happens after that.
posted by delfin at 9:45 AM on July 2 [22 favorites]
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. – H. L. Mencken
posted by torokunai at 9:49 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
posted by torokunai at 9:49 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]
My sister and some of her friends who live close to the U.S. border are planning trips there this summer because they fear traveling there will soon be untenable. I think things are already past that point, but if not they will be soon. Of course, Canada’s not going to be any sort of secure haven either.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:05 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:05 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
I keep hearing that Finland is nice.
I know I should consider staying and fighting. But I'm older, disabled, and unemployed. I don't have money to give, I can't go door to door for very long, and I've watched the fighting for so long that I'm not sure I have the energy to fight further. Running or self-deletion would be the main options for me.
I mean, I'm voting, and voting for Biden. But I'm not sure there's much more power in me for more.
posted by mephron at 10:11 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
I know I should consider staying and fighting. But I'm older, disabled, and unemployed. I don't have money to give, I can't go door to door for very long, and I've watched the fighting for so long that I'm not sure I have the energy to fight further. Running or self-deletion would be the main options for me.
I mean, I'm voting, and voting for Biden. But I'm not sure there's much more power in me for more.
posted by mephron at 10:11 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
> Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. – H. L. Mencken
and on the rare occasions that it's been tried, democracy has resulted in the people — or at least, the people accepted into the electorate — wanting the type of generalized prosperity that results in the production of daring philosophical works and profound artistic productions and then indeed getting it good and hard.
in which i bang on a hobby-horse: the system we have — a system that's a lot like the italian city states had in the middle ages and early modern period, a system that was universally understood to be oligarchic rather than democratic — is not democratic in any way. this was well-understood until the enlightenment period, when a bunch of unreasonably influential guys who if they were alive today would probably be posting some lesswrong nonsense decided that we should all forget that electoral systems yield oligarchies rather than democracies.
why are electoral systems necessarily oligarchic/anti-democratic? well, in a polity that selects office-holders by electoral means, the only people who can reasonably expect to get elected are people who are in some way notable — the rich, the otherwise well-connected, the children of previous office-holders, and anyone else that either the culture as a whole or the more tightly defined culture of the political class considers notable, for whatever "notable" means to members of those groups.
fwiw, i'm using the word "notable" here for a very specific reason, rooted in etymology: our word "notable" is derived from the latin "nobilis", which is also the source of the english word "noble." nobility starts as notability, and a government of the notable is ultimately a government of the nobility.
right now the wing of the oligarchy that represents liberal capitalism — that being the democratic party — has compressed the field of what's considered sufficiently notable to stand for office as far down as it can possibly go, deciding that the only form of notability that can qualify someone for national-level office-holding is being someone who has been explicitly blessed by the thin bureaucratic layer that runs the national party.
this is, of course, idiotic. it results in the bureaucratic layer becoming increasingly ideologically inbred, drifting far from what's considered valid among the broader culture, and just in general making terrible decisions. the party becomes out of touch, the party becomes disliked, the party becomes cowardly, the party leadership becomes entirely self-interested, the party loses, and the party dies. and then when the party dies unhinged evil motherfuckers jump in to fill the power vacuum left behind.
because you recognize my writing style and my standard hobby-horses you know that this is the point where i observe that selecting a random group of people from the populace as a whole to serve as office-holders results in the population being much better represented by its government than they are in the current system wherein office-holders are selected through elections that only the notable can win.
if one is a proper democrat, a proper small-d democrat, one also believes that a system where offices are assigned by random methods will not just represent the people better than electoral systems can, but also that a government that better represents the populace and the interests of the populace will be significantly better at running things than a government by and for the notable. i am a proper small-d democrat and i am available for arguments about whether or not us plebs can be trusted to make decisions for ourselves instead of having to defer to the wise patricians. i consider winning those arguments to be a moral duty, should those arguments arise.
a democratic world — a world where average people decide what our institutions should do and what our institutions should be — would be in every way better than our world. the question we have before us is whether we'd destroy this world to save that better one.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 10:16 AM on July 2 [17 favorites]
and on the rare occasions that it's been tried, democracy has resulted in the people — or at least, the people accepted into the electorate — wanting the type of generalized prosperity that results in the production of daring philosophical works and profound artistic productions and then indeed getting it good and hard.
in which i bang on a hobby-horse: the system we have — a system that's a lot like the italian city states had in the middle ages and early modern period, a system that was universally understood to be oligarchic rather than democratic — is not democratic in any way. this was well-understood until the enlightenment period, when a bunch of unreasonably influential guys who if they were alive today would probably be posting some lesswrong nonsense decided that we should all forget that electoral systems yield oligarchies rather than democracies.
why are electoral systems necessarily oligarchic/anti-democratic? well, in a polity that selects office-holders by electoral means, the only people who can reasonably expect to get elected are people who are in some way notable — the rich, the otherwise well-connected, the children of previous office-holders, and anyone else that either the culture as a whole or the more tightly defined culture of the political class considers notable, for whatever "notable" means to members of those groups.
fwiw, i'm using the word "notable" here for a very specific reason, rooted in etymology: our word "notable" is derived from the latin "nobilis", which is also the source of the english word "noble." nobility starts as notability, and a government of the notable is ultimately a government of the nobility.
right now the wing of the oligarchy that represents liberal capitalism — that being the democratic party — has compressed the field of what's considered sufficiently notable to stand for office as far down as it can possibly go, deciding that the only form of notability that can qualify someone for national-level office-holding is being someone who has been explicitly blessed by the thin bureaucratic layer that runs the national party.
this is, of course, idiotic. it results in the bureaucratic layer becoming increasingly ideologically inbred, drifting far from what's considered valid among the broader culture, and just in general making terrible decisions. the party becomes out of touch, the party becomes disliked, the party becomes cowardly, the party leadership becomes entirely self-interested, the party loses, and the party dies. and then when the party dies unhinged evil motherfuckers jump in to fill the power vacuum left behind.
because you recognize my writing style and my standard hobby-horses you know that this is the point where i observe that selecting a random group of people from the populace as a whole to serve as office-holders results in the population being much better represented by its government than they are in the current system wherein office-holders are selected through elections that only the notable can win.
if one is a proper democrat, a proper small-d democrat, one also believes that a system where offices are assigned by random methods will not just represent the people better than electoral systems can, but also that a government that better represents the populace and the interests of the populace will be significantly better at running things than a government by and for the notable. i am a proper small-d democrat and i am available for arguments about whether or not us plebs can be trusted to make decisions for ourselves instead of having to defer to the wise patricians. i consider winning those arguments to be a moral duty, should those arguments arise.
a democratic world — a world where average people decide what our institutions should do and what our institutions should be — would be in every way better than our world. the question we have before us is whether we'd destroy this world to save that better one.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 10:16 AM on July 2 [17 favorites]
Supreme Court Rules Hitler Immune from Prosecution for Burning Down Reichstag, Seizing Absolute Power (Crooked Timber)
So let us set aside the law, which has nothing to do with how the Court majority arrived at its opinion. I am here to explore the majority’s mindset, which leads it down the path to utter lawlessness, and opens the door to dictatorship. Justice Roberts disparages this worry as overblown, much as Hindenburg imagined that Hitler was a mere blowhard, no real danger to the Republic.posted by kingless at 10:19 AM on July 2 [12 favorites]
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. – H. L. Mencken
A slight derail, intended with no offense to torokunai, but:
Let's not lightly quote Mencken in a discussion about democracy, as he did not, himself, believe in it! Give "Notes on Democracy" a scan sometime, you'll find it to be snidely anti-democratic and elitist. Mencken was an anti-proletarian, an anti-semite, a racist, and a misogynist.
It's a curse that he was so gifted with words, and that he was the person who chronicled the Scopes Trial for posterity. I think those two combined facts are why liberals often trot out a line or two from him; but actually reading the man helps explain why he's gained such traction on the alt-right.
It's in part the anti-Christian motive on display in Mencken during the Scopes Trial which helps explain his anti-democratic perspective. In "Notes on Democracy" and elsewhere, he is very explicit in saying, and I'm paraphrasing but this is what he says, that democracy is stupid in part because it essentially enacts the Sermon on the Mount and broader "ancient" egalitarian and religious impulses.
(Re: Scopes, it's often overlooked and inconvenient to acknowledge that the evolutionary text at the center of the story, "Civic Biology," is a book of [pseudo]-scientific racism that espouses eugenics and is explicit in its view that the so-called "Caucasian" race is the superior one. Mencken was a kind of crude Nietzschean who explicitly objected that democracy elevates the "inferior" man over "superior" man, and so it makes sense that his renown is so tied to events surrounding that book.)
posted by kensington314 at 10:30 AM on July 2 [28 favorites]
A slight derail, intended with no offense to torokunai, but:
Let's not lightly quote Mencken in a discussion about democracy, as he did not, himself, believe in it! Give "Notes on Democracy" a scan sometime, you'll find it to be snidely anti-democratic and elitist. Mencken was an anti-proletarian, an anti-semite, a racist, and a misogynist.
It's a curse that he was so gifted with words, and that he was the person who chronicled the Scopes Trial for posterity. I think those two combined facts are why liberals often trot out a line or two from him; but actually reading the man helps explain why he's gained such traction on the alt-right.
It's in part the anti-Christian motive on display in Mencken during the Scopes Trial which helps explain his anti-democratic perspective. In "Notes on Democracy" and elsewhere, he is very explicit in saying, and I'm paraphrasing but this is what he says, that democracy is stupid in part because it essentially enacts the Sermon on the Mount and broader "ancient" egalitarian and religious impulses.
(Re: Scopes, it's often overlooked and inconvenient to acknowledge that the evolutionary text at the center of the story, "Civic Biology," is a book of [pseudo]-scientific racism that espouses eugenics and is explicit in its view that the so-called "Caucasian" race is the superior one. Mencken was a kind of crude Nietzschean who explicitly objected that democracy elevates the "inferior" man over "superior" man, and so it makes sense that his renown is so tied to events surrounding that book.)
posted by kensington314 at 10:30 AM on July 2 [28 favorites]
Or they can point it directly at their opponents and teach them firsthand why giving out this powerful weapon was a mistake of Biblical proportions.
Assuming this whole situation hasn't been deliberately constructed as a Xanatos Gambit.
Playing devil's advocate here, but if Biden were to use these expanded powers--especially to reign in the Supreme Court or hamper Trump--it could be perceived as an overreach and cost him the election. And one could say that it's almost as if the GOP is daring Biden to overreach even a tiny bit in order to inoculate the political discussion against Trump repeatedly talking about what he'd do with such powers.
As the TVTropes page suggests, the way to get out of a Xanatos Gambit is to find some course of action your opponents didn't predict. And that's what has me worried about the Biden administration and Democrats in general. They just don't seem to be prepared for this kind of thing. And if they can't even anticipate that Trump-appointed judges would rule favorably for Trump, how can we expect them to outsmart Republicans?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:39 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
Assuming this whole situation hasn't been deliberately constructed as a Xanatos Gambit.
Playing devil's advocate here, but if Biden were to use these expanded powers--especially to reign in the Supreme Court or hamper Trump--it could be perceived as an overreach and cost him the election. And one could say that it's almost as if the GOP is daring Biden to overreach even a tiny bit in order to inoculate the political discussion against Trump repeatedly talking about what he'd do with such powers.
As the TVTropes page suggests, the way to get out of a Xanatos Gambit is to find some course of action your opponents didn't predict. And that's what has me worried about the Biden administration and Democrats in general. They just don't seem to be prepared for this kind of thing. And if they can't even anticipate that Trump-appointed judges would rule favorably for Trump, how can we expect them to outsmart Republicans?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:39 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
kensington314: Let's not lightly quote Mencken in a discussion about democracy, as he did not, himself, believe in it
I loved Mencken as a smart, glib teen, the way that some kids get sucked into "Atlas Shrugged": as in, I bought all three hardback volumes of "The American Language; An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States" and got most of the way through the first book before coming up for air and shaking it all off like a wet dog.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:43 AM on July 2 [13 favorites]
I loved Mencken as a smart, glib teen, the way that some kids get sucked into "Atlas Shrugged": as in, I bought all three hardback volumes of "The American Language; An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States" and got most of the way through the first book before coming up for air and shaking it all off like a wet dog.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:43 AM on July 2 [13 favorites]
Has anybody read any analysis of the decision that says that any of the thought-experiments here about Biden doing something up-til-yesterday illegal to maintain the system are legal under this ruling? Everything I've delved into so far just implies that SCOTUS arrogated to itself a bunch of power to determine on appeal what are official and not official acts.
Not asking as an embrace of any particular view of what Biden could or should do, just asking as a factual matter what people understand from analysis that I may not have seen.
posted by kensington314 at 10:49 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
Not asking as an embrace of any particular view of what Biden could or should do, just asking as a factual matter what people understand from analysis that I may not have seen.
posted by kensington314 at 10:49 AM on July 2 [4 favorites]
The commentary I have read, including the Heather Cox Richardson one, basically say that SCOTUS gets to decide what is official and not official acts just as it has decided it gets to supplant federal agencies in the expert-decision-making process.
Nobody handed Biden a useful weapon with that decision. That decision is designed to help only Trump and other Republicans.
From Dave Karpf's newsletter, The Future, Now and Then:
All is not lost, but the stakes are existentially high.
I’ve been thinking recently about a line from Cory Doctorow (via Charlie Jane Anders): “Optimism is why the Titanic didn’t have enough lifeboats. Hope is why people kept swimming.”
The times we are living through do not call for optimism. I’d go so far as to say that anyone who is optimistic is in denial.
But they do call for hope. They demand it, in fact.
posted by Bella Donna at 10:53 AM on July 2 [21 favorites]
Nobody handed Biden a useful weapon with that decision. That decision is designed to help only Trump and other Republicans.
From Dave Karpf's newsletter, The Future, Now and Then:
All is not lost, but the stakes are existentially high.
I’ve been thinking recently about a line from Cory Doctorow (via Charlie Jane Anders): “Optimism is why the Titanic didn’t have enough lifeboats. Hope is why people kept swimming.”
The times we are living through do not call for optimism. I’d go so far as to say that anyone who is optimistic is in denial.
But they do call for hope. They demand it, in fact.
posted by Bella Donna at 10:53 AM on July 2 [21 favorites]
Nobody handed Biden a useful weapon with that decision. That decision is designed to help only Trump and other Republicans.
If you pro-rogue the 6 justices that enabled the decision and stare the remaining three down then this does not apply? This was not a wish from a genie, you can immediately turn around and attack the institution with the powers they granted and they have literally no way of stopping that, physically or procedurally?
I mean, I guess procedurally if you announce the act and then have snails deliver the news.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:15 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
If you pro-rogue the 6 justices that enabled the decision and stare the remaining three down then this does not apply? This was not a wish from a genie, you can immediately turn around and attack the institution with the powers they granted and they have literally no way of stopping that, physically or procedurally?
I mean, I guess procedurally if you announce the act and then have snails deliver the news.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:15 AM on July 2 [6 favorites]
Biden still can’t unilaterally erase student loan debt.
Well, he probably could, if he went about it in the right way. Say by ordering some military hackers to hack the Department of Education and anything else necessary to delete any records of student loans and ordered GSA or whomever to collect any remaining paper records in one federally-owned building and quickly followed up that with an order to raze the building and burn the rubble.
As commander in chief his orders to the military apparently cannot be questioned. Deciding where records are to be held is clearly a core responsibility of the Presidency, as is disposing of public property under the President's purview.
Come to think of it, I wonder who is responsible for the Supreme Court building. I know Congress manages their own stuff, so Biden has no say there, but if the Supreme Court lets GSA handle their property like they do the lower courts then it seems that the President would be entitled to burn the fucking building down if he felt like it. It's just disposing of property, after all, even if the means are a bit extreme.
posted by wierdo at 11:21 AM on July 2 [8 favorites]
Well, he probably could, if he went about it in the right way. Say by ordering some military hackers to hack the Department of Education and anything else necessary to delete any records of student loans and ordered GSA or whomever to collect any remaining paper records in one federally-owned building and quickly followed up that with an order to raze the building and burn the rubble.
As commander in chief his orders to the military apparently cannot be questioned. Deciding where records are to be held is clearly a core responsibility of the Presidency, as is disposing of public property under the President's purview.
Come to think of it, I wonder who is responsible for the Supreme Court building. I know Congress manages their own stuff, so Biden has no say there, but if the Supreme Court lets GSA handle their property like they do the lower courts then it seems that the President would be entitled to burn the fucking building down if he felt like it. It's just disposing of property, after all, even if the means are a bit extreme.
posted by wierdo at 11:21 AM on July 2 [8 favorites]
Arson is not disposing of property LOL
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:28 AM on July 2
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:28 AM on July 2
That's exactly my point. The ruling is stupid because it allows the President to do something like burn down a building he manages without fear of prosecution. Property management is clearly an inherent duty of the office, after all. And it doesn't matter if the purpose is corrupt or the means blindingly stupid/reckless, nobody is allowed to even question it.
posted by wierdo at 11:41 AM on July 2 [9 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 11:41 AM on July 2 [9 favorites]
The ruling is not that The President Can Do Anything Anytime Anywhere and Simply Wave A Magic Official Act Wand, So He Might As Well Nuke Oklahoma.
