John Roberts and the Supreme Court made a horrible mistake when granting immunity to a president for crimes committed. That never ever should’ve been made into law. But since it was made into law, President Biden has that same immunity which this regime seems to forget.
It's not the law that the president has immunity for crimes committed.
It's past time to take a closer look at SCOTUS's presidential immunity decision and see that it is essentially irrelevant. SCOTUS said that the president is absolutely protected (has absolute immunity) from prosecution for fulfilling his "core" duties, and he might have some protection (immunity) for performing "official" duties. That view can be valid only to the extent that it is consistent with our Constitution.
Regardless of what anyone thinks any of the president's "core" or "official" duties may be, all such powers necessarily are limited by the overarching principles expressed in Article II. As SCOTUS has emphasized repeatedly for hundreds of years (and as the Tenth Amendment emphasized), Articles I, II and III vested in (delegated to) our public servants in each branch only limited powers.
Article II (and the President's oath of office) prominently emphasized that the first, foremost and constant duty of the President always is (merely) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" the President's "Ability." Article II further emphasized that fulfilling such duty necessarily includes "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Clearly, every power of the president is subordinate, first, to the legislative power of the People (our Constitution) and, second, to the legislative power of our representatives in Congress. That fact is emphasized by the plain meaning of the plain text of Article I.
In Article I, the People vested in (delegated to) Congress the power (and assigned the duty) to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." That necessarily means that Congress has not only the power, but also the duty, to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper" to govern all the president's men and even all the president's powers.
The foregoing text and structure of our Constitution establishes that if a prosecutor can prove that a president has violated his duties under Article II, then the president clearly can be prosecuted under criminal laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of our Constitution. No federal judge or court was delegated any power by our Constitution to grant the president immunity from prosecution for committing any crime defined by Congress.
Article VI emphasized that federal law that was "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution is part of the "the supreme Law of the Land" and all "Judges" everywhere under U.S. jurisdiction "shall be bound thereby." Article III emphasized that federal "judicial Power shall extend" no further than permitted "under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties."
The foregoing means that federal judges have the power (and duty) to adjudicate cases regarding claims that a federal law is not "necessary and proper" or not "in Pursuance" of our Constitution. As every SCOTUS justice is very well aware, judges have the power and duty to invalidate an unconstitutional statute, but they have no power to fabricate any exception to any statute that is "necessary and proper" and "in pursuance" of our Constitution. Our Constitution did not vest in any judge or court any power to fabricate any exception to any federal criminal statute that was enacted by Congress "in Pursuance" of our Constitution.
Yes, but when you have an imbecile, who’s in the White House now, who can’t read, who can’t understand what’s being said, it’s taken that he has immunity. And he has said himself that he could walk down a street in New York shoot somebody and he would not be charged because he had immunity. The ignorance in this country is deplorable, we have dumbed down America so badly in the past 50 years that people are just complacent. And they don’t want to deep dive because they can’t understand what they’re reading!
That's why I write and why I'm encouraging others to write. The truth is surprisingly simple to see with a little help. When judges (including SCOTUS justices) write to deceive or to purport to justify violating our Constitution, they make things seem overly complicated.
I came to realize that, too often, the writings of judges (including SCOTUS justices) were designed to deceive or mislead about principles that our Constitution was designed to preserve and protect. Too often, they say what they want us to think, not what our Constitution actually says or means. The foregoing led me to appreciate the profound truth in and importance of something that multiple SCOTUS opinions have emphasized.
One of the SCOTUS opinions that was most insightful was District of Columbia v. Heller. Many people think of that opinion as being about guns, and that's about all they think about it. Guns are far from the most important part of what Heller highlighted. Heller highlighted some of the most important and fundamental principles in and truths about our Constitution. Heller is as true of the First Amendment as it is of the Second Amendment.
One reminder in Heller (quoting prior SCOTUS opinions) was a valuable reminder of what our Constitution was written to accomplish. Multiple current SCOTUS justices in Heller emphasized a principle that all justices (and all Americans) always should bear in mind: "In interpreting [our Constitution's] text," we must bear in mind the crucial fact that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning."
