The Presidents all chose not to do what President Trump is doing today because they wanted to avoid “the appearance of impropriety.” The Separation of Powers is a bedrock Constitutional principle. Just as the Chief Justice does not insist on hanging around in the Oval Office looking over the President’s shoulder while he does his job, it seems similarly inappropriate for the President to be perceived as watching and judging the performances of members of the Court.
The problem, strangely enough, is like the matter of playwrights attending rehearsals of the shows they have written. Let the directors do their jobs without the added pressure of being under the playwright’s often disapproving eye. The President shadowing the Supreme Court as it does its difficult job is infinitely worse.
We all know Trump isn’t attending the oral argument today because he likes sitting in court. He is there hoping that his presence will, in some way, further the cause he supports and maybe influence the Justices who are capable of being influenced. This is indeed one of those “democratic norms” Trump is so often accused, usually unfairly, of breaching. In this case, the accusation would be fair.
The President of the United States should respect the Separation of Powers, and the tradition of staying out of the Supreme Court bolsters that. Trump was wrong.
Ethics Alarms 
+10,000 MPH!
jvb
+15,000 MPH
jvb
Core stage separated.
jvb
Fantastic! I was at work and didn’t get to watch the launch, but finally, finally, finally we are headed back to the Moon!
In my darkest nightmares in the 70s, I would never have thought it would take more than 50 years to do so.
Godspeed Artemis indeed.
And the Bee is on it, as usual:
I know diplomats have immunity from prosecution but our government can and have expelled those with diplomatic immunity in the past as such even they are subject to the “jurisdiction thereof”.
Jackson’s line of questioning surrounding the ability to prosecute does not make someone subject to the jurisdiction. The corollary is the Israel has compulsory military service but that does not mean visitors must register for service. Visitors to the US must follow our laws but that does not make them citizens. Where voting is mandatory, citizens from those countries must go to their embassy to vote or face sanctions.
If the developers of the 14th amendment wanted to mean anyone born on our soil to be citizens they would have included Indians rather than having to give them citizenship by legislation in the twentieth century.
The argument that Indians were part of a sovereign nation inside the boundaries of the US fails to consider the counter to that is that the boundaries to the reservation were established by the US government and the US government funds much of their infrastructure and thus are at the discretion of Congress.
I was really sorry to hear that Trump attended theses arguments and wish he hadn’t done it.
How is this really that different from Shumer standing on the steps of the Supreme Court before the Dobbs decision and threatening the justices? He shouldn’t have done that either. No, Trump didn’t issue any verbal threats (thank goodness), but he doesn’t have to. His mere presence is enough.
The good news? I don’t think the justices he wants to intimidate are intimidatable. He might actually cause a justice or two to vote against him.
Watching the news today I heard a comment that in a recent year, 10% of babies born in the USA were to non-citizens. Furthermore, China has such an active birth tourism industry that there are over a million US ‘citizens’ growing up in China, who could one day come here to work, run for office, infiltrate, vote …
If we are to preserve our sovereignty we need to end birthright citizenship, continue to control the border, and deport as many illegal immigrants as possible, no matter how long they’ve been here.
The Justices have at least as much power as the President. If they can’t handle his presence as a spectator … do I say ‘grow a pair’ too often?
And if you’d like another tangent, I was having trouble with WP the other day and couldn’t respond to the ethics discussion, so …
Sydney Sweeney
I’d switch.
I’ve been rereading old manners books, and even though the rules are a bit stuffy, the sentiment behind them is good. The world would be a better place if people even went 50% in on some of the old stuff. The older style would say he shouldn’t even come close to the court, and he should only give minimal statements on rulings he disagrees with. Otherwise, he would be undermining the institution.
For your argument, I think I agree, but I have doubts. It does seem to give the appearance of impropriety, but it’s not clear exactly why. Trump attending the arguments to psychologically pressure some of the justices could be an issue, but he has no actual power over them (legally). He can’t tell them what to do or how to rule.
Would the situation change if Trump were to step out of turn and speak? Shake his head?
I once did a trial observation for a couple of hours. It was a case about a cop that got a call and ran into someone while responding. The digital information from the radio and everything suddenly had vanished.
I didn’t think about it, but I was shaking my head really hard in disbelief. The cop’s attorneys tried to give me a death stare down, but I didn’t look at them. It was extremely awkward. The judge didn’t say anything or really look at me, so I think it was just them realizing an outside observer listening to the testimony could see through it.
Did I influence the trial? Possibly more than Trump really could have.