But the ruling did set absurdly high and patently ridiculous boundaries regarding what can be considered official, as well as prohibitions of various levels regarding questioning the President's motives. Whatever Biden chooses to do going forward, Roberts cannot leap out of a coat closet in the Oval Office and yell "AH-HA!" and have Biden carted off for immediate trial; the effect is to make it dramatically more difficult for a POTUS to be held accountable for just about anything for which even a lame justification as an official action can be applied, and the burden of proving that something wasn't has multiplied significantly.
Reenacting horror movie scenes with political opponents, let us say, would still be frowned upon? But I would like to think that a clever group of individuals could come up with slightly more subtle ways of exercising one's will, given this new direction.
posted by delfin at 11:53 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
But the ruling did set absurdly high and patently ridiculous boundaries regarding what can be considered official, as well as prohibitions of various levels regarding questioning the President's motives. Whatever Biden chooses to do going forward, Roberts cannot leap out of a coat closet in the Oval Office and yell "AH-HA!" and have Biden carted off for immediate trial; the effect is to make it dramatically more difficult for a POTUS to be held accountable for just about anything for which even a lame justification as an official action can be applied, and the burden of proving that something wasn't has multiplied significantly.
Reenacting horror movie scenes with political opponents, let us say, would still be frowned upon? But I would like to think that a clever group of individuals could come up with slightly more subtle ways of exercising one's will, given this new direction.
posted by delfin at 11:53 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]
The ruling is stupid because it allows the President to do something like burn down a building he manages without fear of prosecution.
That is not how I have understood the ruling. It's bad, but it's not exactly like that. But thanks for the giggle today cause I'm enjoying the imagery.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:10 PM on July 2 [1 favorite]
That is not how I have understood the ruling. It's bad, but it's not exactly like that. But thanks for the giggle today cause I'm enjoying the imagery.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:10 PM on July 2 [1 favorite]
voting is literally the smallest contribution you can make. it is the beginning of the fight against our reactionary compatriots, not the end.
the key thing is to back ourselves away from this slow civil war that's been brewing since the 1980s, or 50s or 20s or whenever.
If I were running the Russian spook operations I'd certainly invest equal efforts in both bamboozling the idiots to our right while also inflaming the radical left; a house divided cannot stand and all that.
posted by torokunai at 12:21 PM on July 2 [8 favorites]
the key thing is to back ourselves away from this slow civil war that's been brewing since the 1980s, or 50s or 20s or whenever.
If I were running the Russian spook operations I'd certainly invest equal efforts in both bamboozling the idiots to our right while also inflaming the radical left; a house divided cannot stand and all that.
posted by torokunai at 12:21 PM on July 2 [8 favorites]
constantly amazed that people are like 'it's not that bad' when one of the dissenting justices wrote that the president is king now. i think i'll listen to the woman whose actual job is interpreting the law when she warns us of the utter shitshow that is about to ensue
posted by logicpunk at 12:21 PM on July 2 [16 favorites]
posted by logicpunk at 12:21 PM on July 2 [16 favorites]
I didn't say "it's not that bad" if you're referring to my comment. It is bad.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:22 PM on July 2
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:22 PM on July 2
voting is literally the smallest contribution you can make.
Yes, and we're going to fucking vote. No one is telling anyone not to. But some of us are frustrated that voting always seems to be the only line of defense. Biden is the President now. Can't he do something? Anything?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:39 PM on July 2 [14 favorites]
Yes, and we're going to fucking vote. No one is telling anyone not to. But some of us are frustrated that voting always seems to be the only line of defense. Biden is the President now. Can't he do something? Anything?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:39 PM on July 2 [14 favorites]
"Manhattan Prosecutors Agree to Delay Trump Sentencing"
Two points:
First, that article goes on to state that they are delaying sentencing so that they can take the SCOTUS ruling into account. However, that is good news - because they are thus giving themselves a rock-solid, come-on-be-serious foundation for that sentencing to make sure it sticks good and proper.
Second- a sentencing in September is going to be much more in people's minds come November than July sentencing would have been.
....
Also, FUCK GIULIANI, that is all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:41 PM on July 2 [12 favorites]
Two points:
First, that article goes on to state that they are delaying sentencing so that they can take the SCOTUS ruling into account. However, that is good news - because they are thus giving themselves a rock-solid, come-on-be-serious foundation for that sentencing to make sure it sticks good and proper.
Second- a sentencing in September is going to be much more in people's minds come November than July sentencing would have been.
....
Also, FUCK GIULIANI, that is all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:41 PM on July 2 [12 favorites]
the key thing is to back ourselves away from this slow civil war that's been brewing since the 1980s, or 50s or 20s or whenever.
You back away and they keep coming.
posted by Gadarene at 12:41 PM on July 2 [12 favorites]
You back away and they keep coming.
posted by Gadarene at 12:41 PM on July 2 [12 favorites]
And before anyone says that it would be wrong for Biden to not take the high road on this and compromise his principals: There are an awful lot of voters like myself who will be compromising our principals and voting for Biden despite his support for a literal, ongoing genocide because Biden is the least harmful choice overall. The least he could do in return is get off his high horse and save democracy.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:45 PM on July 2 [21 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:45 PM on July 2 [21 favorites]
He's not going to do anything. Nothing that happened yesterday changed what Biden (or the advisors he listens to) consider available options. He has not for one instant entertained the idea of doing something eXtReMe to show SCOTUS the mistake they made, or lay the foundation for long-term defense of US democracy, or reinforce his electoral position, or even just to settle some grudges. He will not do anything.
He's going to exhort you to vote, that much he'll do. He's going to ask you for money. He's going to go to rallies and tell people how important it is that he be elected. He is going to keep conducting an absolutely off-the-rack "normal" campaign for the presidency right up until the day he wins, loses or drops out — and if it's the last one, there won't be a tip-off until it happens. No matter which of those three outcomes occur, his behavior will not alter in any perceivable way until they do.
I am not saying the situation is hopeless, or at least any more hopeless than it was on Sunday. And everybody is welcome to turn this thread into r/superstonk-style fanfiction, I'm not the internet police. But there is no opportunity here, if you are imagining one. President Biden is simply not going to do anything.
posted by penduluum at 12:53 PM on July 2 [11 favorites]
He's going to exhort you to vote, that much he'll do. He's going to ask you for money. He's going to go to rallies and tell people how important it is that he be elected. He is going to keep conducting an absolutely off-the-rack "normal" campaign for the presidency right up until the day he wins, loses or drops out — and if it's the last one, there won't be a tip-off until it happens. No matter which of those three outcomes occur, his behavior will not alter in any perceivable way until they do.
I am not saying the situation is hopeless, or at least any more hopeless than it was on Sunday. And everybody is welcome to turn this thread into r/superstonk-style fanfiction, I'm not the internet police. But there is no opportunity here, if you are imagining one. President Biden is simply not going to do anything.
posted by penduluum at 12:53 PM on July 2 [11 favorites]
But the Democrats aren't there to do anything, they're there not to be Republicans. That's what they campaign on, that's what they do (whether more or less well) and that's all they'll do.
posted by Frowner at 12:54 PM on July 2 [7 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 12:54 PM on July 2 [7 favorites]
Miserably, our absolute best real short-term option probably is to vote for the genocidaire and hope that the whole country panics enough for him to win again, and hope that enough of our gerontocracy is dead or completely incapacitated by 2028 that things won't be so bad.
If, of course, you voted fuckin hard enough. If.
Ya know… I’m tired of hearing about how this is somehow the fault of the elderly and/or voter. I’m now entering elderlyhood and there's a lot of us out campaigning, registering voters and trying to make a difference. Believe it or not, I was once young and proud to vote for Jimmy Carter for the first time, while most of my peers were too disinterested to bother. I suspect those same apathetic voters from my generation are now MAGA voters who are so ignorant about how our government works (sadly, I know a few who are).
The young demographic of 18 - 34 year old are the least likely to vote in any election and always have been. And don’t get me started on the overwhelming apathy for primaries or local elections in any age bracket. And that’s just registered voters. So you’ll forgive me if I’m pessimistic about the chances of a revolutionary renaissance after the apocalypse, if most folks won’t get off their ass and go vote. Why would any party listen to a group who's that unreliable?
I know… there’s lots of young folks who are voting and working on change and I’m also guilty of generalizing. But there seems to be sooooo much whining about how unfair the system is and I’ve heard that same excuse for the last 50 years I’ve been voting. Voting is the absolute least you can do. And if you don’t even bother to do that, then you better get busy figuring out that revolution and who’s gonna lead it for you.
posted by jabo at 12:56 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
If, of course, you voted fuckin hard enough. If.
Ya know… I’m tired of hearing about how this is somehow the fault of the elderly and/or voter. I’m now entering elderlyhood and there's a lot of us out campaigning, registering voters and trying to make a difference. Believe it or not, I was once young and proud to vote for Jimmy Carter for the first time, while most of my peers were too disinterested to bother. I suspect those same apathetic voters from my generation are now MAGA voters who are so ignorant about how our government works (sadly, I know a few who are).
The young demographic of 18 - 34 year old are the least likely to vote in any election and always have been. And don’t get me started on the overwhelming apathy for primaries or local elections in any age bracket. And that’s just registered voters. So you’ll forgive me if I’m pessimistic about the chances of a revolutionary renaissance after the apocalypse, if most folks won’t get off their ass and go vote. Why would any party listen to a group who's that unreliable?
I know… there’s lots of young folks who are voting and working on change and I’m also guilty of generalizing. But there seems to be sooooo much whining about how unfair the system is and I’ve heard that same excuse for the last 50 years I’ve been voting. Voting is the absolute least you can do. And if you don’t even bother to do that, then you better get busy figuring out that revolution and who’s gonna lead it for you.
posted by jabo at 12:56 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
For one brief moment when Biden was inaugurated, it looked like the status quo had finally changed. It seemed like the world had finally changed and in recovering from Covid we'd also find our recovery from the past fifty years of neoconservative policies and the past twenty years of partisan gridlock.
But nope. Wasn't meant to be. Gotta get people back to the office!
And now here we are.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:58 PM on July 2 [6 favorites]
But nope. Wasn't meant to be. Gotta get people back to the office!
And now here we are.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:58 PM on July 2 [6 favorites]
"the radical left"
Dude, I dunno if you're aware but there's maybe, like a few thousand people who are actually, truly, "radical left" in America. Maybe. Inflame them all you want, it's getting you nowhere.
Now if by "the radical left" you mean "anyone who actually calls themselves leftist and knows what the word really means" then there's more. But not many more.
Leftism has never been all that popular, humanity seems to have an inbuilt urge to bow, scrape, kneel, and submit. People would rather grovel as serfs than stand as equals. I don't get it. I never have. But I do like to think that when I'm smacked in the face with reality I can admit it.
And in America, after decades of relentless propaganda, politicking, redefining words, and generally all out effort by the liberals to eradicate leftism? There's barely any regular leftits around these days. Much less actual, genuine, radical leftists.
If I was a Russain plotter I'd leave the American left out of my calculations entirely, there aren't enough of us to make jack shit worth of difference. Liberals won, and look what their victory has gotten us...
jabo I'll definitely agree that the problem isn't elderly people in general.
But it IS a problem that our political system is dominated by extremely old people who just flat out will NOT retire. Joe Biden never should have been a contender for President, nor should Bernie Sanders. They should have both retired decades ago after spending at least some of their time in office helping to set up for the next generation to take their place.
Instead, like GInsberg, like Fienstein, they said "meh, fuck the future" and decided to stay in office as long as they could still draw breath.
Now, of course, all of this is ultimately due to voters failing to evict them in primary elections, but frankly the average voter is just going to vote for their party and skip the primaries. And while some quick googling doesn't turn up numbers, I'm going to bet that older people are even more disproportintately voting in primaries than they are in the general elections.
And the entire system is geared to make primary challenges as ineffective as possible.
It's hardly some cackling cabal of codgers covertly conspiring to cling to control. Just the inevitable result of a system that's biased towards incumbants and doesn't have a mechanism for forcing people to leave after they've held office for a long time.
Just because it's the inevitable outcome of the system as it exists doesn't mean it's great though. And I think the resentment it builds is dangerous in the long run.
posted by sotonohito at 1:33 PM on July 2 [13 favorites]
Dude, I dunno if you're aware but there's maybe, like a few thousand people who are actually, truly, "radical left" in America. Maybe. Inflame them all you want, it's getting you nowhere.
Now if by "the radical left" you mean "anyone who actually calls themselves leftist and knows what the word really means" then there's more. But not many more.
Leftism has never been all that popular, humanity seems to have an inbuilt urge to bow, scrape, kneel, and submit. People would rather grovel as serfs than stand as equals. I don't get it. I never have. But I do like to think that when I'm smacked in the face with reality I can admit it.
And in America, after decades of relentless propaganda, politicking, redefining words, and generally all out effort by the liberals to eradicate leftism? There's barely any regular leftits around these days. Much less actual, genuine, radical leftists.
If I was a Russain plotter I'd leave the American left out of my calculations entirely, there aren't enough of us to make jack shit worth of difference. Liberals won, and look what their victory has gotten us...
jabo I'll definitely agree that the problem isn't elderly people in general.
But it IS a problem that our political system is dominated by extremely old people who just flat out will NOT retire. Joe Biden never should have been a contender for President, nor should Bernie Sanders. They should have both retired decades ago after spending at least some of their time in office helping to set up for the next generation to take their place.
Instead, like GInsberg, like Fienstein, they said "meh, fuck the future" and decided to stay in office as long as they could still draw breath.
Now, of course, all of this is ultimately due to voters failing to evict them in primary elections, but frankly the average voter is just going to vote for their party and skip the primaries. And while some quick googling doesn't turn up numbers, I'm going to bet that older people are even more disproportintately voting in primaries than they are in the general elections.
And the entire system is geared to make primary challenges as ineffective as possible.
It's hardly some cackling cabal of codgers covertly conspiring to cling to control. Just the inevitable result of a system that's biased towards incumbants and doesn't have a mechanism for forcing people to leave after they've held office for a long time.
Just because it's the inevitable outcome of the system as it exists doesn't mean it's great though. And I think the resentment it builds is dangerous in the long run.
posted by sotonohito at 1:33 PM on July 2 [13 favorites]
Second- a sentencing in September is going to be much more in people's minds come November than July sentencing would have been.
Sentencing isn't going to happen in September. This whole thing is going to be appealed to the Supreme Court, who will sit on it until after the election.
posted by dirigibleman at 1:35 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
Sentencing isn't going to happen in September. This whole thing is going to be appealed to the Supreme Court, who will sit on it until after the election.
posted by dirigibleman at 1:35 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
Instead, like GInsberg, like Fienstein, they said "meh, fuck the future" and decided to stay in office as long as they could still draw breath.
Ginsburg protected our rights as long as she was able and she's a fucking hero for that to me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:47 PM on July 2 [10 favorites]
Ginsburg protected our rights as long as she was able and she's a fucking hero for that to me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:47 PM on July 2 [10 favorites]
However, that is good news - because they are thus giving themselves a rock-solid, come-on-be-serious foundation for that sentencing to make sure it sticks good and proper.
Just like they waited three years to indict Trump for his attempts to overturn the election so that their case had a rock-solid, come-on-be-serious foundation to make sure it sticks good and proper?
I really wish I could share the same level of optimism.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:48 PM on July 2 [3 favorites]
Just like they waited three years to indict Trump for his attempts to overturn the election so that their case had a rock-solid, come-on-be-serious foundation to make sure it sticks good and proper?
I really wish I could share the same level of optimism.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:48 PM on July 2 [3 favorites]
Just like they waited three years to indict Trump for his attempts to overturn the election so that their case had a rock-solid, come-on-be-serious foundation to make sure it sticks good and proper?
Well....yes. You've heard the expression about the wheels of justice grinding slow, yeah? That's true - lawyers aren't sitting around with their thumbs up their butts, they are poring over any evidence they get and comparing it to legal precedent to see if they can make an argument stick, and nit-picking their own arguments to death to find as many holes in their argument as they can so they can find more evidence to plug those holes - because if they don't do that, the legal team for the accused will find those holes and the case could get lost. If you're gonna go after the king, you'd best not miss. And if you want to make sure you don't miss, sometimes that takes time.
That's not optimism, that's the reality of how the legal system actually works.
Ginsburg protected our rights as long as she was able and she's a fucking hero for that to me.
SECONDING THIS. For the FUCK of SHIT, people, Ginsburg didn't just lay back in the buckwheat for shits and giggles, she stayed in SCOTUS because Alito was still there and we needed a counterbalance.
And actually, that's a good question - anyone who's ever complained about "the older people who don't retire"; I notice the names you usually name are people like RBG or Feinstein or Biden. Why not make those same complaints about Clarence Thomas (nearly 80) or Chuck Grasley (GOP, age 90) or Mitch McConnell (age 82)? Why is it always the left-leaning people who get hit with the age complaints? What are you really trying to say there?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:00 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
Well....yes. You've heard the expression about the wheels of justice grinding slow, yeah? That's true - lawyers aren't sitting around with their thumbs up their butts, they are poring over any evidence they get and comparing it to legal precedent to see if they can make an argument stick, and nit-picking their own arguments to death to find as many holes in their argument as they can so they can find more evidence to plug those holes - because if they don't do that, the legal team for the accused will find those holes and the case could get lost. If you're gonna go after the king, you'd best not miss. And if you want to make sure you don't miss, sometimes that takes time.
