Again, not unexpected, just wildly depressing.
I really don’t have time this morning to do the analysis of yesterday’s latest SCOTUS decision that it deserves, or even to complete the deserved excoriation of the liars, hysterics and morons have made utter asses of themselves while making ignorant and gullible members of the public more ignorant still. I was grateful to see Prof. Turley’s essay this morning, which is exactly what I expected it to be.
But all anyone had to do was to read the damn opinion, which you can and should do here. It is a moderate opinion. It is a careful opinion, and it was an unavoidable one. It is also an opinion that would never have been necessary if the totalitarian Democrats hadn’t decided to weaponize the criminal justice system in a last ditch effort to stop Donald Trump from defeating their demented, puppet President.
The deference to Presidents and the traditional recognition that they could not function in the office with a perpetual metaphorical sword hanging over their heads when they felt extreme actions were necessary in the best interests of the nation had been acknowledged and followed since George Washington. Unwritten laws, rules and traditions often work better than the written kind until they don’t: we were better off before the Supreme Court had to specify what kind of acts a President can take without being criminal liable, but it was absolutely unavoidable now.
Speaking of “absolute,” Trump’s lawyers’ argument in his lawsuit for absolute immunity—which Richard Nixon also claimed was the correct view until he went to his reserved suite in Hell—was irresponsible and doomed from the start. Never mind, though: a veritable moaning zombie herd of hysterics and liars told the public yesterday that that’s what the 6-3 decision in Trump v. U.S said. They are beneath contempt, and, of course, unethical.
What the decision said was that “former Presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office,” and that there has to be a presumption that they have immunity for their official acts in general, that presumption being rebutted potentially in court by the facts of the situation. The case was sent to the lower courts for them to determine whether the conduct provoking the charges against Trump qualifies as official or unofficial.
The decision left open the possibility that the charges brought against former President Donald Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith – alleging that Trump conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election – can still go forward to the extent that the charges are based on his private conduct, rather than his official acts.
I found it telling that news media propaganda agents like CNN’s Jake Tapper (Jake was once better than this) were inveighing against the decision while every lawyer I asked (and myself) were still plowing through it. The furious critics hadn’t read the opinion! It was obvious when you listened to them, and I view this as signature significance: anyone who opines on national TV about a legal opinion he or she hasn’t read should be disqualified from reporting the news forever.
What they did, the fools, was read the dissent. Usually that is a pretty safe shortcut, but in this case, the dumbest Supreme Court Justice on the Court wrote her dumbest bit of unprofessional nonsense yet. It was inevitable that Justice Sotomayor would embarrass herself and the Court (and Barack Obama, who unforgivably nominated her because she was a “wise Latina”) to this degree eventually: yesterday was the day.
Sonya, maybe striving to fend off the progressive calls for her to retire so a younger knee-jerk progressive warrior could take her place, simply misrepresented the opinion. She wrote, “When [a President] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” she writes. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
Untrue, untrue, untrue. Former Attorney General Bill Barr was properly disgusted. “The President has the authority to defend the country against foreign enemies, armed conflict and so forth,” Barr said on Fox News. “He has the authority to direct the justice system against criminals at home. He doesn’t have authority to go and assassinate people.” To which Barr could have added, “Duh.”
“So, whether he uses the SEAL team or a private hit man, it doesn’t matter; it doesn’t make it a carrying out of his authority. So, all these horror stories really are false.” Never mind: the Axis will repeat them as facts anyway.
[Aside: Why did the other two progressive women on the court concur with Sotomayor’s dissent, which was, after all, stupid? I am assuming they were being collegial and kind.]
Van Jones (or course) declared that the Court had granted “almost a license to thug, in a way.” [Now watch Ann Althouse devote an entire post to whether one can use “thug” as a verb.] Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) raged, “My stomach turns with fear and anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out-of-control court” and denounced six justices as “extreme and nakedly partisan hacks — politicians in robes.” Going for the gold as top moron, however was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) who announced she was filing articles of impeachment, because “It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.” Is there any chance in the world that AOC read the opinion? Or that she could have grasped it if she had? She doesn’t even understand what an impeachment is.
These are today’s Democrats, my friends!
Turley, essentially sighing over this nonsense, wrote, “Notably, scholars have long disagreed where to draw the line on presidential immunity. The court adopted a middle approach that rejected extreme arguments on both sides. Yet, because Ocasio-Cortez disagrees with their decision, she has declared that this “is an assault on American democracy.” …Previously, Ocasio-Cortez admitted that she does not understand why we even have a Supreme Court. She asked “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”
The news media was only marginally better than AOC. “Trump Immunity Ruling Invites Presidents to Commit Crimes” screamed Bloomberg.