That statement (repeated by generations of SCOTUS justices) underscores a crucial truth about our Constitution and our power and duty to read and think about it for ourselves. For years (from at least 1787 to 1791), many enlightened Americans studied and discussed the meaning of the text, structure and purpose of our written Constitution (documenting the people's constitution (creation) of one nation of one people) without the benefit of much, if any, insight from any SCOTUS justice.
Our Constitution was written, discussed thoroughly and ratified by the people throughout the nation long before any federal judge was appointed. Also without the benefit of any insight by any federal judge, the first 10 amendments (commonly called our Bill of Rights) were discussed by the people, written by Congress and ratified by the states. The people have every right and reason to think for ourselves and speak about how current SCOTUS justices are violating their oaths of office and our Constitution.
One of the biggest problems with laws, justice is that case upon case for 250 yrs. are layer on to the plain words of the Constitution. Lawyers have become so necessary to go to court to right a wrong because lawyers have to quote case after case that supports their arguments. I have had a case in court and I said I would rather have an intelligent, fair, deliberative Lord of the Manor decide my case based on the intentions of the laws, fairness and the long term morality of his decisions. Skip the thousands of dollars for lawyers, years of waiting, etc. Give a decision, stop the lawlessness, correct the balance of power in a month-no years. Stare decisis is the worst way to decide cases. We depend on legalize and other judges' decisions to tell us what the laws are meant to do. Do WE not know what is right and moral in most instances? Yes, protect the accused from framing etc. but REALLY. YEARS for a case to come to a conclusion? $$$, time, remedies? All tangled in stare decisis and lawyer speak. Citizens should be able to go to court and plead their cases without having to follow all the rules set up to stop us from doing that. Small claims courts and Judge Judy are not the answer to most large problems most people cannot afford to address in court now. Pro bono, class actions, enough money in a win for a lawyer to even take on a mediumly lucrative, favorable decision. THAT IS WRONG!
Great summation. The issues we face, however, are far more complex than even our aged Constitution. We face a SCOTUS majority convinced that the democracy the Constitution was designed to protect is now considered flexible to the extent of the needs of the wealthy and white rulers. First and foremost is the reestablishment of the 1920s economic structure. That, along with a Congress willing to follow the ruling class under any condition, and a President who is essentially mentally incompetent, racist, and worse, we have a situation that appears to be beyond the capability of the opposition to address, let alone understand.
These people have been working on this for 40+ years, testing laws relentlessly to see what the opposition and citizens will accept. This is not a sprint to power by any means, and subsequently, it may not fall quickly. Member of the SCOTUS, yes, even going back to RBG's term, were preparing for this takeover, and we have no idea whether her relationship with Scalia influenced her to remain on the Court for so long!
As you point out so clearly, the Court's aping of Orwell's classic cannot be denied. The "double speak" and worse, all of the actions to destroy government, could have come from that book! I suggest that as long as the SCOTUS remains intact, with its current members, the coup will be sustained.
Bill, you're right that the problem is that the people who are meant to be public servants (our representatives, not our rulers) have been working to flip the script. They have been trying to make themselves our rulers and trying to make us serve their purposes. But that was a problem--an obvious problem--even when our Constitution and its first 10 amendments were being written, ratified and amended by the People in 1787-1791.
It's not true that "[t]he issues we face" are "far more complex than even our aged Constitution." The problem is that we have forgotten how to see what our Constitution says and means. We have forgotten how it was carefully crafted to address very complex issues that were as much on the minds of people in 1787-1791 as they are today.
Perhaps the biggest problems facing America is that we have forgotten how our Constitution was designed to enable the people to control the worst instincts and remedy the worst conduct of our public servants. Trump and his conduct (including his pardons)--and the current DOJ and the current SCOTUS majority--are shining a bright light on big blind spots in our laws.
Generations of those purported public servants--especially judges--have lulled us into a false sense of security because our Constitution provides for impeachment, conviction and removal of presidents and judges. We have forgotten the vast and vital significance of the famous Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I.