That's not optimism, that's the reality of how the legal system actually works.
Ginsburg protected our rights as long as she was able and she's a fucking hero for that to me.
SECONDING THIS. For the FUCK of SHIT, people, Ginsburg didn't just lay back in the buckwheat for shits and giggles, she stayed in SCOTUS because Alito was still there and we needed a counterbalance.
And actually, that's a good question - anyone who's ever complained about "the older people who don't retire"; I notice the names you usually name are people like RBG or Feinstein or Biden. Why not make those same complaints about Clarence Thomas (nearly 80) or Chuck Grasley (GOP, age 90) or Mitch McConnell (age 82)? Why is it always the left-leaning people who get hit with the age complaints? What are you really trying to say there?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:00 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
Do you honestly think that RBGs replacement wouldn’t be a counterbalance to Alito if she retired under a Dem pres? Btw how is rbgs replacement now?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:04 PM on July 2 [16 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:04 PM on July 2 [16 favorites]
<Intermission> This is a good time to remember just how awful Mitch McConnell is. </Intermission>
posted by mazola at 2:06 PM on July 2 [16 favorites]
posted by mazola at 2:06 PM on July 2 [16 favorites]
And actually, that's a good question - anyone who's ever complained about "the older people who don't retire"; I notice the names you usually name are people like RBG or Feinstein or Biden. Why not make those same complaints about Clarence Thomas (nearly 80) or Chuck Grasley (GOP, age 90) or Mitch McConnell (age 82)? Why is it always the left-leaning people who get hit with the age complaints? What are you really trying to say there?
Obviously all of them should retire. But there's only one side that has a chance in hell of listening to us, and that's the one composed of supposedly reasonable people who want the best for this country -- not the Republicans.
posted by Gadarene at 2:08 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
Obviously all of them should retire. But there's only one side that has a chance in hell of listening to us, and that's the one composed of supposedly reasonable people who want the best for this country -- not the Republicans.
posted by Gadarene at 2:08 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
Here are some things that a vigilante Dark Brandon (Dark Knight Brandon?) might consider doing (Jezebel)
posted by box at 2:14 PM on July 2 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 2:14 PM on July 2 [1 favorite]
What I find odd is that there’s zero evidence any president has failed to do something necessary because he was afraid of being criminally charged for it.
But then, making sense isn’t a requirement for the court’s radical majority.
posted by zenzenobia at 2:15 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
But then, making sense isn’t a requirement for the court’s radical majority.
posted by zenzenobia at 2:15 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
Why not make those same complaints about Clarence Thomas (nearly 80) or Chuck Grasley (GOP, age 90) or Mitch McConnell (age 82)? Why is it always the left-leaning people who get hit with the age complaints? What are you really trying to say there?
I mean I would love it if Clarence Thomas would retire during the waning months of the Biden presidency. I'm not sure what that point counter-argues. Thomas isn't going to step down until the next Republican presidency, and people of the left don't appeal to him to step down because everyone knows he is clinging on for a new Republican administration and isn't moved by the goals of the liberal-to-left coalition.
People of the left side of the dial wanted Ginsburg to step down because the Democratic Party held the Presidency and Senate simultaneously from 2008 to 2015, during which time RBG was 75 to 82 years old and a survivor of two--until the third--bouts of cancer, in an electorate with presidential outcomes increasingly centered on the 50-50 mark and with an increasingly crazy Republican Party. For what it's worth I though Bryer should have stepped down way earlier too, even though he was younger than RBG. The argument is a simple one, which is that anybody can vote the right way on something, it doesn't have to be you. Better to have a safe vote than a specific individual no matter how incredible their intellect, and hers was incredible. We wanted Ginsburg to do for the forces of good what Kennedy did for the forces of evil, which was to prioritize team over self.
I don't argue for Grassley or McConnell to step down because I think they'd be replaced by someone worse and I don't mind if the Republican Party has members performing below-optimal, in fact I prefer it.
posted by kensington314 at 2:16 PM on July 2 [17 favorites]
I mean I would love it if Clarence Thomas would retire during the waning months of the Biden presidency. I'm not sure what that point counter-argues. Thomas isn't going to step down until the next Republican presidency, and people of the left don't appeal to him to step down because everyone knows he is clinging on for a new Republican administration and isn't moved by the goals of the liberal-to-left coalition.
People of the left side of the dial wanted Ginsburg to step down because the Democratic Party held the Presidency and Senate simultaneously from 2008 to 2015, during which time RBG was 75 to 82 years old and a survivor of two--until the third--bouts of cancer, in an electorate with presidential outcomes increasingly centered on the 50-50 mark and with an increasingly crazy Republican Party. For what it's worth I though Bryer should have stepped down way earlier too, even though he was younger than RBG. The argument is a simple one, which is that anybody can vote the right way on something, it doesn't have to be you. Better to have a safe vote than a specific individual no matter how incredible their intellect, and hers was incredible. We wanted Ginsburg to do for the forces of good what Kennedy did for the forces of evil, which was to prioritize team over self.
I don't argue for Grassley or McConnell to step down because I think they'd be replaced by someone worse and I don't mind if the Republican Party has members performing below-optimal, in fact I prefer it.
posted by kensington314 at 2:16 PM on July 2 [17 favorites]
Instead, like GInsberg, like Fienstein, they said "meh, fuck the future" and decided to stay in office as long as they could still draw breath.
The thing I find irritating about the Ginsberg criticism is that it ignores what McConnell did to Obama during his last year in office. For Ginsberg to have retired safely, she would have had to have done so before Obama's last year in office, and KNOWING that McConnell would take the then-unprecedented action of prevent any appointments during his last year. She would have had to have known that her health would fail SIX YEARS in the future. That's deeply unfair to her. And retiring from the Supreme Court is something that takes a degree of preparation, so she would have had to have put those wheels in motion even earlier than that. She, like most of us, was likely blindsided by McConnell, and stuck having to hope Clinton won.
posted by UltraMorgnus at 2:26 PM on July 2 [10 favorites]
The thing I find irritating about the Ginsberg criticism is that it ignores what McConnell did to Obama during his last year in office. For Ginsberg to have retired safely, she would have had to have done so before Obama's last year in office, and KNOWING that McConnell would take the then-unprecedented action of prevent any appointments during his last year. She would have had to have known that her health would fail SIX YEARS in the future. That's deeply unfair to her. And retiring from the Supreme Court is something that takes a degree of preparation, so she would have had to have put those wheels in motion even earlier than that. She, like most of us, was likely blindsided by McConnell, and stuck having to hope Clinton won.
posted by UltraMorgnus at 2:26 PM on July 2 [10 favorites]
She would have had to have known that her health would fail SIX YEARS in the future. That's deeply unfair to her.
I really thought RBG was great, and so I'm always wanting to bring myself to this position. The thing that keeps me from landing there is that the people asking her to step down were right. Folks took a sober look at the 2012 election and said, the stakes are too high, please step down. We eked out a win and said, before the next midterm, please, the stakes are too high. This was all based on a sober assessment of where American politics were going, and of the stakes of losing a Supreme Court seat.
She was wrong, and we were catastrophically right, and that was deeply unfair to, well, everyone but RBG.
Genuine question though, what preparation is required to retire from the Supreme Court? I mean it's not like there some constitutionally required step or something. It's not like she needed to line up other employment. What is the prep?
posted by kensington314 at 2:36 PM on July 2 [17 favorites]
I really thought RBG was great, and so I'm always wanting to bring myself to this position. The thing that keeps me from landing there is that the people asking her to step down were right. Folks took a sober look at the 2012 election and said, the stakes are too high, please step down. We eked out a win and said, before the next midterm, please, the stakes are too high. This was all based on a sober assessment of where American politics were going, and of the stakes of losing a Supreme Court seat.
She was wrong, and we were catastrophically right, and that was deeply unfair to, well, everyone but RBG.
Genuine question though, what preparation is required to retire from the Supreme Court? I mean it's not like there some constitutionally required step or something. It's not like she needed to line up other employment. What is the prep?
posted by kensington314 at 2:36 PM on July 2 [17 favorites]
What the Jeffrey Epstein Documents Reveal About Donald Trump
(TW: child rape)
Speaking of rapists, Biden should order the release of Kavanaugh’s FBI investigation documents. The ones the American public were never allowed to see during the rapist’s confirmation hearings.
posted by edithkeeler at 2:43 PM on July 2 [19 favorites]
(TW: child rape)
Speaking of rapists, Biden should order the release of Kavanaugh’s FBI investigation documents. The ones the American public were never allowed to see during the rapist’s confirmation hearings.
posted by edithkeeler at 2:43 PM on July 2 [19 favorites]
Ginsberg was being asked to resign in 2009, when Obama held the Senate and she'd already survived cancer once. She expressly knew the risk she was taking with everybody's rights and safety, and she didn't care. The worship of her and the reflexive defense of her fecklessness comes from seeing politicians as celebrities and heroes to look up to rather than as employees of the public, and it's deeply poisonous.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:44 PM on July 2 [26 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:44 PM on July 2 [26 favorites]
kensington314, per scotusblog, "Justices tend to retire (a) in the run up to the summer recess (permitting confirmation hearings before the Court returns in the Fall), (b) in separate years (to avoid the complications of multiple Supreme Court confirmation hearings in a single summer), and (c) not in election years (to avoid the prospect that the confirmation will be obstructed in order to allow for a new President to make the appointment or a new Senate majority to obstruct or facilitate it)."
Here's someone in 2011 urging Ginsburg and Breyer to retire (Breyer made his announcement in Jan. 2022, specifically to give Biden the chance to appoint a new justice.)
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:50 PM on July 2 [6 favorites]
Here's someone in 2011 urging Ginsburg and Breyer to retire (Breyer made his announcement in Jan. 2022, specifically to give Biden the chance to appoint a new justice.)
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:50 PM on July 2 [6 favorites]
The worship of her and the reflexive defense of her fecklessness comes from seeing politicians as celebrities and heroes to look up to rather than as employees of the public, and it's deeply poisonous.
posted by Pope Guilty at
I find the nastiness of this kind of comment on Metafilter to be more poisonous, but whatever. It's like, I'd rather it be brazen insults at this point instead of the shady accusations.
posted by tiny frying pan at 2:58 PM on July 2 [3 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at
I find the nastiness of this kind of comment on Metafilter to be more poisonous, but whatever. It's like, I'd rather it be brazen insults at this point instead of the shady accusations.
posted by tiny frying pan at 2:58 PM on July 2 [3 favorites]
anyone who's ever complained about "the older people who don't retire"; I notice the names you usually name are people like RBG or Feinstein or Biden. Why not make those same complaints about Clarence Thomas (nearly 80) or Chuck Grasley (GOP, age 90) or Mitch McConnell (age 82)? Why is it always the left-leaning people who get hit with the age complaints?
What an odd question. As a left-leaning person, why wouldn't I prefer that the politicians ostensibly on my side have a much longer shelf-life than 2-3 years of fumfering about, followed by a swift decline into dotage? As for right wingers: the older and more doddering they are, the better. You really want a batch of young Republicans to replace them?
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:59 PM on July 2 [7 favorites]
What an odd question. As a left-leaning person, why wouldn't I prefer that the politicians ostensibly on my side have a much longer shelf-life than 2-3 years of fumfering about, followed by a swift decline into dotage? As for right wingers: the older and more doddering they are, the better. You really want a batch of young Republicans to replace them?
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:59 PM on July 2 [7 favorites]
You can state your opinion without attacking others, I just know you can
posted by tiny frying pan at 2:59 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 2:59 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Why not make those same complaints about Clarence Thomas (nearly 80)
If you think I don’t regularly rant at increasing volume about Clarence Thomas’ continued existence and ability to author opinions I don’t even know what to tell you.
posted by corb at 3:09 PM on July 2 [14 favorites]
If you think I don’t regularly rant at increasing volume about Clarence Thomas’ continued existence and ability to author opinions I don’t even know what to tell you.
posted by corb at 3:09 PM on July 2 [14 favorites]
This RBG thing is a derail we’ve had oh so many times. Also, I voted for Nader back in the day. Whoops!
posted by caviar2d2 at 3:10 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
posted by caviar2d2 at 3:10 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
I recognized it as maybe an unhelpful derail even as I was engaging in it. Mea culpa!
posted by kensington314 at 3:11 PM on July 2 [3 favorites]
posted by kensington314 at 3:11 PM on July 2 [3 favorites]
Do you honestly think that RBGs replacement wouldn’t be a counterbalance to Alito if she retired under a Dem pres?
Have you honestly forgotten what happened when a Dem pres tried to nominate another SCOTUS justice?
I mean I would love it if Clarence Thomas would retire during the waning months of the Biden presidency. I'm not sure what that point counter-argues.
That is pointing out that you've only been criticizing left-leaning people for not retiring, and I'd like to know why - oh, wait.
I don't argue for Grassley or McConnell to step down because I think they'd be replaced by someone worse and I don't mind if the Republican Party has members performing below-optimal, in fact I prefer it.
So what you're saying is, you would prefer sub-optimal people to remain in power even if they do things like vote to strike down Roe V. Wade or block sane gun control because you think they're making their party look bad.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:17 PM on July 2 [1 favorite]
Have you honestly forgotten what happened when a Dem pres tried to nominate another SCOTUS justice?
I mean I would love it if Clarence Thomas would retire during the waning months of the Biden presidency. I'm not sure what that point counter-argues.
That is pointing out that you've only been criticizing left-leaning people for not retiring, and I'd like to know why - oh, wait.
I don't argue for Grassley or McConnell to step down because I think they'd be replaced by someone worse and I don't mind if the Republican Party has members performing below-optimal, in fact I prefer it.
So what you're saying is, you would prefer sub-optimal people to remain in power even if they do things like vote to strike down Roe V. Wade or block sane gun control because you think they're making their party look bad.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:17 PM on July 2 [1 favorite]
That's so much misreading of previous comments, I don't know where to start.
posted by sagc at 3:19 PM on July 2 [8 favorites]
posted by sagc at 3:19 PM on July 2 [8 favorites]
Like, do you think that it's better for the left for Republican justices to be replaced, like clockwork, as they get a bit older? Are you fantasizing about some sort of non-hard-right Republican nominees? Otherwise, it's a non sequitur to discuss Roe v Wade or gun control, as if, had they retired during Trump's administration, they'd have been replaced by someone who would have acted differently. Obviously, people would have been happy if a conservative justice had retired and Biden had been able to nominate the replacement - but it was of no benefit to the Republicans for that to happen. That seems pretty straightforward.
There were times when the Democrats had control of the Senate. That was the time to get young, vital justices on the court. Instead, they didn't, choosing to support justices staying on the court even when they were are risk of dying during a Republican administration. And hey, guess what happened!
posted by sagc at 3:29 PM on July 2 [7 favorites]
There were times when the Democrats had control of the Senate. That was the time to get young, vital justices on the court. Instead, they didn't, choosing to support justices staying on the court even when they were are risk of dying during a Republican administration. And hey, guess what happened!
posted by sagc at 3:29 PM on July 2 [7 favorites]
(not the poster you're replying to, but:)
So what you're saying is, you would prefer sub-optimal people to remain in power even if they do things like vote to strike down Roe V. Wade or block sane gun control because you think they're making their party look bad.
If the alternative is optimally shitty people who will do things like vote to strike down Roe V. Wade or block sane gun control and do it while making their party look good, I'd also prefer the one that keeps malfunctioning and has to be manually rebooted. Hell, imagine Mitch but young, spry, and ready to go another 80 years.
posted by mrgoat at 3:32 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
So what you're saying is, you would prefer sub-optimal people to remain in power even if they do things like vote to strike down Roe V. Wade or block sane gun control because you think they're making their party look bad.
If the alternative is optimally shitty people who will do things like vote to strike down Roe V. Wade or block sane gun control and do it while making their party look good, I'd also prefer the one that keeps malfunctioning and has to be manually rebooted. Hell, imagine Mitch but young, spry, and ready to go another 80 years.
posted by mrgoat at 3:32 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
Like, do you think that it's better for the left for Republican justices to be replaced, like clockwork, as they get a bit older? Are you fantasizing about some sort of non-hard-right Republican nominees?
Of course not. My point is that it seems awfully weird to cast dispersion on one person for failing to retire at a given age, but to give another person a pass for that same failing, based on their particular political party. No matter how you slice it, it's just icky - it's ageist against the people you criticize, and it's cutting off your nose to spite your face about the people you don't.
My point is that you're giving the impression of trying to have it both ways based on what looks like a short-sighted political game and that's just an icky thing to do.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:39 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Of course not. My point is that it seems awfully weird to cast dispersion on one person for failing to retire at a given age, but to give another person a pass for that same failing, based on their particular political party. No matter how you slice it, it's just icky - it's ageist against the people you criticize, and it's cutting off your nose to spite your face about the people you don't.
My point is that you're giving the impression of trying to have it both ways based on what looks like a short-sighted political game and that's just an icky thing to do.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:39 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
That is pointing out that you've only been criticizing left-leaning people for not retiring, and I'd like to know why - oh, wait.