Then the Moron-in-Chief weighed in, and no, after last week’s performance, that is neither unfair nor ad hominem. Desperate to change the subject, he immediately attacked the Court via teleprompter and described the unavoidable decision (thanks to his own party) as what it wasn’t. As many cooler (and healthier) heads have tried to explain, one of the greatest beneficiaries of the opinion is Biden. Because his party shattered the taboo against using the criminal justice system as a political weapon, Republicans (and probably Trump) are nearly certain to seek revenge against Biden as tit-for-tat. The President needs the protection that SCOTUS just provided, because his party removed the traditional guardrails that had been up for centuries.
We all know why Democrats and the rest of the Axis are so upset about this opinion: it almost certainly kills Jack Smith’s political prosecution of Trump in D.C., at least until after the election. We also know, or should, why they are in high hyperbole mode: anything to point away from the “Our President is senile and falling apart before our very eyes, and the Democrats are going to run him for another term anyway” story that inspired devastating satire like this…
Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers immediately appealed his Manhattan lawfare conviction based on the SCOTUS ruling, which makes no sense at all. His conduct in that case occurred before he was President, and obviously didn’t involve an official action.
Turley placed this revolting spectacle in perspective:
“In a perverted sense, Democrats are giving the public a powerful lesson in constitutional law. As Alexander Hamilton stated in The Federalist No. 78, judicial independence “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.” This is the moment that the Framers envisioned in creating the Court under Article III of the Constitution. It would be our bulwark even when politicians lose faith in our Constitution and seek to dictate justice for those who they dislike.”
Bingo.
Ethics Alarms 
I got a huge kick out of Van Jones using “thug.” Doesn’t he know that’s racist? He’s of color and here he is using a word (from India) that’s been deemed by our betters to be a slur of people of color. To refer to thuggish behavior is racist and white supremacist because … well … I guess … people of color have demonstrated a tendency to … engage in it, I guess. So, you can’t use it! Hah!
He’s one of the most obvious phonies in the media today, but nothing tops AOC’s beyond idiotic impeachment rant.
Yes, I think AOC should be given an honorary law degree by HLS and then made Solicitor General. Or wait, why not simply appoint her to the Supreme Court? Just add a tenth justice! Who would have standing to sue? They could get an opinion from Larry Tribe! And, given her monetary policy expertise, she should be made Secretary of the Treasury.
The worst part of this charade is that, prior to the decision, virtually every legal scholar interviewed on every network I watched said that it would AND SHOULD be the decision presented by the Supreme Court. Each said that presidents should have some immunity related to their office, but that the Supreme Court would probably not grant blanket immunity. Meanwhile, the talking heads all nodded in agreement as if this was only sensible.
Now it will destroy Democracy.
Of course, it is interesting to see where the Democrats went first with this. Democratic politicians like House Rep Zoe Lofgren who suggested that Biden could order the deaths of the conservative members of the Supreme Court. Paid Democratic Party ‘Influencer’ Harry Sisson suggested that Biden assassinate Donald Trump. Isn’t this similar to the time that it was announced when and where the Republicans practiced for the Congressional baseball game and that they didn’t have security. Didn’t a Bernie Sanders campaign worker park a camper on that block and on the day of the practice, go to Sanders’ office at the capitol and then go and shoot the Republicans?
I just notice patterns of behavior like this.
In my opinion, the one that posted the following blog is one of those “moaning zombie” morons.
“I Literally Feel Like I Am Going To Vomit”: Another ‘Plessy Moment’ From Conservative Supreme Court As Trump Scores Major Victory
I sent the author a few emails referring him to various online sources where the authors had actually read the ruling by the Supreme Court. And my last email to him said,
To be completely transparent; as far as I’m concerned, the author of that Caffeinated Politics blog post, Gregory Humphrey, is a unredeemable transparent and unapologetic pure biased extreme political hack (though he refuses to admit it) with his head buried so far up his progressive biased ass that it’ll never see the light of reality. Why do I read any of his nonsense, because he’s local and representative of how many progressives in this area think. I think it’s reasonable valuable to be exposed to the opinions of people on both extremes, even if you disagree with them, if for no other reason but to know what they’re thinking. I follow a few blogs on both ends of the political spectrum.
Who reads that crap? The ruling is on a Trump appeal, but it isn’t about Trump. These Trump-Deranged crazies are truly pathological.
One ex-President it protects is Barack Obama, who didn’t order an assassination, but his droning of an American citizen abroad without a trial of due process was illegal, and could have been prosecuted. Now it can’t. But these people just want to get Trump—it’s the Man For All Seasons devil speech, coming to life.
You can bet with 100% certainty that had SCOTUS ruled differently and President Trump been re-elected in November, someone would have been going after President Obama for that act.
This may have been a boon to President Trump, but it really saved President Obama from prosecution.
It was mentioned in oral arguments, but, oddly, none of the zombies mentioned it yesterday.