Clearly, our Constitution was not meant to stand alone. For very good and relevant reason, Article I emphasized that the People vested in (delegated to) Congress the power (and assigned the duty) to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." For very good and relevant reason, Article VI emphasized that "the supreme Law of the Land" comprises not only our "Constitution," but also federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution ("and all Treaties"). For very good and relevant reason, the People in Article I and Amendment XVII reserved to ourselves the power to directly elect every member of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of Senators every 2 years.
We need (and we need to vote for) members of Congress who are willing to write laws that govern pardons and govern impeachment, conviction and removal of presidents and judges who attack and undermine our Constitution. We need (and we need to vote for) members of Congress who are willing to write laws that provide for such processes to be governed by law (like civil or criminal trials are) instead of governed by politics or political theater or just plain greed.
We should have laws, for example, that require the impeachment, conviction and removal of presidents and judges who knowingly violate their oaths and our Constitution for the purpose of undermining our Constitution. We already have laws making their conduct criminal. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 371. We need better process of law for enforcement.
Of course, that is true. But in those decades, the Democrats had a chance to begin reversing things! They did nothing! Obama and the Democrats won in 2008 and had the same majority that Trump does today! He walked into office after 8 years of Bush, that included using torture on prisoners! Torture! Then he instituted the "No Child Left Behind Act" which, along with the end of teaching Cicics in public schools, began the downhill process of our educational system. Yet, he and the Democrats had NO agenda! That is correct, they had no agenda! They lost control in 2 years because they did not know how to govern! They did not even raise the minimum wage during that period! And Obama still is shuffling the deck!
Can you imagine that 8 Democratic Senators actually voted to support this President? We need new leaders in the opposition! Leaders who can do the homework and then stand up and fight this battle using many of the ways that are mentioned above regarding the Constitution!
"Clearly, every power of the president is subordinate, first, to the legislative power of the People (our Constitution) and, second, to the legislative power of our representatives in Congress. That fact is emphasized by the plain meaning of the plain text of Article I."
Clearly, this president has ignored the restrictions of the Constitution, and the GOP led Congress has played no part in abridging his acts that circumvent it.
"The problem is that we have forgotten how to see what our Constitution says and means."
Another problem is that we have been told for so long by attorneys, politicians, and the media "massaging" the message of the Constitution that we don't know what it really says. Few have gone to the effort to read the document and think about the meaning of the written words.
Very probably true BUT if a case against trump is in court WHO defines the limits of a President's duties and power? Who will hear all appeals, motions, etc. during a trial? SCOTUS! They wrote the decision that this 1 man is above the law while in and out of office. SCOTUS remarked they would write a "law for the ages." Lawyers and courts will parse the laws, Constitution, Federalist Papers, every single word in evidence and arguments. There will never be an end to the investigation, indictment, trial. Just as the 2-3 cases against trump from his 1st term were ended by a trump, President Ford pardoned Nixon, politicians will end it by saying it is too expensive, to divisive and will end the whole mess. US Congress will never pass enough laws to prevent autocrats, oligarchs from taking over our country again. We the People must stay on the prowl, on the backs of US Congresspeople to see everything they do and don't do. They are the only hope WE have. SCOTUS is unethical, corrupt, DOJ is corrupted, Executive Branch has seized all power with the GOP Congressional Majority patting trump on the back for 11 months. This can never be something that happens again. We the People must have the power to recall representatives, replace them before 2 yrs, or 6 yrs. have gone by. NO CONFIDENCE VOTES may not be the answer but give us something to intervene while so much corruption, lawlessness, pardon abuse and harm is being done every day.
I assume your refer to your post ending “our Constitution for the purpose of undermining our Constitution. We already have laws making their conduct criminal. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 371. We need better process of law for enforcement..”
I read your response and think we agree for the most part. Do you agree or disagree with my observation?
Becca, I agree that your observations reflect the status quo. But I don't agree that's the way things must be or should be or that our Constitution was designed to limit us to the way things are. Our Constitution was very carefully crafted to permit us to recalibrate and correct how our institutions and our public servants check and balance each others powers.
refreshed mu memory by reading what ACLU and Brennan Center had to say about Trump vs. US immunity ruling. What they wrote was not as sanguine as your take. Some of the facts of the case were whether Trump could be prosecuted for misuse of the DOJ to overturn results of the election. Court said NO, couldn't be prosecuted even if the acts were arguably criminal or in furtherance of personal interests.