Said with zero snark, but I am curious what you're implying here. I am just not picking up the implication in your point about criticizing people on the left for not stepping down versus not calling on people on the right.
So what you're saying is, you would prefer sub-optimal people to remain in power even if they do things like vote to strike down Roe V. Wade or block sane gun control because you think they're making their party look bad.
This is not exactly what I was saying. Taking Grassley for example. (1) If the large mass of Democratic party voters and fundraisers and bundlers want Chuck Grassley to step down, there's no lever of influence on Grassley. All those people would be wasting their breath. (2) If somehow Chuck Grassley said, "all these resistance liberals are calling for me to step down, and you know, they've got a good point, I'm going to go enjoy my remaining months on this dying planet I've helped destroy," well, his replacement would be worse. Probably way worse. Hard to imagine, in the case of Grassley and McConnell, but we'd just be getting shittier, more MAGAfied, much-longer-for-this world versions of the same asshole.
I think that's what I meant to say by my comment.
posted by kensington314 at 3:40 PM on July 2 [8 favorites]
Said with zero snark, but I am curious what you're implying here. I am just not picking up the implication in your point about criticizing people on the left for not stepping down versus not calling on people on the right.
So what you're saying is, you would prefer sub-optimal people to remain in power even if they do things like vote to strike down Roe V. Wade or block sane gun control because you think they're making their party look bad.
This is not exactly what I was saying. Taking Grassley for example. (1) If the large mass of Democratic party voters and fundraisers and bundlers want Chuck Grassley to step down, there's no lever of influence on Grassley. All those people would be wasting their breath. (2) If somehow Chuck Grassley said, "all these resistance liberals are calling for me to step down, and you know, they've got a good point, I'm going to go enjoy my remaining months on this dying planet I've helped destroy," well, his replacement would be worse. Probably way worse. Hard to imagine, in the case of Grassley and McConnell, but we'd just be getting shittier, more MAGAfied, much-longer-for-this world versions of the same asshole.
I think that's what I meant to say by my comment.
posted by kensington314 at 3:40 PM on July 2 [8 favorites]
What I find odd is that there’s zero evidence any president has failed to do something necessary because he was afraid of being criminally charged for it.
Nixon resigning might count, depending on what conversations went on behind the scenes between him and Ford, and assuming avoiding the impeachment trial might not have been enough on its own to make the resignation happen. I do think the Federalist Society decided at some point that Nixon never should have had to resign.
(Also: the RBG/retirement talk is really a derail in this thread, since had they done the right thing and Weekend-At-Berniesed her for just a few more months of pandemic-era Skype conferences this still would have been the same ruling, just 5-4 instead of 6-3.)
posted by nobody at 3:43 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
Nixon resigning might count, depending on what conversations went on behind the scenes between him and Ford, and assuming avoiding the impeachment trial might not have been enough on its own to make the resignation happen. I do think the Federalist Society decided at some point that Nixon never should have had to resign.
(Also: the RBG/retirement talk is really a derail in this thread, since had they done the right thing and Weekend-At-Berniesed her for just a few more months of pandemic-era Skype conferences this still would have been the same ruling, just 5-4 instead of 6-3.)
posted by nobody at 3:43 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
Of course not. My point is that it seems awfully weird to cast dispersion on one person for failing to retire at a given age, but to give another person a pass for that same failing, based on their particular political party. No matter how you slice it, it's just icky - it's ageist against the people you criticize, and it's cutting off your nose to spite your face about the people you don't.
My point is that you're giving the impression of trying to have it both ways based on what looks like a short-sighted political game and that's just an icky thing to do.
Posted too late to catch this. I get the explanation. I disagree but that's fine!
posted by kensington314 at 3:44 PM on July 2 [1 favorite]
My point is that you're giving the impression of trying to have it both ways based on what looks like a short-sighted political game and that's just an icky thing to do.
Posted too late to catch this. I get the explanation. I disagree but that's fine!
posted by kensington314 at 3:44 PM on July 2 [1 favorite]
had they done the right thing and Weekend-At-Berniesed her for just a few more months of pandemic-era Skype conferences this still would have been the same ruling, just 5-4 instead of 6-3.
I wonder if it would have been a different ruling, also just 5-4, though. Barrett dissented from part of the 6-3 decision, apparently using logic that Roberts appeared to embrace during oral argument, only to do an about-face in writing the decision.
There has been some speculation that the decision that came was one that showed Roberts throwing his lot in with the Alito/Thomas faction in order to keep the decision together. (Have not seen much detail about what that wrangling may have been though.) So a different set of considerations for the Chief Justice may have materially impacted the decision and made a horrible decision less-horrible-but-still-quite-bad.
posted by kensington314 at 3:50 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
I wonder if it would have been a different ruling, also just 5-4, though. Barrett dissented from part of the 6-3 decision, apparently using logic that Roberts appeared to embrace during oral argument, only to do an about-face in writing the decision.
There has been some speculation that the decision that came was one that showed Roberts throwing his lot in with the Alito/Thomas faction in order to keep the decision together. (Have not seen much detail about what that wrangling may have been though.) So a different set of considerations for the Chief Justice may have materially impacted the decision and made a horrible decision less-horrible-but-still-quite-bad.
posted by kensington314 at 3:50 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
Posted too late to catch this. I get the explanation. I disagree but that's fine!
Can you also agree with the notion that whether or not an individual chooses to retire or not is a unique and individual choice, and is most likely one that is affected more so by that individual's health and their passion for their own work more so than the particular geopolitical machinations at play?
If you can agree with that - can you therefore see to it that maybe the reason that RBG didn't retire during the short window when there was a Dem controlled senate and a Dem president was likely because she felt healthy enough to continue her work, and felt personally intellectually committed TO that work?
And if you can agree with that - can you therefore then accept why the critiques against her for "not retiring sooner" come across as off-putting at best, and dismissive of her service at worst? Particularly in light of the fact that these criticisms are only leveled against people on one side of the political fence but not the other?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:52 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
Can you also agree with the notion that whether or not an individual chooses to retire or not is a unique and individual choice, and is most likely one that is affected more so by that individual's health and their passion for their own work more so than the particular geopolitical machinations at play?
If you can agree with that - can you therefore see to it that maybe the reason that RBG didn't retire during the short window when there was a Dem controlled senate and a Dem president was likely because she felt healthy enough to continue her work, and felt personally intellectually committed TO that work?
And if you can agree with that - can you therefore then accept why the critiques against her for "not retiring sooner" come across as off-putting at best, and dismissive of her service at worst? Particularly in light of the fact that these criticisms are only leveled against people on one side of the political fence but not the other?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:52 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
So. Let's say I'm a Calgary Flames fan, and they keep on doing nothing during the trade window to deal with the fact that their bench is growing older and older, and might die during the next game, with far greater restrictions on who can replace them. I'm concerned!
As someone who is not a Toronto Leafs fan, I am not concerned that their bench is getting older and less effective. Indeed, it's basically good or neutral for me, especially if they die during a period where they are restricted in who can replace them.
So I guess that's ageism?
posted by sagc at 3:55 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
As someone who is not a Toronto Leafs fan, I am not concerned that their bench is getting older and less effective. Indeed, it's basically good or neutral for me, especially if they die during a period where they are restricted in who can replace them.
So I guess that's ageism?
posted by sagc at 3:55 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
I don't agree with any of that logic, but I do agree to disagree! Which is fine enough by me, I think the argument between good people about RGB will, at this point, outlive all of us and apparently our entire fucking democracy. What a fucked week.
posted by kensington314 at 3:56 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
posted by kensington314 at 3:56 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
We’re Releasing Our Full, Unedited Interview With Joe Biden From September [ProPublica]: Following Biden’s poor debate performance against Donald Trump, we’re releasing the full and unedited 21-minute interview we conducted with President Joe Biden nine days before his interview with Special Counsel Robert K. Hur.
posted by mazola at 3:57 PM on July 2 [11 favorites]
posted by mazola at 3:57 PM on July 2 [11 favorites]
Sagc: When Canadian hockey matches have a direct impact on your country's legislation, then you can make that analogy. Until then, you're comparing apples and oranges.
It's also leading the mind down some illuminating paths that you're comparing the contention between the USA's two parties to a sports team rivalry, to my mind.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:58 PM on July 2
It's also leading the mind down some illuminating paths that you're comparing the contention between the USA's two parties to a sports team rivalry, to my mind.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:58 PM on July 2
It's also more than a little suspect to learn that sagc is a Flames fan.
posted by kensington314 at 3:59 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
posted by kensington314 at 3:59 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Wow. I'm trying to explain this, but you're clearly not getting it. I was trying to highlight that it's not about some abstract ideal, but about who gets to rule on things like overturning Roe v. Wade. Of course it's not a hockey "match", it's your fucking country.
Abstract statements about "unique and individual choices" and being "dismissive of her service" are the ones that ignore that these questions matter. Or you're working from a definition of "service" that doesn't include recognizing forces outside of RBG herself, as if she was going to be immortal if we just believed in her enough.
posted by sagc at 4:02 PM on July 2 [13 favorites]
Abstract statements about "unique and individual choices" and being "dismissive of her service" are the ones that ignore that these questions matter. Or you're working from a definition of "service" that doesn't include recognizing forces outside of RBG herself, as if she was going to be immortal if we just believed in her enough.
posted by sagc at 4:02 PM on July 2 [13 favorites]
But, just to clarify: I think all the republican Justices should retire! Hell, I think they should hit themselves in the head repeatedly with hammers! But that's got little to do with the question of when it would have been best for RBG to retire, in order to best protect the court from a potential Republican majority.
posted by sagc at 4:03 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
posted by sagc at 4:03 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
Can you also agree with the notion that whether or not an individual chooses to retire or not is a unique and individual choice, and is most likely one that is affected more so by that individual's health and their passion for their own work more so than the particular geopolitical machinations at play?
Yes, if they're an optometrist. No, if they're a Supreme Court justice. I would hope a justice (on our side) would recognize their mortality, put their ego, passion for work/ ambition aside and make strategic decisions which would perpetuate the ideologies and values they want the court to have going forward. I would hope that supreme court justices who are not on our side act in the least strategic ways possible. It's a political job with a lifetime appointment, the responsibility is just weightier than other jobs.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 4:08 PM on July 2 [14 favorites]
Yes, if they're an optometrist. No, if they're a Supreme Court justice. I would hope a justice (on our side) would recognize their mortality, put their ego, passion for work/ ambition aside and make strategic decisions which would perpetuate the ideologies and values they want the court to have going forward. I would hope that supreme court justices who are not on our side act in the least strategic ways possible. It's a political job with a lifetime appointment, the responsibility is just weightier than other jobs.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 4:08 PM on July 2 [14 favorites]
Of course, Canada’s not going to be any sort of secure haven either.
Definitely doing my part to remind the usual chorus of liberals who think they can flee North and it will all be socialist utopia.
If Trump wins, our next PM, one Pierre Pollivere, will only be too happy to accommodate him. I love Canada, got my citizenship in 2018, but even we are watching our own country fall into shambles: gutted universal healthcare, a scary rising tide of anti-immigrant sentiment, housing crisis, and in some provinces, a rollback of protections for trans youth. And if ole PP becomes our next PM, Canada is in danger. Doubly so if PP gets chummy with Trump.
posted by Kitteh at 4:16 PM on July 2 [13 favorites]
Definitely doing my part to remind the usual chorus of liberals who think they can flee North and it will all be socialist utopia.
If Trump wins, our next PM, one Pierre Pollivere, will only be too happy to accommodate him. I love Canada, got my citizenship in 2018, but even we are watching our own country fall into shambles: gutted universal healthcare, a scary rising tide of anti-immigrant sentiment, housing crisis, and in some provinces, a rollback of protections for trans youth. And if ole PP becomes our next PM, Canada is in danger. Doubly so if PP gets chummy with Trump.
posted by Kitteh at 4:16 PM on July 2 [13 favorites]
like not risking running Hilary Clinton due to unpopularity, no matter what they think of the cause of the unpopularity)
She was not unpopular. She even won the popular vote, lol. I will always contradict this "unpopular" narrative, these things are true despite yes, some not liking her.
And notably Kamala Harris is probably not unpopular with Democrats. She is largely unknown to everyone who isn't a Fox News viewer where they bang the racist/misogynist drum endlessly to poison public perception much like they did with Hillary Clinton but I bet most Dems don't know very much about her at all.
Here is 538's approval data for Kamala Harris. How many of these people even know one single thing that Kamala Harris had done in order to decide about approval of her performance (I have no clue what she has done as VP). Still she has higher approval than Biden or the Supremes. Lows bars but still...
I think people should be more careful when talking about vibes...because vibes are often wildly wrong and sometimes you're just repeating a manipulative media campaign.
posted by srboisvert at 4:52 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
She was not unpopular. She even won the popular vote, lol. I will always contradict this "unpopular" narrative, these things are true despite yes, some not liking her.
And notably Kamala Harris is probably not unpopular with Democrats. She is largely unknown to everyone who isn't a Fox News viewer where they bang the racist/misogynist drum endlessly to poison public perception much like they did with Hillary Clinton but I bet most Dems don't know very much about her at all.
Here is 538's approval data for Kamala Harris. How many of these people even know one single thing that Kamala Harris had done in order to decide about approval of her performance (I have no clue what she has done as VP). Still she has higher approval than Biden or the Supremes. Lows bars but still...
I think people should be more careful when talking about vibes...because vibes are often wildly wrong and sometimes you're just repeating a manipulative media campaign.
posted by srboisvert at 4:52 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
vibes are cheugy.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 5:04 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 5:04 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
My point is that it seems awfully weird to cast dispersion
Ahem.
posted by aspersioncast at 5:33 PM on July 2 [15 favorites]
Ahem.
posted by aspersioncast at 5:33 PM on July 2 [15 favorites]
“The Radical Roberts Court,” Kevin M. Kruse, Campaign Trails, 01 July 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 6:33 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 6:33 PM on July 2 [2 favorites]
Also, Biden aside, someone should drop his same ol' same ol' blame it on the old people schtick because it's not the old people, it's the rich old people. Half the baby boomers, especially the tail end of the generation now retiring, (and more and more of every generation thereafter) do not and will not have the savings capital to live off -- the pig is leaving the python and there will be fewer and fewer young people to pay in. The old folks will have to keep working. Except no one will hire them if they can help it, so good luck with that. To this I can attest. Social Security will be their only income, which means they will barely be scraping by.
tldr: It's not the gerontocracy, it's the plutocracy.
So focus onEat Tax the Rich.
posted by y2karl at 7:09 PM on July 2 [8 favorites]
tldr: It's not the gerontocracy, it's the plutocracy.
So focus on
posted by y2karl at 7:09 PM on July 2 [8 favorites]
“The Rant of an Institutionalist,” Daniel W. Drezner, Drezner’s World, 2 July 2024
“The End of Liberal Institutionalism,” Hamilton Nolan, How Things Work, 02 July 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 7:30 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
“The End of Liberal Institutionalism,” Hamilton Nolan, How Things Work, 02 July 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 7:30 PM on July 2 [4 favorites]
The comments about who should retire when have become a tiresome derail.
posted by NotLost at 7:59 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 7:59 PM on July 2 [9 favorites]
I do wonder at the people defending Biden, RBG, Feinstein and all the others who damned us, and simultaneously wonder why we don't object to the age and infirmity of republicans.... is it more important to give the republicans the benefit of equal treatment, or more important to stop the republicans from continuing their oppression, exploitation and ethnic cleansing of those they hate? Because helping republicans so that you can feel above politics, instead of advocating for strong democrats to challenge sclerotic republicans seems like such an odd choice.
But this is all moot, because between the polls, the supreme court, and the continuing anti-democratic revolution, even having this debate will just be more rope to hang ourselves with when the camps and private prisons swallow us. Maybe, just once, we can run someone who is not within a margin of error the 2nd most hated candidate?
Nah, that would be unfair,
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 9:18 PM on July 2 [5 favorites]
But this is all moot, because between the polls, the supreme court, and the continuing anti-democratic revolution, even having this debate will just be more rope to hang ourselves with when the camps and private prisons swallow us. Maybe, just once, we can run someone who is not within a margin of error the 2nd most hated candidate?
Nah, that would be unfair,
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 9:18 PM on July 2 [5 favorites]
> selecting a random group of people from the populace as a whole to serve as office-holders results in the population being much better represented
also btw :P
-Continuous elections
-Mass representative democracy
-Politics Without Politicians
-The Priority of Democracy: "To participate in the democratic debate, people need a lot of skills and cognitive tools: literacy; numeracy; knowing what other people are going on about and why it matters to them; the cultural knowledge and rhetorical skill to argue effectively with fellow citizens[2]; knowledge of the world in general. Gaining all these skills and tools takes teachers and time... Making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in democracy would be very demanding, and we are very far from doing so. We are even far from making sure everyone has some non-farcical minimum of opportunity. We can and should move towards spreading those opportunities, and make democracy more of a reality and less of a mere promise."
posted by kliuless at 10:55 PM on July 2 [7 favorites]
also btw :P
-Continuous elections
-Mass representative democracy
-Politics Without Politicians
-The Priority of Democracy: "To participate in the democratic debate, people need a lot of skills and cognitive tools: literacy; numeracy; knowing what other people are going on about and why it matters to them; the cultural knowledge and rhetorical skill to argue effectively with fellow citizens[2]; knowledge of the world in general. Gaining all these skills and tools takes teachers and time... Making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in democracy would be very demanding, and we are very far from doing so. We are even far from making sure everyone has some non-farcical minimum of opportunity. We can and should move towards spreading those opportunities, and make democracy more of a reality and less of a mere promise."
posted by kliuless at 10:55 PM on July 2 [7 favorites]
Why is it always the left-leaning people who get hit with the age complaints? What are you really trying to say there?