And yet some of zombies are calling for the proverbial (at least I hope it’s proverbial) drone strike on President Trump…which proves they fully understand that this removed the handcuffs from President Obama’s wrists. They just won’t say it out loud because it weakens the rant of “we just hate Trump”.
Jack Marshall wrote, “These Trump-Deranged crazies are truly pathological.”
Yup. There are a LOT of Trump-Deranged crazies in this south central part of south central Wisconsin. Extremists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would fit right in with the wacko progressives around here so much so that some of them see politicians like her as some kind of hero.
Jack Marshall wrote, “Who reads that crap?”
I have people that I interact with on a routine basis that think the way this blogger thinks, so reading this kind of crap helps better prepare me for inevitable conversations. There is value in knowing your opponent even when it’s obvious low hanging fruit.
I think that this particular area, Madison, WI area, has been accurately described as a “77 Square Miles Surrounded by Reality”.
I visited Madison several times in the late 90s (after very good friends moved to one of the towns nearby) and I thought it was crazy then. It boggles the mind to think what it’s like now.
With Birkenstocks on the ground, locally, I do my level best to keep the EA commentariat apprised…
PWS
One of the better things I’ve done of late, (with an eye toward not wasting time pondering how Humphrey, and his paltry few regular readers, could possibly careen so wildly away from a fact-based Reality) was unsubscribing from that alternative Universe!
PWS
Yesterday’s democrats: “how dare SCOTUS overturn chevron! They’ve gutted the executive of his power and ability to control the country!!!!! YARRRrRrGH!!!!”
Today’s democrats: “how dare SCOTUS rule on immunity! They’ve granted the executive power and ability to control the country!!!!! YARRRrRrRrGH!”
Bravo.
That’s pretty brilliant, and I’m going to steal it.
Trump’s use of this to appeal his conviction in NY is nonsensical, but the whole case is nonsensical, so I guess it fits.
Federal charges in state court…check
Statute of limitations expired by all but the most contorted of logic….check
The key crime not stated before, during, or after the trial….check
Bizzare jury instructions for counting jury verdict….check
Gag orders to keep the defendant’s public announcements from swaying the judgement of the judge…check.
Allowing the prosecution to make public announcements during the case…check.
A nonsensical appeal is what the case demands.
The Bizarro World Principle!
I agree that the decision tries to be generally middle-of-the-road, but I have a few criticisms:
Take for instance the crime of bribery, which can be broadly defined as accepting a thing of value in exchange for the performance of an official act. If the performance of that official act, and the motive behind it, are both off the table, how is bribery to be proved? And finally:
3. While the Court provides that, outside his core functions, a President is only *presumptively* immune, they don’t give much guidance on what the factual analysis overcoming that presumption should look like.
Ack! That should be unchargeable, not unchangeable.
That it includes a blanket ban on considering a President’s motives. It seems to me an improper purpose is often a signature factor in whether conduct is a lawful exercise of power.
I think that was correct of the court: the action is either withing the POTUS power or it isn’t. Truman dropped The Bomb to end the war and save American lives. What if some Vindman clone “blew a whistle” and claims he overheard Harry say, “And the best part is that I get to fry those yellow bastards”? It doesn’t matter. It was still a legal act made for the right official motives.
Impeachment and Removal are options.
A quick comment. The New York issue does not revolve around the President’s conduct, but rather the fact that Bragg and Judge Merchan, in their unseemly haste to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, allowed the use the president’s clearly official conduct as part of the evidence in the prosecution’s case. That’s in direct violation of the Supreme Court ruling and will likely provide basis for a motion to toss the verdict.
Maybe Trump can use Biden’s fentanyl machine, the one that ‘rolls over everything that comes over the border’. Maybe that will help with the appeal. That was my favorite part of the debate. I think he said it only costs $24, but he could have been referring to something else.
Not sure exactly which thing she was reacting to, but here is Nancy Pelosi on MSNBC:
“This is not a normal election where you want to win and if you don’t, you cooperate and do the best you can for the country and hope to win the next time. This is something that is undermining our democracy. He must be stopped. He cannot be president!” Pelosi said about former President Trump.
Speaking of elected officials past their pull-by date. At least she stepped down from her leadership role when she couldn’t be speaker any longer.
Sheesh.
What a nice, democracy-supporting statement! And how should he be “stopped” Nancy? If someone runs out and shoots him, will you treat that statement like you treated Trump’s Jan 6 statement that people needed to “fight” for democracy?
Trump only looks good when compared to the absolute scum of the earth that opposes him.
Trump only looks good when compared to the absolute scum of the earth that opposes him.
The whole “Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election” propaganda campaign really was the turning point.
alleging that Trump conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election
Is that what is really alleged?
because overturning the results of an election is not a crime, and for a conspiracy to be a crime, the purpose has to be a crime.
Conspiracy to obtain more money is not a crime; conspiracy to commit robbery is.