Wendy, nearly all law professors (and lawyers and judges) who say they teach or study our Constitution look to what SCOTUS said to try to understand our Constitution. I started out doing that. But experience taught me not to trust a handful of judges who were hand-picked by presidents.
I learned from seeing how judges (including the current SCOTUS majority) have knowingly misrepresented or just ignored important parts of our Constitution. I saw them do that blatantly in Dobbs and in Trump v. Anderson and in United States v. Trump. I saw them do that regarding partisan gerrymandering in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.
Some past justices, and especially the current SCOTUS majority (but at times all justices currently on the Court, as in Trump v. Anderson) have proved they are not to be believed. Their judgments cannot be trusted to reflect even what they know our Constitution says and means. So now, I look at our Constitution to try to understand whether the statements or judgments of SCOTUS justices are consistent with or violate our Constitution.
Unlike the SCOTUS justices in United States v. Trump and Trump v. Anderson, my writing focuses on our Constitution and its text, structure and purpose. The justices' writing in those cases was what deception and distraction by a judge look like.
The bottom line is that our Constitution prescribes the supreme law of the land. Our Constitution is paramount. Judges and presidents didn't even make the short list. Instead, our Constitution (their oaths, which I quoted) establish that their duty is to support and defend our Constitution. They are our representatives, our public servants. No lawyer, judge or president was delegated the power to knowingly violate our Constitution. So when they violate their oaths and our Constitution, there is no reason for us to acquiesce.
I also think the 'concept of a law' enacted by DOJ long ago, ie that Presidents could not be charged with crimes while in office, needs to be thrown in the dustbin forever. It isn't a law. It is an opinion and a sadly misdirected one. Obviously we can't have the Gym Jordans and Comers of the world charging a sitting potus frivolously, but there needs to be a point, some evidence threshold, where the alleged crimes are egregious enough to require action rather than wait 4 or 8 years and then the next potus says "ohh, let's look forward not backwards".
Indeed. The glaring lack of accountability and responsibility (as well as illegal/criminal activity) needs to be addressed at the time of the occurrence, or justice is being ill-served.
John Roberts doesn't make mistakes. His dismantling of the institutions of our democracy has been deliberate and strategic. Going back decades, despite his demure, almost scholarly public persona and the ease with which he lulled the Beltway press into believing in his mystique (the modest man who calls "balls and strikes"), the man has been a fanatic with theocratic impulses, a democracy-hater, and a white nationalist throughout his career.
Like all of them, he has the reverence for riches: he believes wealthy men should rule without limit or restraint, even when it means they act outside the rule of law and against the greater good. That's why, in collusion with David Bossie, he put Citizens United on the Court's limited docket then rammed it through in 2010.
Roberts is a real villain: not a good guy who made some bad decisions, not a pawn of Trump (if anything, it's the opposite), but a very, very bad man who spent years angling for a seat on the Court, even marrying and adopting a family of kids in order to improve his chances, in order to do precisely what he's done.
You'll find that Roberts and his crew will discern exceptions that mean his sweeping immunity ruling doesn't apply to Democratic leaders. The cynicism of this Court majority simply cannot be overstated.
What's far worse is the supreme courts interference with Trump being convicted for the January 6th riot to overthrow our country. Had the supreme court not taken Trumps crazy request, Trump would be in jail for one of his many crimes instead of leading our country now with 1,000's of crimes being committed . F Roberts!
Oh, I didn’t mean that John Roberts was complicit by any means. I know he’s not a good person along with Thomas, Kavanagh, and the others. That’s why if we can get this regime out of power, there needs to be an ethics law put into place for the Supreme Court justices, there needs to be term limits, not lifetime appointments, same thing with senators and congressman. Term limits!