We're saying that people who are constantly ill/away (Feinstein) and/or at risk of illness (Ginsburg) and/or have some signs of natural cognitive decline (Biden) should ideally no longer be leading the left in highly intensive official positions, such as presidency, senatorship, or supreme-court justice.
The complaint is not about their age per se, the complaint is about their competencies which is given by public evidence. The explanation happens to be their older age, but that is separate from the complaint.
There is a time for our heroes to step down so as to keep a political movement healthy. And if they are surrounded by enablers, including their aides and family members, who benefit personally but thereby put the larger political movement at risk, then that is a problem and should be dealt with openly.
posted by polymodus at 1:37 AM on July 3 [14 favorites]
We're saying that people who are constantly ill/away (Feinstein) and/or at risk of illness (Ginsburg) and/or have some signs of natural cognitive decline (Biden) should ideally no longer be leading the left in highly intensive official positions, such as presidency, senatorship, or supreme-court justice.
The complaint is not about their age per se, the complaint is about their competencies which is given by public evidence. The explanation happens to be their older age, but that is separate from the complaint.
There is a time for our heroes to step down so as to keep a political movement healthy. And if they are surrounded by enablers, including their aides and family members, who benefit personally but thereby put the larger political movement at risk, then that is a problem and should be dealt with openly.
posted by polymodus at 1:37 AM on July 3 [14 favorites]
The head of Project 2025 is celebrating the creation of an imperial presidency and calls what Republicans are doing “a bloodless revolution.”
posted by edithkeeler at 4:53 AM on July 3 [11 favorites]
posted by edithkeeler at 4:53 AM on July 3 [11 favorites]
"Bloodless" in the way a hungry vampire just stepping out of his coffin for the night is bloodless.
posted by mittens at 5:35 AM on July 3 [8 favorites]
posted by mittens at 5:35 AM on July 3 [8 favorites]
That's not optimism, that's the reality of how the legal system actually works.
No.....it's not. At least that's not how it works any more.
For however many i's dotted and t's crossed in those three years of working slowly to build a bulletproof case against Trump, it hasn't done a damn. In Georgia Trump was able to latch onto a minor infraction to effectively delay the case past election day, in Florida Trump has a judge that's running interference for him, and the Supreme Court just guaranteed that the rest of the cases against him will probably never see the light of day.
It's utterly naive to say the delay in sentencing is a 'good thing' because that gives time to review things and build a rock-solid sentence because that's not going to make a lick of difference, especially since it was highly unlikely that Trump was going to face any real punishment for those crimes anyway.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:44 AM on July 3 [11 favorites]
No.....it's not. At least that's not how it works any more.
For however many i's dotted and t's crossed in those three years of working slowly to build a bulletproof case against Trump, it hasn't done a damn. In Georgia Trump was able to latch onto a minor infraction to effectively delay the case past election day, in Florida Trump has a judge that's running interference for him, and the Supreme Court just guaranteed that the rest of the cases against him will probably never see the light of day.
It's utterly naive to say the delay in sentencing is a 'good thing' because that gives time to review things and build a rock-solid sentence because that's not going to make a lick of difference, especially since it was highly unlikely that Trump was going to face any real punishment for those crimes anyway.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:44 AM on July 3 [11 favorites]
Maybe if the system had moved faster before Trump had a chance to regroup and consolidate his position after January 6th there might have been a better chance of stopping him, but that's kind of moot now.
The point is, no amount of deference given to institutions now is going to make them any more likely to subdue Trump. Reality and the Supreme Court have made it clear that steadfastly playing by the rules is not sufficient and it's not going to magically convince our institutions to save us.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:55 AM on July 3 [13 favorites]
The point is, no amount of deference given to institutions now is going to make them any more likely to subdue Trump. Reality and the Supreme Court have made it clear that steadfastly playing by the rules is not sufficient and it's not going to magically convince our institutions to save us.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:55 AM on July 3 [13 favorites]
I will take criticisms against my 'just fucking vote' position seriously when all eligible Dem voters actually do the minimum required and turn out, consistently, for all elections.
There are more than enough Dem non-voters to fundamentally alter the political landscape in the US, if they turn out.
For a society that prides itself on being the light on the hill for democracy the USA sure doesn't seem too interested in actually participating in it and keeping it healthy.
So you’ll forgive me if I’m pessimistic about the chances of a revolutionary renaissance after the apocalypse, if most folks won’t get off their ass and go vote. Why would any party listen to a group who's that unreliable?
posted by jabo
Exactly. If you don't make your voice heard, in sufficient numbers, and reliably, you will be ignored.
posted by Pouteria at 6:06 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]
There are more than enough Dem non-voters to fundamentally alter the political landscape in the US, if they turn out.
For a society that prides itself on being the light on the hill for democracy the USA sure doesn't seem too interested in actually participating in it and keeping it healthy.
So you’ll forgive me if I’m pessimistic about the chances of a revolutionary renaissance after the apocalypse, if most folks won’t get off their ass and go vote. Why would any party listen to a group who's that unreliable?
posted by jabo
Exactly. If you don't make your voice heard, in sufficient numbers, and reliably, you will be ignored.
posted by Pouteria at 6:06 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]
metafilter is a wild place to take a stand about how important voting is. Like, when was the last time anyone on Metafilter, anywhere, said that GOTV efforts were bad?
People criticising that attitude are criticizing it because a) it's been insufficient for years b) the Democrats seem much more concerned with fighting leftists/wooing Republicans, rather than turning sympathetic non-voters into people who actually go the polls.
posted by sagc at 6:15 AM on July 3 [21 favorites]
People criticising that attitude are criticizing it because a) it's been insufficient for years b) the Democrats seem much more concerned with fighting leftists/wooing Republicans, rather than turning sympathetic non-voters into people who actually go the polls.
posted by sagc at 6:15 AM on July 3 [21 favorites]
Also it's a lot easier to get people to vote when they think it will make a difference in their lives, and not just a theoretical "at least it won't get worse" difference.
And of course, once we lost the supreme court, that weakened a lot of voting rights stuff.
The trouble with all this is that if you have any common sense you know it's a losing game, and the Democrats must have known this or else they're too stupid to run the country. When you rely on everyone getting out the vote in greater and greater numbers purely to keep things from getting worse, you're going to lose in a couple of election cycles, because anyone who isn't highly motivated is going to get fatigued, stop believing that things will get all that much worse, etc. It would be nice if this weren't true, but that's what I mean about the Democrats lacking both cunning and principle - if you're cunning, you say "hey maybe people shouldn't get fatigued but they do, gotta roll that in". The Democrats have just basically gone with "if you don't vote more and get out more votes, you are a bad person who doesn't believe in Tinkerbell, er, our democracy, and when it collapses it will be your fault".
When you rely on cycles of fear, ramping up the fear each time, eventually you lose. This is doubly true when you have an opponent who is attacking the election machinery.
I just don't know - the Democratic failure to understand really fucking elementary things never fails to astonish me. You can definitely take the high road instead, but you've got to take the high road - you can't just stick an FDR monocle on for a press conference every now and then. Doing Trump-ish things on immigration and the border, saying really goddamn dumb and ignorant things about treatment for trans youth instead of at least keeping your mouth shut, giving Israel billions while the electorate can see photos of child corpses all over the internet, blocking the rail strike when the working conditions for rail workers are fucking intolerable and dangerous - these are all things that are incompatible with taking the high road.
If you want to take the high road and inspire people to work for your party out of love, you don't necessarily have to have a lot of big wins in difficult times but you can't just do things that your base hated and despised when Trump did them. Some people are cool with this stuff when it's a Democrat doing it - cue that meme where the guy is saying "this time the bomb is being dropped by a woman - but it really takes the heart out of the masses. If you're saying "you have to have a lot of heart and a lot of courage and vote me back into office in this dangerous time", you really cannot also be saying "and here are photos of the dead babies that died because I sent a bunch of bombs to Israel".
posted by Frowner at 6:36 AM on July 3 [28 favorites]
And of course, once we lost the supreme court, that weakened a lot of voting rights stuff.
The trouble with all this is that if you have any common sense you know it's a losing game, and the Democrats must have known this or else they're too stupid to run the country. When you rely on everyone getting out the vote in greater and greater numbers purely to keep things from getting worse, you're going to lose in a couple of election cycles, because anyone who isn't highly motivated is going to get fatigued, stop believing that things will get all that much worse, etc. It would be nice if this weren't true, but that's what I mean about the Democrats lacking both cunning and principle - if you're cunning, you say "hey maybe people shouldn't get fatigued but they do, gotta roll that in". The Democrats have just basically gone with "if you don't vote more and get out more votes, you are a bad person who doesn't believe in Tinkerbell, er, our democracy, and when it collapses it will be your fault".
When you rely on cycles of fear, ramping up the fear each time, eventually you lose. This is doubly true when you have an opponent who is attacking the election machinery.
I just don't know - the Democratic failure to understand really fucking elementary things never fails to astonish me. You can definitely take the high road instead, but you've got to take the high road - you can't just stick an FDR monocle on for a press conference every now and then. Doing Trump-ish things on immigration and the border, saying really goddamn dumb and ignorant things about treatment for trans youth instead of at least keeping your mouth shut, giving Israel billions while the electorate can see photos of child corpses all over the internet, blocking the rail strike when the working conditions for rail workers are fucking intolerable and dangerous - these are all things that are incompatible with taking the high road.
If you want to take the high road and inspire people to work for your party out of love, you don't necessarily have to have a lot of big wins in difficult times but you can't just do things that your base hated and despised when Trump did them. Some people are cool with this stuff when it's a Democrat doing it - cue that meme where the guy is saying "this time the bomb is being dropped by a woman - but it really takes the heart out of the masses. If you're saying "you have to have a lot of heart and a lot of courage and vote me back into office in this dangerous time", you really cannot also be saying "and here are photos of the dead babies that died because I sent a bunch of bombs to Israel".
posted by Frowner at 6:36 AM on July 3 [28 favorites]
People criticising that attitude are criticizing it because a) it's been insufficient for years
Dem voter turnout rates in the US are fucking abysmal.
Lot of criticism about the Dem party and politicians not seizing their power to do stuff. Yet Dem voters are far worse on that score.
posted by Pouteria at 6:41 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]
Dem voter turnout rates in the US are fucking abysmal.
Lot of criticism about the Dem party and politicians not seizing their power to do stuff. Yet Dem voters are far worse on that score.
posted by Pouteria at 6:41 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]
There are more than enough Dem non-voters to fundamentally alter the political landscape in the US, if they turn out.
I was starting to answer this, then read Frowner's answer and got more depressed, so I'll keep my response kind of short: As well as the Dems not really being inspiring at all, I don't think the math you're describing actually works. Like, the thing that always wrecks it is the EC. Which I know we all know, and those of us in strongly red states never stop griping about it, but it is literally disenfranchisement baked into the system on a scale bigger than gerrymandering or whatever weird voter ID or other schemes the right comes up with. If you live in a red state, nothing you do will alter the political landscape, because you simply don't count. And because you don't count, you can't exactly put pressure on your representatives to allow popular voting or whatever. They have no incentive to listen to you. Like, I'm as freaked out about the Court's decision as anyone (I made the FPP after all!) and it basically has no impact on me because I might as well already be living in some feudal state where a king tells me what to do. (The bitter irony that my state was also the deciding factor in Biden getting the nomination last time, even though none of our votes could put him into office, is not lost on me.)
posted by mittens at 6:44 AM on July 3 [17 favorites]
I was starting to answer this, then read Frowner's answer and got more depressed, so I'll keep my response kind of short: As well as the Dems not really being inspiring at all, I don't think the math you're describing actually works. Like, the thing that always wrecks it is the EC. Which I know we all know, and those of us in strongly red states never stop griping about it, but it is literally disenfranchisement baked into the system on a scale bigger than gerrymandering or whatever weird voter ID or other schemes the right comes up with. If you live in a red state, nothing you do will alter the political landscape, because you simply don't count. And because you don't count, you can't exactly put pressure on your representatives to allow popular voting or whatever. They have no incentive to listen to you. Like, I'm as freaked out about the Court's decision as anyone (I made the FPP after all!) and it basically has no impact on me because I might as well already be living in some feudal state where a king tells me what to do. (The bitter irony that my state was also the deciding factor in Biden getting the nomination last time, even though none of our votes could put him into office, is not lost on me.)
posted by mittens at 6:44 AM on July 3 [17 favorites]
Also, the Democrats are professional politicians. They get paid to do this stuff. I have a day job. Everything I do for the party/the nation/my city/etc has to be done after work, on my own dime. That's going to limit what I can do, and it's going to limit what people with worse employment situations can do even more, which means that maybe the people with eg, the foundations and the staff should rely a little more on paid help for this stuff and a little less on getting the proles to do it. Again, this is about cunning - it would be great if unpaid people would do enough work to create a blue wave out of love and heart, but de facto you need to pay people.
posted by Frowner at 6:46 AM on July 3 [15 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 6:46 AM on July 3 [15 favorites]
Thing is, its inevitable that liberals attack the left more than they attack conservatives.
At heart liberals and conservatives both believe in a hierarchal society and system. They think that such hierarchies are some combination of good, necessary, inevitable, useful, and beneficial. They see the idea of ending hierarchy as the not fun kind of anarchy at best and sheer screaming society ending chaos at worst.
If the left wins it means the end of what they believe to be the absolute core of a functional society will be destroyed.
If the right wins it means they'll feel bad for a while and some people will be abused but society as a whole will continue and they can recover and rebuild.
Given that viewpoint it's entirely reasonable that liberals work harder to fight the left than they do the far right. The left and liberals have only been tossed together because slightly less awful hierarchy is better than more awful hierarchy so the left will reluctantly sign up with liberals if there aren't any better options.
On topic....
I do wonder if the MAGA Six have actually thought through the result of annointing themselves the final power and arbiters of everything? They're really fucking lazy, the Supreme Court takes on fewer cases every year, it has giant long ass recesses, it takes FOREVER to decide anything. And now thanks to the MAGA Six every labor dispute, regulatory question, and so on will land on their desk. They're setting themselves up for multiple orders of magnitude more work than they currently do.
Obviously they can, and presumably will, slow walk everything, but it's still going to add tremdendously to their mental load.
I mean, they don't even know the difference between nitrous oxide and nitrogen oxides, and I don't believe for an instant that was just a typo on their part, they're ignorant of even basic science much less the detailed stuff they'd need to even consider the workload they've assigned themselves.
Even literally just rubber stamping "nope, can't regulate that" zillions of times a year is more work than they do now.
Pouteria I'd suggest that perhaps Democratic voter turnout is abysmal not because of a lack of virute on the part of the voters but because of a lack of effort and actualy doing good things on the part of the Democratic Party.
"Vote for me, nothing will fundamentally change!" is not a winning slogan.
"Vote for me, I love genocide but at least I'm not as bad on trans rights!" is not a winning slogan.
You get people to vote by, and I know this is a concept that the big brains over at the DNC have a hard time with so I'll say it simply, giving people something to vote for.
"Not quite as bad as the other guy" is not something to vote for.
posted by sotonohito at 6:47 AM on July 3 [13 favorites]
At heart liberals and conservatives both believe in a hierarchal society and system. They think that such hierarchies are some combination of good, necessary, inevitable, useful, and beneficial. They see the idea of ending hierarchy as the not fun kind of anarchy at best and sheer screaming society ending chaos at worst.
If the left wins it means the end of what they believe to be the absolute core of a functional society will be destroyed.
If the right wins it means they'll feel bad for a while and some people will be abused but society as a whole will continue and they can recover and rebuild.
Given that viewpoint it's entirely reasonable that liberals work harder to fight the left than they do the far right. The left and liberals have only been tossed together because slightly less awful hierarchy is better than more awful hierarchy so the left will reluctantly sign up with liberals if there aren't any better options.
On topic....
I do wonder if the MAGA Six have actually thought through the result of annointing themselves the final power and arbiters of everything? They're really fucking lazy, the Supreme Court takes on fewer cases every year, it has giant long ass recesses, it takes FOREVER to decide anything. And now thanks to the MAGA Six every labor dispute, regulatory question, and so on will land on their desk. They're setting themselves up for multiple orders of magnitude more work than they currently do.
Obviously they can, and presumably will, slow walk everything, but it's still going to add tremdendously to their mental load.
I mean, they don't even know the difference between nitrous oxide and nitrogen oxides, and I don't believe for an instant that was just a typo on their part, they're ignorant of even basic science much less the detailed stuff they'd need to even consider the workload they've assigned themselves.
Even literally just rubber stamping "nope, can't regulate that" zillions of times a year is more work than they do now.
Pouteria I'd suggest that perhaps Democratic voter turnout is abysmal not because of a lack of virute on the part of the voters but because of a lack of effort and actualy doing good things on the part of the Democratic Party.
"Vote for me, nothing will fundamentally change!" is not a winning slogan.
"Vote for me, I love genocide but at least I'm not as bad on trans rights!" is not a winning slogan.
You get people to vote by, and I know this is a concept that the big brains over at the DNC have a hard time with so I'll say it simply, giving people something to vote for.
"Not quite as bad as the other guy" is not something to vote for.
posted by sotonohito at 6:47 AM on July 3 [13 favorites]
The Supreme Court only hears cases when four of its Justices want to. Their Federalist Society lackies in the District and Circuit Courts will do the heavy lifting. They will only need to resolve circuit splits via cherry-picked cases.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:00 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:00 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]
In terms of voting, let's not forget voter suppression plays a huge part in why turnout numbers can be low. The rest of the US likes to paint the South has always voting for the baddie, but when a majority of the Black Southern population are suppressed at every turn to have their say in the process, those folks never get a chance to exercise that right.
posted by Kitteh at 7:15 AM on July 3 [16 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 7:15 AM on July 3 [16 favorites]
Thing is, its inevitable that liberals attack the left more than they attack conservatives.
I want the left to win out -- and I think you're clearly right that the Democrats have never done enough to actually fight for those they're supposedly in power to help (though, personally, Obamacare subsidies and medicaid expansion have been transformationally freeing for me) -- but I kinda think if you really view the center-left liberals as spending more energy attacking the true left than they do the right, that's down to your media diet. (Because center-left liberals attacking the right is....boring/quotidian? Nothing special to get the This Is Important juices flowing? I mean, why even bother writing the article; who's going to bother clicking on it, let alone share it around.)
posted by nobody at 7:21 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]
I want the left to win out -- and I think you're clearly right that the Democrats have never done enough to actually fight for those they're supposedly in power to help (though, personally, Obamacare subsidies and medicaid expansion have been transformationally freeing for me) -- but I kinda think if you really view the center-left liberals as spending more energy attacking the true left than they do the right, that's down to your media diet. (Because center-left liberals attacking the right is....boring/quotidian? Nothing special to get the This Is Important juices flowing? I mean, why even bother writing the article; who's going to bother clicking on it, let alone share it around.)
posted by nobody at 7:21 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]
You can definitely take the high road instead, but you've got to take the high road - you can't just stick an FDR monocle on for a press conference every now and then
I was out at a bar with some friends last night, and we saw some WPA-era architecture, and I kind of casually wound up giving an impromptu “FDR debates Trump” hypothetical speech to demonstrate what I would have liked Biden to do if we are going right up to the limits on kinghood but not going over. And then it broke my heart, because I realized that somewhere along the way Dems just stopped being the party of even trying to offer big solutions to big problems if it might offend their fucking corporate donors. Can you imagine Biden even so much as *hinting* that the dominion of corporations is fascism? We act like it’s just impossible for Democrats to appeal to red states, but FDR carried 98 fucking percent of the fucking electoral vote. 98 fucking percent. It is to weep. This milquetoast approach benefits absolutely no one and we are reaping the fucking results of it.
posted by corb at 7:21 AM on July 3 [23 favorites]
I was out at a bar with some friends last night, and we saw some WPA-era architecture, and I kind of casually wound up giving an impromptu “FDR debates Trump” hypothetical speech to demonstrate what I would have liked Biden to do if we are going right up to the limits on kinghood but not going over. And then it broke my heart, because I realized that somewhere along the way Dems just stopped being the party of even trying to offer big solutions to big problems if it might offend their fucking corporate donors. Can you imagine Biden even so much as *hinting* that the dominion of corporations is fascism? We act like it’s just impossible for Democrats to appeal to red states, but FDR carried 98 fucking percent of the fucking electoral vote. 98 fucking percent. It is to weep. This milquetoast approach benefits absolutely no one and we are reaping the fucking results of it.
posted by corb at 7:21 AM on July 3 [23 favorites]
I'm really interested to see if the Dems have the gumption to replace Biden this week. It's actually seeming a bit more likely, and I think it would have a surprising big effect on turnout and enthusiasm. I heard some dubious analysis from an Atlantic writer on What A Day that was spitballing Whitmer and pointing out that Harris' polling is "even worse than Biden's". I'm starting to thing Harris is the correct answer, though. She has some pretty big advantages:
* she's 59 years old and has the energy to match.
* she's already integrated into the workings of the administration and so can promise some continutity.
* she would energize the Black and brown vote and sway some swing voters in those demographics.
* she could pick a VP candidate to match the strategic needs of the moment - heck, maybe a white dude with some sort of rural roots, or Whitmer!
I am skeptical that her bad numbers would be relevant; they aren't about the job she's doing as president. She's been quite low-profile, which describes just about every VP in memory (quick - what were Pence's top 3 focus areas?). I'm not a huge fan or anything, but I think this close to the election, a lot of people are looking for someone who is a reasonable person , competent, and able to call out Trump. Biden is down to "reasonable person", and just looked incredibly weak across from Trump last week.
posted by caviar2d2 at 7:22 AM on July 3 [8 favorites]
* she's 59 years old and has the energy to match.
* she's already integrated into the workings of the administration and so can promise some continutity.
* she would energize the Black and brown vote and sway some swing voters in those demographics.
* she could pick a VP candidate to match the strategic needs of the moment - heck, maybe a white dude with some sort of rural roots, or Whitmer!
I am skeptical that her bad numbers would be relevant; they aren't about the job she's doing as president. She's been quite low-profile, which describes just about every VP in memory (quick - what were Pence's top 3 focus areas?). I'm not a huge fan or anything, but I think this close to the election, a lot of people are looking for someone who is a reasonable person , competent, and able to call out Trump. Biden is down to "reasonable person", and just looked incredibly weak across from Trump last week.
posted by caviar2d2 at 7:22 AM on July 3 [8 favorites]
And a VP is the default replacement (and official one at that). Harris solves the coordination problem. And choosing a white person over her is a very very bad look. Harris is the only option.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:23 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:23 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]
Not to mention that white liberals love nothing more than voting for a competent POC to scratch that equality itch. I'm not trying to focus on that as opposed to her abilities, but it's a tactical point. I am getting involved with the local Dem volunteer groups right now, and how excited am I to knock doors for Biden? NEGATIVE ONE THOUSAND, THAT'S HOW EXCITED.
posted by caviar2d2 at 7:29 AM on July 3 [4 favorites]
posted by caviar2d2 at 7:29 AM on July 3 [4 favorites]
I know that this thread is about the Trump decision, but I really think the Relentless/Raimondo decisions ending Chevron deference, as well as the Snyder case on corruption, should be seen as its bookends.
And so I want to repost this once more, as I think it is more prescient and relevant than ever:
Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar [Slate, 2020]:
Cornell, Legal Information Institute: The Lochner Era, Lochner & Economic Substantive Due Process (14th am., US Const. Annotated)
Slate, 2018: A New Lochner Era (on Alito's majority opinion in Janus v. AFSCME ending collection of union fees from nonmembers as a turning point)
NYT, 2022, on the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe): Did the Supreme Court Open the Door to Reviving One of Its Worst Decisions?
Alito tried to absolve himself of Dannenberg's charges in some of his dicta in Dobbs, to the annoyance of those who are open about wanting to revive it; which the federal courts will now be able to do, after NRDC. And receive 'gratuities' for, after Snyder.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:43 AM on July 3 [37 favorites]
And so I want to repost this once more, as I think it is more prescient and relevant than ever:
Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar [Slate, 2020]:
James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii...On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. In his letter...Dannenberg compares the current Supreme Court, with its boundless solicitude for the rights of the wealthy, the privileged, and the comfortable, to the court that ushered in the Lochner era in the early 20th century, a period of profound judicial activism that put a heavy thumb on the scale for big business, banking, and insurance interests, and ruled consistently against child labor, fair wages, and labor regulations.
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.
This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.
I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.
The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.
Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.
Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.
It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.
I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong.
The Supreme Court of the United States is respected when it wields authority and not mere power. As has often been said, you are infallible because you are final, but not the other way around.
I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can’t vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide.
Please remove my name from the rolls.
With deepest regret,
James Dannenberg
Cornell, Legal Information Institute: The Lochner Era, Lochner & Economic Substantive Due Process (14th am., US Const. Annotated)
Slate, 2018: A New Lochner Era (on Alito's majority opinion in Janus v. AFSCME ending collection of union fees from nonmembers as a turning point)
NYT, 2022, on the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe): Did the Supreme Court Open the Door to Reviving One of Its Worst Decisions?
Alito tried to absolve himself of Dannenberg's charges in some of his dicta in Dobbs, to the annoyance of those who are open about wanting to revive it; which the federal courts will now be able to do, after NRDC. And receive 'gratuities' for, after Snyder.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:43 AM on July 3 [37 favorites]
Speaking of Pence, I had somehow missed that he and McConnell joined Liz Cheney in the "people facing tribunals under Trump" club.
posted by mittens at 7:44 AM on July 3 [5 favorites]
posted by mittens at 7:44 AM on July 3 [5 favorites]
This will never happen, but I was dreaming, fantasizing, and think the correct course of action is to arrest the conservative members of the supreme court and imprison them until they reverse their decision and argue that the President is in fact beholden to the law. Biden is in the best position to do this, since he's at the end of his life. It puts Roberts in a bind: Doing so is clearly an attempt to uphold Biden's oath of office (so the *most* official of acts) to defend the constitution (which *clearly* indicates that the President can be prosecuted for at least two crimes, treason and bribery). So by Roberts' reasoning, arresting the chief justice of the supreme court and coercing him to reverse this decision is something he's immune from prosecution for. But obviously Roberts will not want Biden to be allowed to take away his liberty, so either he'll be forced to admit that the decision should be reversed, or he'll have to stand by some very insane principles and say: no actually this is fine. March him out in chains down that long red carpet the president walks down for Very Important Speeches and make him explain why it's perfectly OK for the President to be forcing him to do this, according to the law. I can't imagine how he would be able to continue to defend his position. Would this be the low point of post-WWII america? Sure, but we're already there. The irony of it is that if the court reversed themselves, then Biden would be liable for prosecution for these acts. Which is only just! And he should have to face the music for it, a sacrifice to rescue democracy.
This is fan fiction, sure. But I think it would work?
posted by dis_integration at 8:47 AM on July 3 [9 favorites]
This is fan fiction, sure. But I think it would work?
posted by dis_integration at 8:47 AM on July 3 [9 favorites]
Sure, your plan would work were it not for the fact that he would immediately get impeached and removed from office because Democrats are feckless cowards who somehow think their adherence to principles will be rewarded by conservatives.
posted by Room 101 at 9:06 AM on July 3 [9 favorites]
posted by Room 101 at 9:06 AM on July 3 [9 favorites]
impeachment trials of the president are presided over by the chief justice. no chief justice, no trial, no removal. guess biden would have to 'convince' roberts to 'resign'
posted by logicpunk at 9:10 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]
posted by logicpunk at 9:10 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]
If the impeachment happens after the decision is reversed, then I'm fine with it. We're staring down a Trump dictatorship, with an unhinged president bent on revenge hindered only by the capacity of his toadies to actually execute his will. I think we will see, genuinely, Trump arresting, if not ordering the execution of his political enemies. He'll likely start with the judge in the Manhattan trial, just for embarassing him. Suppose his unhinged behavior brings us a 2026 midterm swing for the Democrats in both houses and they move to impeach. He *will* have key members of the Senate arrested, at the very least. There's no doubt in my mind about this. If instead Trump's prosecutions were back on, and accelerated, in this fantasy he could be sentenced to jail before November, likely ending his run. Impeachment of Biden is a small price for that.
posted by dis_integration at 9:12 AM on July 3 [5 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 9:12 AM on July 3 [5 favorites]
That's not optimism, that's the reality of how the legal system actually works.
The DOJ certainly got Menendez on trial lickedy split though.....
And most importantly, that strategy did not work since he's never going to face consequences (maybe, maybe NY conviction aside).
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:21 AM on July 3 [4 favorites]
The DOJ certainly got Menendez on trial lickedy split though.....
And most importantly, that strategy did not work since he's never going to face consequences (maybe, maybe NY conviction aside).
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:21 AM on July 3 [4 favorites]
Fanfic about Biden deliberately breaking the law to make a point about how terrible this decision is assumes that a) Democrats are competent enough at controlling a narrative to keep the optics going absolutely pear-shaped and b) that the SCOTUS ruling is anything other than a get-out-of-jail-free card for Trump and has any power beyond that.
We live in the only timeline where this ruling granting the president absolute immunity is even necessary. Any president who abuses their power short of attempting a complete overthrow of the government is still going to end up in a case before the Supreme Court and they're free to rule however they want. And any president who successfully overthrows the government isn't going to need immunity because they've successfully overthrown the government. It's only in a world there Trump tried to swing at the Constitution and missed that he needs immunity in order to try again.
You can pretend all you want that Biden could do something deliciously devilish that would convince everyone of how contradictory the Supreme Court's decision was, but the reality is doing something big Just To Prove A Point is just going to backfire on Biden. The time for posturing and veiled threats about what Biden could do was before the court issued their ruling, and there isn't really any evidence that Democrats even bothered to engage in that kind of brinksmanship, which is Kind Of A Really Big Problem.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:23 AM on July 3 [9 favorites]
We live in the only timeline where this ruling granting the president absolute immunity is even necessary. Any president who abuses their power short of attempting a complete overthrow of the government is still going to end up in a case before the Supreme Court and they're free to rule however they want. And any president who successfully overthrows the government isn't going to need immunity because they've successfully overthrown the government. It's only in a world there Trump tried to swing at the Constitution and missed that he needs immunity in order to try again.
You can pretend all you want that Biden could do something deliciously devilish that would convince everyone of how contradictory the Supreme Court's decision was, but the reality is doing something big Just To Prove A Point is just going to backfire on Biden. The time for posturing and veiled threats about what Biden could do was before the court issued their ruling, and there isn't really any evidence that Democrats even bothered to engage in that kind of brinksmanship, which is Kind Of A Really Big Problem.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:23 AM on July 3 [9 favorites]
Let's ask the Mensheviks what happens when you high-road it.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 9:24 AM on July 3 [11 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 9:24 AM on July 3 [11 favorites]
Reversing the decision wouldn't matter. If trumps ins in November, the Supreme Court can just put it back the first time someone files a lawsuit. Stare decisis isn't a thing for this court.
posted by mrgoat at 9:26 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]
posted by mrgoat at 9:26 AM on July 3 [1 favorite]
I just don't know - the Democratic failure to understand really fucking elementary things never fails to astonish me.
Now now now, dont sleep on the national politio-media complex's failure to understand that the fascists will absolutely come for them. I'm not sure if they think they are immune, already accepting/advocating for the Orbanization of America, or just true believers that Biden's age is the most important issue in the election (similar to butter emails being the most imoportant in the 2016 election). Probably all three.
Under Orbanism, they will be massively constrained with a few 'examples' made to suffer to keep the others in line. Under Putinism, they will toe the line or be sent out the windows, under Xi-ism they are fucked, with detention camps and executions. I think Putinism is the most likely scenario under Trump2, but Xi-ism is definitely possible. And I wouldn't rule out Stalinism/Hitlerism...
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:27 AM on July 3 [13 favorites]
Now now now, dont sleep on the national politio-media complex's failure to understand that the fascists will absolutely come for them. I'm not sure if they think they are immune, already accepting/advocating for the Orbanization of America, or just true believers that Biden's age is the most important issue in the election (similar to butter emails being the most imoportant in the 2016 election). Probably all three.
Under Orbanism, they will be massively constrained with a few 'examples' made to suffer to keep the others in line. Under Putinism, they will toe the line or be sent out the windows, under Xi-ism they are fucked, with detention camps and executions. I think Putinism is the most likely scenario under Trump2, but Xi-ism is definitely possible. And I wouldn't rule out Stalinism/Hitlerism...
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:27 AM on July 3 [13 favorites]
snuffleupagus, thanks for the letter from James Dannenberg. Really good.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:34 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:34 AM on July 3 [7 favorites]
Having some time to sit with the decision, and re-read the dissent, I'm of the opinion that if the majority really wants “vigorous,” “energetic,” and unbound Presidential action, they should get it.
posted by mazola at 9:54 AM on July 3 [4 favorites]
posted by mazola at 9:54 AM on July 3 [4 favorites]
The little fantasy that has been sustaining me, that Trump's felony conviction might matter, might even save the day somehow, is apparently even shakier than I realized, since some of the evidence leading that conviction may have included official acts, according to TPM.
posted by mittens at 10:26 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]
posted by mittens at 10:26 AM on July 3 [2 favorites]
I think Putinism is the most likely scenario under Trump2, but Xi-ism is definitely possible. And I wouldn't rule out Stalinism/Hitlerism...