That is either true, or the SCOTUS didn't look far enough ahead to see that the decision would affect all presidents past and future. They could, however, revisit it (as they have done to the Voting Rights Act and Wade vs. Roe) and rescind it. This doesn't look likely.
I can tell you who is in charge of the lawless, cruel immigration pogrom: Herr Stephen Miller. His pathological hatred of brown people has caused untold misery to American citizens and those legally in this country who happen not to be white. Miller was aided and abetted by the 09/08/2025 ruling by SCOTUS that it's OK for immigration agents to consider apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accept and the type of work one does to justify harassing them. Crazy, huh? These actions have been correctly dubbed "Kavanaugh Stops" because of Brett's support of the ruling elucidated in his concurrence opinion. And the madness continues unabated.
The shooter was reportedly suffering from severe depression even before he was brought to a foreign country where he reportedly was unable to find employment. He had been working with our forces in a war zone, did he also suffer from PTSD? If so, he apparently got no help.
So what does the law say about punishing mentally ill people who supported our forces in a war and then got no help?
In many ways, it isn't too different from how we treat a lot of our veterans, who have likewise supported our forces in time of war. Too often they are treated as expendables.
"But in Donald Trump’s regime, bucks never get near the Oval Office." I know what you mean here, Jen, and agree. That said, if there's one thing we know for sure about this crew, it's that BILLIONS of bucks are getting into the Oval Office!
Trump and Hegseth claimed an admiral gave the order to fire on the wounded survivors of the first strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat, in "self-defense," because apparently a small boat is a serious threat to US Navy vessels and aircraft. You can't make this stuff up.
“Secretary Hegseth authorised Adm [Frank M] Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” said Leavitt. “Adm Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.”
Two men clinging to the wreckage of a boat were still a threat to the United States of America? Did it require another million-dollar missile to kill them? (Or is it multi-million?)
Totally agree. All had the responsibility for carrying out these illegal orders. The action was criminal; against the tenets of the international court and the Geneva Convention.
The metric of success is declaration of martial law, suspension of congress and elections due to war with Venezuela and imminent threat posed by antifa.
President Truman believed and said something else that we (and Trump) should bear in mind. President Truman's Presidential Library and Museum includes a re-creation of his personal library. In his library hangs a sign: “Not all readers are leaders, but all leaders are readers.” https://www.trumanlibraryinstitute.org/truman/truman-quotes/
I have to wonder if it's pure coincidence that Trump is concealing information from the American public about (at least) one predator who was Trump's close friend and at the same time, "Homeland security agents investigating sexual crimes against children, for instance, have been redeployed to the immigrant crackdown for weeks at a time, hampering their pursuit of child predators. . . . And federal efforts to combat human smuggling and sex trafficking have languished with investigators reassigned to help staff deportation efforts."
Probably not a coincidence. This also shows Trump's priorities - expend all available resources to deport people who are not guilty of crimes, while ignoring complex and critical investigations of child predators and human smugglers.
We need to continue to find our voice, stand our ground and put out a cohesive, consistent message to get these buffoons out of office. I hope we focus on the damage done and not on retribution in our messaging.
On the day of the shooting, I said it was Trump's fault because the National Guard should never have been in D.C. and their presence there was simply inflammatory. Unfortunately, he loves inflammatory and could care less who gets hurt as a tesult,
Thank you for putting into words the dismay I've been feeling for the past week as all this has played out, Jen. Reading this almost felt cathartic - like a reminder that I didn't take any crazy pills even though it feels like I have.
John Roberts and the Supreme Court made a horrible mistake when granting immunity to a president for crimes committed. That never ever should’ve been made into law. But since it was made into law, President Biden has that same immunity which this regime seems to forget.
It's not the law that the president has immunity for crimes committed.
It's past time to take a closer look at SCOTUS's presidential immunity decision and see that it is essentially irrelevant. SCOTUS said that the president is absolutely protected (has absolute immunity) from prosecution for fulfilling his "core" duties, and he might have some protection (immunity) for performing "official" duties. That view can be valid only to the extent that it is consistent with our Constitution.