Last year Trump said that there should be camps far away from cities where homeless people could live. (Supposedly with services, which you know is laughable.) know that he’ll do it if given the chance. And you know they’ll be horrible places, and a lot of people will suffer and die. My question to people about these camps is this: do you think for a second that they’re going to stop at homeless people?
posted by azpenguin at 10:32 AM on July 3 [15 favorites]
Last year Trump said that there should be camps far away from cities where homeless people could live. (Supposedly with services, which you know is laughable.) know that he’ll do it if given the chance. And you know they’ll be horrible places, and a lot of people will suffer and die. My question to people about these camps is this: do you think for a second that they’re going to stop at homeless people?
posted by azpenguin at 10:32 AM on July 3 [15 favorites]
Jennifer Mercieca: “When folks say “don’t give up in advance?” What does that mean? 🧵”
posted by edithkeeler at 10:49 AM on July 3 [4 favorites]
posted by edithkeeler at 10:49 AM on July 3 [4 favorites]
beau of the fifth column today on "drastic measures" by "king biden" as a fantasy, and the reality of our responsibility to vote, because this is a long term situation not just a one off.
posted by symbioid at 12:36 PM on July 3 [3 favorites]
posted by symbioid at 12:36 PM on July 3 [3 favorites]
QFT from edithkeeler's link upthread:
There is no place in the world where you will be safe. If the US goes christofascist, then the rest of the world will be more vulnerable. Trump will form an alliance with the other autocrats & together they’ll rule the rest of the world. This is the plan.
The problem with the US having a long reach of influence is that the US has a long reach of influence. And a potential Trump presidency will absolutely do their best to make sure every one of their allies play ball. There's nowhere to "flee" to if other governments start electing similar folks.
I'm with sotonohito in that yes, I will vote for Biden but I am not happy about it and I won't be. I wish more Americans would consider being part of or forming mutual aid networks with others who will also be in crisis if the shit hits the fan. We have a very good mutual aid network here in Kingston that helps our less fortunate and other minorities in our community; it's very upsetting to see how leftists here deride them for their efforts which really feels off to me. I completely expect it from those who vote conservative but I feel like those who say they believe in equality and housing for all and etc should not be dismissive of community. I think that's what's at the heart of it, though: we have made of ourselves our own little islands and forget that we need to help and be helped in times of crisis.
posted by Kitteh at 12:44 PM on July 3 [15 favorites]
There is no place in the world where you will be safe. If the US goes christofascist, then the rest of the world will be more vulnerable. Trump will form an alliance with the other autocrats & together they’ll rule the rest of the world. This is the plan.
The problem with the US having a long reach of influence is that the US has a long reach of influence. And a potential Trump presidency will absolutely do their best to make sure every one of their allies play ball. There's nowhere to "flee" to if other governments start electing similar folks.
I'm with sotonohito in that yes, I will vote for Biden but I am not happy about it and I won't be. I wish more Americans would consider being part of or forming mutual aid networks with others who will also be in crisis if the shit hits the fan. We have a very good mutual aid network here in Kingston that helps our less fortunate and other minorities in our community; it's very upsetting to see how leftists here deride them for their efforts which really feels off to me. I completely expect it from those who vote conservative but I feel like those who say they believe in equality and housing for all and etc should not be dismissive of community. I think that's what's at the heart of it, though: we have made of ourselves our own little islands and forget that we need to help and be helped in times of crisis.
posted by Kitteh at 12:44 PM on July 3 [15 favorites]
I will take criticisms against my 'just fucking vote' position seriously when all eligible Dem voters actually do the minimum required and turn out, consistently, for all elections.
Part of the issue here is that all non-Republican voters are assumed by the Dems to be theirs by right, without doing anything to actually earn votes from those voters. And then, of course, the Left gets blamed for not voting. (Bear in mind, nearly every leftist i know does in fact vote, at least downballot, even those who abstain from voting for president or vote third-party!)
Either the actual Left in America is a constituency that is so tiny that national Democrats don't need us and can throw us under the bus at every opportunity, or we're a vast contingent of wreckers with the power to destroy democracy by staying home, but you can't have it both ways.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:46 PM on July 3 [25 favorites]
Part of the issue here is that all non-Republican voters are assumed by the Dems to be theirs by right, without doing anything to actually earn votes from those voters. And then, of course, the Left gets blamed for not voting. (Bear in mind, nearly every leftist i know does in fact vote, at least downballot, even those who abstain from voting for president or vote third-party!)
Either the actual Left in America is a constituency that is so tiny that national Democrats don't need us and can throw us under the bus at every opportunity, or we're a vast contingent of wreckers with the power to destroy democracy by staying home, but you can't have it both ways.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:46 PM on July 3 [25 favorites]
beau of the fifth column yt today on "drastic measures" by "king biden" as a fantasy, and the reality of our responsibility to vote, because this is a long term situation not just a one off.
So the argument is: Even if he wanted to, Biden would be prevented from taking "drastic measures" because the Good people who work for him respect the Constitution and won't carry out illegal orders. Presumably the Evil people Trump hires won't have such dedication and won't stop him from carrying out illegal orders. Our institutions will do everything they can to protect us from a hypothetical Dark Brandon, but you're on your own when it comes to stopping Trump because they're going to do jack shit to stop any real threat.
Fuck that reasoning. Not because I think Biden should go full-villain, but because that line of thinking is defeatist shit. It's implicitly promoting the idea that doing anything other than voting is unvirtuous and impure while ignoring every fucking unprecedented thing they've done, from literally storming the Capitol to plotting to install fake electors to getting an unelected Supreme Court to shield them from any prosecution whatsoever.
To say that the only way to defeat Trump is at the ballot box is to accept that the Constitution really is a suicide pact and nothing matters beyond who's currently occupying the White House.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:25 PM on July 3 [11 favorites]
So the argument is: Even if he wanted to, Biden would be prevented from taking "drastic measures" because the Good people who work for him respect the Constitution and won't carry out illegal orders. Presumably the Evil people Trump hires won't have such dedication and won't stop him from carrying out illegal orders. Our institutions will do everything they can to protect us from a hypothetical Dark Brandon, but you're on your own when it comes to stopping Trump because they're going to do jack shit to stop any real threat.
Fuck that reasoning. Not because I think Biden should go full-villain, but because that line of thinking is defeatist shit. It's implicitly promoting the idea that doing anything other than voting is unvirtuous and impure while ignoring every fucking unprecedented thing they've done, from literally storming the Capitol to plotting to install fake electors to getting an unelected Supreme Court to shield them from any prosecution whatsoever.
To say that the only way to defeat Trump is at the ballot box is to accept that the Constitution really is a suicide pact and nothing matters beyond who's currently occupying the White House.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:25 PM on July 3 [11 favorites]
but you can't have it both ways.
Well, you can't have that Biden is a feeble out-of-touch old man AND the leader of a vast left-wing conspiracy, but the Republicans seem quite happy to believe both thoughts at once.
posted by dannyboybell at 1:27 PM on July 3 [2 favorites]
Well, you can't have that Biden is a feeble out-of-touch old man AND the leader of a vast left-wing conspiracy, but the Republicans seem quite happy to believe both thoughts at once.
posted by dannyboybell at 1:27 PM on July 3 [2 favorites]
Interestingly enough, the original usage of the phrase "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" was by Justice Robert Jackson who used it when dissenting in Terminiello v. Chicago.
Seems prescient.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:37 PM on July 3 [21 favorites]
In Terminiello, the Supreme Court upheld the free speech rights of a right-wing hatemonger. In Jackson's dissent, he suggested that the inflammatory speech was likely to produce a violent reaction from the mob outside. Jackson had just been a prosecutor in Nuremberg. And he was fearful that the kind of fascistic acts he had just prosecuted might become commonplace in the United States. He worried about an American version of the Weimar complex: If we do not crack down on Hitlerian types, he thought, our fate may be like that of Germany in 1933.
Seems prescient.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:37 PM on July 3 [21 favorites]
and nothing matters beyond who's currently occupying the White House.
But isn’t that the case as set forth by the USSC? In one corner you have the worst of the worst frothing at the mouth for this power and the other corner you have people who would never use such an unjust power. The only actual result of this is very clearly that who is in office will determine how terrible your life is.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 2:28 PM on July 3 [2 favorites]
But isn’t that the case as set forth by the USSC? In one corner you have the worst of the worst frothing at the mouth for this power and the other corner you have people who would never use such an unjust power. The only actual result of this is very clearly that who is in office will determine how terrible your life is.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 2:28 PM on July 3 [2 favorites]
Man, I am scared. And I live in California.
posted by valkane at 4:18 PM on July 3 [9 favorites]
posted by valkane at 4:18 PM on July 3 [9 favorites]
Last year Trump said that there should be camps far away from cities where homeless people could live. (Supposedly with services, which you know is laughable.) know that he’ll do it if given the chance. And you know they’ll be horrible places, and a lot of people will suffer and die. My question to people about these camps is this: do you think for a second that they’re going to stop at homeless people?
Really good point. And nope, not after the coming economic collapse that follows full force Trumpism.
A question I have about that exact thing is whether forcing the unhoused into TrumpCamps (TM) is a dry run/ pressure tests for doing the same to the undocumented ? (Minus of course the essential ones to keep the agriculture and slaughterhouse sector from collapsing).
posted by WatTylerJr at 4:19 PM on July 3 [4 favorites]
Really good point. And nope, not after the coming economic collapse that follows full force Trumpism.
A question I have about that exact thing is whether forcing the unhoused into TrumpCamps (TM) is a dry run/ pressure tests for doing the same to the undocumented ? (Minus of course the essential ones to keep the agriculture and slaughterhouse sector from collapsing).
posted by WatTylerJr at 4:19 PM on July 3 [4 favorites]
Yeah Valkane, so am I. Too old to fight in a civil war . But if it is necessary, decent way to go out...
posted by Windopaene at 4:26 PM on July 3 [2 favorites]
posted by Windopaene at 4:26 PM on July 3 [2 favorites]
Anyone who thinks they are too old to fight in a civil war hasn’t seen a civil war. Trust me, they’re not pretty - and they are worth avoiding. I am just not sure how we do it at this point.
posted by corb at 4:46 PM on July 3 [7 favorites]
posted by corb at 4:46 PM on July 3 [7 favorites]
(Minus of course the essential ones to keep the agriculture and slaughterhouse sector from collapsing).
I very much doubt trump thinks that far ahead. No, the undocumented immigrants who keep the agricultural sector running, and thus the country fed, will be targeted for camps too, then blamed for the collapse of the food supply. We're not talking about a sane man with good foresight. Presumably the next step is forcing everyone in those camps to work the fields.
You know, slavery. Repubs have been trying to be more explicit about bringing it back since... the civil war.
posted by mrgoat at 4:55 PM on July 3 [6 favorites]
I very much doubt trump thinks that far ahead. No, the undocumented immigrants who keep the agricultural sector running, and thus the country fed, will be targeted for camps too, then blamed for the collapse of the food supply. We're not talking about a sane man with good foresight. Presumably the next step is forcing everyone in those camps to work the fields.
You know, slavery. Repubs have been trying to be more explicit about bringing it back since... the civil war.
posted by mrgoat at 4:55 PM on July 3 [6 favorites]
A question I have about that exact thing is whether forcing the unhoused into TrumpCamps (TM) is a dry run/ pressure tests for doing the same to the undocumented ?You know the camps for undocumented immigrants already exist, and the feds already perform millions of detentions of undocumented people per year, right? The US has the largest prison camp system for undocumented immigrants in the world, with nearly a thousand detention centers. And just a few months ago, President Biden’s homeland security secretary boasted that “Over the last three years we’ve removed, returned, or expelled more people than in all four years of the prior administration.”
Talking about camps for the undocumented as some sort of hypothetical future is really weird. We’ve been building and operating and expanding them for decades.
posted by mbrubeck at 5:05 PM on July 3 [32 favorites]
Recently retired D.C. Circuit Court judge David S. Tatel was on Fresh Air today (promoting his book). He had quite a few comments about the court's recent activities:
The problem with today's court is that it has, decision after decision, abandoned very fundamental principles of judicial restraint, like following precedent, respect for constitutional text and statutory text, respecting its own limited jurisdiction.
Tatel also participated in a recent American Bar Association webinar (77-minute YouTube video with transcript).
posted by JDC8 at 8:51 PM on July 3 [6 favorites]
The problem with today's court is that it has, decision after decision, abandoned very fundamental principles of judicial restraint, like following precedent, respect for constitutional text and statutory text, respecting its own limited jurisdiction.
Tatel also participated in a recent American Bar Association webinar (77-minute YouTube video with transcript).
posted by JDC8 at 8:51 PM on July 3 [6 favorites]
The Supreme Court decision that throws us back to having a king being Trump v. United States is a little on the nose.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:14 PM on July 3 [13 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 9:14 PM on July 3 [13 favorites]
What bothers me is that the press needs to refer to this decision separate from current personalities (ahem, Trump and Biden).
Huge swaths of conservatives would be up in arms with the proposal of some future liberal president taking advantage of this.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:30 AM on July 4 [2 favorites]
Huge swaths of conservatives would be up in arms with the proposal of some future liberal president taking advantage of this.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:30 AM on July 4 [2 favorites]
mbrubek, Yes I am aware. It is hideous. I hate that very much and fuck Biden and his HHS. But driving 15 million people out of the country with 500,000 new storm troopers. (see Steven Millers plans) is so much beyond what is currently going on that it beggars the mind. It will be on a scale of ... I dont even know. So many people will suffer and suffer and suffer. That is not weird to say.
Mr. Goat. I think youre incorrect here. Trump is the vile front man, but Bannon, Miller, and Flynn will run the show. Yes, Trump with his weird windmill thing will get the occasional bizarre sop - ie windmills being outlawed, Coast Guard focusing on the electric shark nemesis, etc. But Bannon et al are not idiots. Devastating the food supply will not exactly help their efforts, no matter how racist Trump and the magas are.
There is not enough prison labor (god what another affront to humanity)to replace the undocumented workers. Plus the Big Ag interests will get their way and the undocumented will be provisionally allowed to stay - in hideous conditions - and their loved ones not working will be subject to the deportations.
A conservative acquaintance told me that 'yea, there will be trouble, but in 4 years things will swing back to 'normal' Thats how non-maga conservatives think and WILL vote this fall.
They of course have no clue how bad things are almost assuredly going to get for everyone but the well off white christian males (at least for a whole, climate change will get them too).
posted by WatTylerJr at 1:08 PM on July 4 [4 favorites]
Mr. Goat. I think youre incorrect here. Trump is the vile front man, but Bannon, Miller, and Flynn will run the show. Yes, Trump with his weird windmill thing will get the occasional bizarre sop - ie windmills being outlawed, Coast Guard focusing on the electric shark nemesis, etc. But Bannon et al are not idiots. Devastating the food supply will not exactly help their efforts, no matter how racist Trump and the magas are.
There is not enough prison labor (god what another affront to humanity)to replace the undocumented workers. Plus the Big Ag interests will get their way and the undocumented will be provisionally allowed to stay - in hideous conditions - and their loved ones not working will be subject to the deportations.
A conservative acquaintance told me that 'yea, there will be trouble, but in 4 years things will swing back to 'normal' Thats how non-maga conservatives think and WILL vote this fall.
They of course have no clue how bad things are almost assuredly going to get for everyone but the well off white christian males (at least for a whole, climate change will get them too).
posted by WatTylerJr at 1:08 PM on July 4 [4 favorites]
The Legal Eagle take is pretty dire (thumbnail text: "we're fucked"), which is kind of like if Mr. Rogers were suddenly broadcasting from a fallout shelter.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:49 PM on July 4 [9 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:49 PM on July 4 [9 favorites]
There is not enough prison labor (god what another affront to humanity)to replace the undocumented workers.
Forgive me, I was suggesting that the undocumented workers would become prison labor. I'm thinking immigrants get put in camps -> food supply starts going to shit -> people get angry -> trump administration puts people in camps to work in agriculture (for no pay) -> trump administration claims win to their base. It is a classic abuser pattern to cause a problem, then "solve" it, and say "Look how great I treat you!"
posted by mrgoat at 2:33 PM on July 4 [5 favorites]
Forgive me, I was suggesting that the undocumented workers would become prison labor. I'm thinking immigrants get put in camps -> food supply starts going to shit -> people get angry -> trump administration puts people in camps to work in agriculture (for no pay) -> trump administration claims win to their base. It is a classic abuser pattern to cause a problem, then "solve" it, and say "Look how great I treat you!"
posted by mrgoat at 2:33 PM on July 4 [5 favorites]
Yes. Since the American economy cannot function without undocumented immigrants and since the Republicans must know this, I can only imagine that the threat of deportation is actually about enslavement.
posted by mumimor at 2:58 PM on July 4 [7 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 2:58 PM on July 4 [7 favorites]
OK, so I know the entire USA v Trump decision was just a power grab and that any real questions about it are basically pointless.
But.
I would REALLY like to see someone ask Justice Roberts what specific laws he imagines his bold hypothetical President would find it NECESSARY to break in pursuit of the legitimate functions of his office?
Like, seriously. What particular laws have, prior to USA v Trump, impeded the Roberts decreed standard of boldness in all Presidents prior to Jul 2, 2024? What laws does he imagine a President breaking as an act of necessary boldness?
posted by sotonohito at 4:27 PM on July 4 [10 favorites]
But.
I would REALLY like to see someone ask Justice Roberts what specific laws he imagines his bold hypothetical President would find it NECESSARY to break in pursuit of the legitimate functions of his office?
Like, seriously. What particular laws have, prior to USA v Trump, impeded the Roberts decreed standard of boldness in all Presidents prior to Jul 2, 2024? What laws does he imagine a President breaking as an act of necessary boldness?
posted by sotonohito at 4:27 PM on July 4 [10 favorites]
Rachel Bitecofer: “The Federalist Society 6 should be forced to come testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee about why they broke 248 years of precedent and created an American king.
They overturned a unanimous decision from the DC circuit. Unanimous.”
posted by edithkeeler at 4:54 PM on July 4 [14 favorites]
They overturned a unanimous decision from the DC circuit. Unanimous.”
posted by edithkeeler at 4:54 PM on July 4 [14 favorites]
By Roberts’s logic, Presidents have been acting under fear of prosecution for the last 250 years and therefore have not been suitably bold and unhesitating in their use of the office. We have direct evidence of this in all of the statements and memoirs from former Presidents where they detailed all the decisions they would have made if it weren’t for fear of being prosecuted. I myself recall in particular that FDR had agonizing conversations with his aides before deciding not to round up all Americans of Japanese descent and put them into camps. George Bush in his memoirs stated that he would have gone into Kuwait if it were not for fear of it being illegal, and his son later cited similar reasons for not going into Iraq.
Oh. Wait. All of that happened and Robert’s is a goddamned piece of shit.
posted by Room 101 at 5:00 PM on July 4 [20 favorites]
Oh. Wait. All of that happened and Robert’s is a goddamned piece of shit.
posted by Room 101 at 5:00 PM on July 4 [20 favorites]
The Federalist Society 6 should be forced to come testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee about why they broke 248 years of precedent and created an American king.
Well, it's all up to Dick Durbin
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:51 PM on July 4 [2 favorites]
Well, it's all up to Dick Durbin
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:51 PM on July 4 [2 favorites]
Armey, Cheney, Gephardt, Lugar, Nixon—Dick Durbin might be the Last Dick Standing.
posted by box at 6:03 PM on July 4 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 6:03 PM on July 4 [1 favorite]
In the past few years, I've seen the word "upended" applied to several Supreme Court decisions.
Legal scholar Steve Vladeck shared a couple of newer adjectives to describe the court on PBS today: "imperial" and "destabilizing."
I certainly hope that political teams are ready to craft ads featuring these concepts if Trump's felony convictions are dismissed under this ruling.
It's a simple concept that fits in 30 seconds. The Supreme Court has been corrupted by billionaire criminals to protect (allegedly) billionaire criminals. Unfair, Unjust, Unfit.
posted by JDC8 at 12:04 AM on July 5 [8 favorites]
Legal scholar Steve Vladeck shared a couple of newer adjectives to describe the court on PBS today: "imperial" and "destabilizing."
I certainly hope that political teams are ready to craft ads featuring these concepts if Trump's felony convictions are dismissed under this ruling.
It's a simple concept that fits in 30 seconds. The Supreme Court has been corrupted by billionaire criminals to protect (allegedly) billionaire criminals. Unfair, Unjust, Unfit.
posted by JDC8 at 12:04 AM on July 5 [8 favorites]
Dick Durbin might be the Last Dick Standing
More like the last Dick-Head. None of them have shown much uprightness.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:49 AM on July 5 [1 favorite]
More like the last Dick-Head. None of them have shown much uprightness.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:49 AM on July 5 [1 favorite]
snuffleupagus Yeah, I've been watching Devin's videos for a while now and the only other time I've seen him as angry and disturbed was his Jan 6 video. If USA v Trump got him that riled up, then my non-lawyer impression that it's a terrible decision is probably correct.
posted by sotonohito at 6:01 AM on July 5 [1 favorite]
posted by sotonohito at 6:01 AM on July 5 [1 favorite]
Mumimor and mrgoat, agreed with both points, thanks much for addressing.
posted by WatTylerJr at 7:42 AM on July 5
posted by WatTylerJr at 7:42 AM on July 5
It's too bad the SC decision didn't come out on July 4. We could then celebrate independence from one king and subjugation under another! If the "originalists" on the SC are this willing to toss aside the rule of law, then does it even matter how many votes Biden gets? They will hand the presidency to the other guy no matter how thin the pretext. For you kids out there, it happened before (Bush v. Gore), with many of the same players. The bribery decision, Chevron, and the immunity decision are clearly laying the groundwork for a—I can't even type out his name, sorry—dictatorship.
posted by jabah at 8:43 AM on July 5 [7 favorites]
posted by jabah at 8:43 AM on July 5 [7 favorites]
Serious Q: given the supremacy of the Supreme Court and this terrible ruling is now in place/law of the land, can it be usurped/undone/clarified/'trumped' via a Constitutional Amendment?
I'm just looking for any hope at this point.
posted by mazola at 11:32 AM on July 5 [1 favorite]
I'm just looking for any hope at this point.
posted by mazola at 11:32 AM on July 5 [1 favorite]
Had the election in the UK gone differently, this supreme court would have found that the intent of the founders was to remain under the rule of King George*. It's not like they don't have a proven record of citing English common law from the 1600s if it suits them.
*The declaration of independence only applies to King George specifically, not British Monarchies in general.
posted by stet at 12:22 PM on July 5 [2 favorites]
*The declaration of independence only applies to King George specifically, not British Monarchies in general.
posted by stet at 12:22 PM on July 5 [2 favorites]
Yes, an amendment to the Constitution would overcome it.
So would a differently composed Supreme Court overturning it, as with a plethora of other infamous decisions of the past.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:25 PM on July 5 [3 favorites]
So would a differently composed Supreme Court overturning it, as with a plethora of other infamous decisions of the past.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:25 PM on July 5 [3 favorites]
LegalEagle: "However bad you think it is: it's worse."
posted by flabdablet at 12:25 PM on July 5 [8 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 12:25 PM on July 5 [8 favorites]
Yes, an amendment to the Constitution would overcome it.
The problem here is that, The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the constitution means. You could get a whole amendment, three-fourths of all states ratifying it, and six people in robes could still just go "nah, that's not what you meant".
Realistically, that's probably not how that situation would play out, but in theory (in theory) nothing stops the supreme court from issuing whatever ruling they want. The only recourse in that (fortunately, unlikely) course of events, is extralegal. But hey, we have one party dedicated to starting an entire civil war, so who knows.
posted by mrgoat at 2:11 PM on July 5 [3 favorites]
The problem here is that, The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the constitution means. You could get a whole amendment, three-fourths of all states ratifying it, and six people in robes could still just go "nah, that's not what you meant".
Realistically, that's probably not how that situation would play out, but in theory (in theory) nothing stops the supreme court from issuing whatever ruling they want. The only recourse in that (fortunately, unlikely) course of events, is extralegal. But hey, we have one party dedicated to starting an entire civil war, so who knows.
posted by mrgoat at 2:11 PM on July 5 [3 favorites]
It's too bad the SC decision didn't come out on July 4. We could then celebrate independence from one king and subjugation under another!
Personally, I celebrated our first Dependence Day yesterday.
posted by wierdo at 4:03 PM on July 5 [4 favorites]
Personally, I celebrated our first Dependence Day yesterday.
posted by wierdo at 4:03 PM on July 5 [4 favorites]
I did not see this posted earlier, but this is a long thread so apologies if it is a duplicate. Legal analyst and attorney Elie Mystal was on a recent Slate podcast. There is a somewhat flawed but still useful transcript for anyone who still needs convincing that we are in deep shit.
Speaker A (host): In layman’s terms, what was the actual decision that the court came down with on Monday, and how the h*** did they distinguish between official and unofficial acts?
Speaker B (Mystal): Before we get to Monday, we got to think about the entire term. And the layman’s way of understanding what happened is power. Power exists now in the Supreme Court more than any other branch of government, which is a problem because nobody votes for them.
And yet the through line between the EPA decisions, between the regulatory decision, between the immunity decision, the through line, through all of that is that the Supreme Court grabbed power for itself and took it away from Congress, took it away from the president. And I will explain how they did that, took it away from the voters and gave it to themselves.
So now the Supreme Court is the only people that can tell us how much lead is allowed to be in our water. And the Supreme Court is the only people that can tell us whether or not a woman is dying or just super sick when she’s having a complicated pregnancy. And now the Supreme Court can tell us what is an official act or is an unofficial act, which means the Supreme Court can tell us what crimes the president is allowed to commit or isn’t allowed to commit. Right?
So that’s the, that’s the 30,000ft.
posted by Bella Donna at 11:21 AM on July 6 [7 favorites]
Speaker A (host): In layman’s terms, what was the actual decision that the court came down with on Monday, and how the h*** did they distinguish between official and unofficial acts?
Speaker B (Mystal): Before we get to Monday, we got to think about the entire term. And the layman’s way of understanding what happened is power. Power exists now in the Supreme Court more than any other branch of government, which is a problem because nobody votes for them.
And yet the through line between the EPA decisions, between the regulatory decision, between the immunity decision, the through line, through all of that is that the Supreme Court grabbed power for itself and took it away from Congress, took it away from the president. And I will explain how they did that, took it away from the voters and gave it to themselves.
So now the Supreme Court is the only people that can tell us how much lead is allowed to be in our water. And the Supreme Court is the only people that can tell us whether or not a woman is dying or just super sick when she’s having a complicated pregnancy. And now the Supreme Court can tell us what is an official act or is an unofficial act, which means the Supreme Court can tell us what crimes the president is allowed to commit or isn’t allowed to commit. Right?
So that’s the, that’s the 30,000ft.
posted by Bella Donna at 11:21 AM on July 6 [7 favorites]
Betteridge fails this headline even in the copy itself: CBC - Did the Supreme Court really just give U.S. presidents the power to assassinate opponents?
posted by JoeXIII007 at 3:12 PM on July 6 [3 favorites]
posted by JoeXIII007 at 3:12 PM on July 6 [3 favorites]
I like (as in don't like at all) how the counterpoint to the 'yes this is alarming' side says:
posted by mazola at 5:53 PM on July 7 [2 favorites]
"Were this [murder] case actually to arise, it could not possibly be the case that the president would be immune for ordering Seal Team Six to shoot a political rival," Koh said.We get an assurance with nothing in the actual ruling supporting that conclusion or how such a hypothetical might be averted. But, oh!, it might be tested in the future and we'll see (wait a minute, how do these future cases arrive at the supreme court? The president asks for permission before sending in Seal Team Six? or has something really 'unfortunate' already happened?).
"If we got to that point, and God help us if we did, you would hope it would be foreclosed."
posted by mazola at 5:53 PM on July 7 [2 favorites]
Well, the way it seems is that a hypothetical president has immunity against being prosecuted for hypothetical crimes committed while being President and acting in an official capacity. It doesn't mean these acts are not crimes, just that they can't be prosecuted for committing them. Because they're crimes, I don't see how a court could grant permission to commit them, but I also don't see this hypothetical murderous President asking for permission in the first place. It's as if they've codified 'better to ask for forgiveness than permission' into law.
How it would arrive in the Supreme Court would be if a lower court were to indict or even convict said President of a crime, they would appeal with the Supreme Court, who would rule they had immunity. In reality, any lower court would likely reject any attempt to bring this hypothetical president into the courtroom, as they don't have constitutional authority to try them. Any prosecutor would know this, so they would almost certainly never even be charged in the first place. It's possible that they could be charged in a jurisdiction unsympathetic to the President and the case may make some progress, but it's always going to be stymied at some point by the Supreme Court. So, with great effect, the Supreme Court has decided that all past, current and future Presidents can never be held to account for anything unless the Supreme Court itself decides they should be on the basis of committing a crime while acting in a personal capacity and they can decide by what metric they decide that.
So Presidents liked by the Supreme Court are effectively Monarchs. The other side of the coin is that Presidents who are not liked by the Supreme Court (or a majority thereof) are at risk of being prosecuted for all sorts of things because a bunch of people who don't like them can decide on a whim they were not acting in an official capacity at a specific point in time.
posted by dg at 7:14 PM on July 7 [1 favorite]
How it would arrive in the Supreme Court would be if a lower court were to indict or even convict said President of a crime, they would appeal with the Supreme Court, who would rule they had immunity. In reality, any lower court would likely reject any attempt to bring this hypothetical president into the courtroom, as they don't have constitutional authority to try them. Any prosecutor would know this, so they would almost certainly never even be charged in the first place. It's possible that they could be charged in a jurisdiction unsympathetic to the President and the case may make some progress, but it's always going to be stymied at some point by the Supreme Court. So, with great effect, the Supreme Court has decided that all past, current and future Presidents can never be held to account for anything unless the Supreme Court itself decides they should be on the basis of committing a crime while acting in a personal capacity and they can decide by what metric they decide that.
So Presidents liked by the Supreme Court are effectively Monarchs. The other side of the coin is that Presidents who are not liked by the Supreme Court (or a majority thereof) are at risk of being prosecuted for all sorts of things because a bunch of people who don't like them can decide on a whim they were not acting in an official capacity at a specific point in time.
posted by dg at 7:14 PM on July 7 [1 favorite]
What I found disturbing about that article was that the author was of the opinion that the Supreme Court will be seeing many criminal cases against Presidents so they will be able to refine and clarify.
I mean, we have had none until just now but they're expecting a large number of cases soon? I hope the author was just deranged or something.
posted by sotonohito at 7:21 PM on July 7 [1 favorite]
I mean, we have had none until just now but they're expecting a large number of cases soon? I hope the author was just deranged or something.
posted by sotonohito at 7:21 PM on July 7 [1 favorite]
I assumed they were expecting Trump to win.
posted by dg at 7:30 PM on July 7 [4 favorites]
posted by dg at 7:30 PM on July 7 [4 favorites]
Allegedly Clarence Thomas took free yacht trip to Russia and chopper flight to Putin’s hometown
posted by jeffburdges at 5:40 PM on July 11 [4 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 5:40 PM on July 11 [4 favorites]
^ In May 2023, ProPublica reported on that trip: Roughly 20 years ago, Martin [the justice's nephew and legal ward], Thomas and the Crows [billionaire real estate magnate Harlan and his wife, Kathy] went on a cruise on the yacht in Russia and the Baltics, according to Martin and two other people familiar with the trip. The group toured St. Petersburg in a rented helicopter and visited the Yusupov Palace, the site of Rasputin’s murder, said one of the people. They were joined by Chris DeMuth, then the president of the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. (Thomas’ trips with Crow to the Baltics and the Caribbean have not previously been reported.) -- Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition. A headline the month before:
Here’s What Happened After Clarence Thomas’ Benefactor Let Scholars Dine Near His Nazi Memorabilia (Mother Jones, April 23, 2023) The leaders of a commission on democracy now say “it was a mistake” to meet at Harlan Crow’s mansion.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:49 PM on July 12
Here’s What Happened After Clarence Thomas’ Benefactor Let Scholars Dine Near His Nazi Memorabilia (Mother Jones, April 23, 2023) The leaders of a commission on democracy now say “it was a mistake” to meet at Harlan Crow’s mansion.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:49 PM on July 12
Betteridge fails this headline even in the copy itself: CBC - Did the Supreme Court really just give U.S. presidents the power to assassinate opponents?
Well, actually one ex-president -- our first king.
posted by y2karl at 5:08 PM on July 12
Well, actually one ex-president -- our first king.
posted by y2karl at 5:08 PM on July 12
The CBC article is pretty stodgy despite the headline; "yes but not in practice" kind-of thing.
Which is totally naive.
posted by porpoise at 9:20 PM on July 12 [2 favorites]
Which is totally naive.
posted by porpoise at 9:20 PM on July 12 [2 favorites]
I just saw something that may be of interest - someone claiming that since the Heritage Foundation is a 501c3, it's not allowed to participate in politics, let alone publish political manifestos. This person was encouraging people to get the Project 2025 manifesto and attach it to IRS Form 13909 to challenge their tax exempt status.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:46 AM on July 13 [1 favorite]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:46 AM on July 13 [1 favorite]
IRS Form 13909 even has a checkbox for you to indicate:
"I am concerned that I might face retaliation or retribution if my identity is disclosed"posted by achrise at 7:39 AM on July 13 [2 favorites]
Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
Its not formal yet, and its almost certainly doomed to fail, but at least they’re trying.
posted by Room 101 at 2:37 PM on July 16 [1 favorite]
Its not formal yet, and its almost certainly doomed to fail, but at least they’re trying.
posted by Room 101 at 2:37 PM on July 16 [1 favorite]
3.5 years too late.
posted by logicpunk at 6:29 PM on July 16 [1 favorite]
posted by logicpunk at 6:29 PM on July 16 [1 favorite]
The ban on political activity does not mean that a 501c3 cannot take policy positions, just that they cannot endorse a political candidate. For instance, the Project 2025 says "The next President should also reinstate the many executive orders signed by President Trump...." Clearly, that advice applies to a potential President Biden or Harris as well.
Yes, this is legalistic BS, but it's the same legalistic BS that left-leaning 501c3s use.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:19 AM on July 18
Yes, this is legalistic BS, but it's the same legalistic BS that left-leaning 501c3s use.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:19 AM on July 18
« Older Beach Reading to Defeat the Patriarchy | What If... The Phantom Menace came out in 1987? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by potrzebie at 7:42 AM on July 1 [125 favorites]