Regardless of what anyone thinks any of the president's "core" or "official" duties may be, all such powers necessarily are limited by the overarching principles expressed in Article II. As SCOTUS has emphasized repeatedly for hundreds of years (and as the Tenth Amendment emphasized), Articles I, II and III vested in (delegated to) our public servants in each branch only limited powers.
Article II (and the President's oath of office) prominently emphasized that the first, foremost and constant duty of the President always is (merely) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" the President's "Ability." Article II further emphasized that fulfilling such duty necessarily includes "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Clearly, every power of the president is subordinate, first, to the legislative power of the People (our Constitution) and, second, to the legislative power of our representatives in Congress. That fact is emphasized by the plain meaning of the plain text of Article I.
In Article I, the People vested in (delegated to) Congress the power (and assigned the duty) to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." That necessarily means that Congress has not only the power, but also the duty, to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper" to govern all the president's men and even all the president's powers.
The foregoing text and structure of our Constitution establishes that if a prosecutor can prove that a president has violated his duties under Article II, then the president clearly can be prosecuted under criminal laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of our Constitution. No federal judge or court was delegated any power by our Constitution to grant the president immunity from prosecution for committing any crime defined by Congress.
Article VI emphasized that federal law that was "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution is part of the "the supreme Law of the Land" and all "Judges" everywhere under U.S. jurisdiction "shall be bound thereby." Article III emphasized that federal "judicial Power shall extend" no further than permitted "under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties."
The foregoing means that federal judges have the power (and duty) to adjudicate cases regarding claims that a federal law is not "necessary and proper" or not "in Pursuance" of our Constitution. As every SCOTUS justice is very well aware, judges have the power and duty to invalidate an unconstitutional statute, but they have no power to fabricate any exception to any statute that is "necessary and proper" and "in pursuance" of our Constitution. Our Constitution did not vest in any judge or court any power to fabricate any exception to any federal criminal statute that was enacted by Congress "in Pursuance" of our Constitution.
Yes, but when you have an imbecile, who’s in the White House now, who can’t read, who can’t understand what’s being said, it’s taken that he has immunity. And he has said himself that he could walk down a street in New York shoot somebody and he would not be charged because he had immunity. The ignorance in this country is deplorable, we have dumbed down America so badly in the past 50 years that people are just complacent. And they don’t want to deep dive because they can’t understand what they’re reading!
That's why I write and why I'm encouraging others to write. The truth is surprisingly simple to see with a little help. When judges (including SCOTUS justices) write to deceive or to purport to justify violating our Constitution, they make things seem overly complicated.
I came to realize that, too often, the writings of judges (including SCOTUS justices) were designed to deceive or mislead about principles that our Constitution was designed to preserve and protect. Too often, they say what they want us to think, not what our Constitution actually says or means. The foregoing led me to appreciate the profound truth in and importance of something that multiple SCOTUS opinions have emphasized.
One of the SCOTUS opinions that was most insightful was District of Columbia v. Heller. Many people think of that opinion as being about guns, and that's about all they think about it. Guns are far from the most important part of what Heller highlighted. Heller highlighted some of the most important and fundamental principles in and truths about our Constitution. Heller is as true of the First Amendment as it is of the Second Amendment.
One reminder in Heller (quoting prior SCOTUS opinions) was a valuable reminder of what our Constitution was written to accomplish. Multiple current SCOTUS justices in Heller emphasized a principle that all justices (and all Americans) always should bear in mind: "In interpreting [our Constitution's] text," we must bear in mind the crucial fact that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning."
That statement (repeated by generations of SCOTUS justices) underscores a crucial truth about our Constitution and our power and duty to read and think about it for ourselves. For years (from at least 1787 to 1791), many enlightened Americans studied and discussed the meaning of the text, structure and purpose of our written Constitution (documenting the people's constitution (creation) of one nation of one people) without the benefit of much, if any, insight from any SCOTUS justice.
Our Constitution was written, discussed thoroughly and ratified by the people throughout the nation long before any federal judge was appointed. Also without the benefit of any insight by any federal judge, the first 10 amendments (commonly called our Bill of Rights) were discussed by the people, written by Congress and ratified by the states. The people have every right and reason to think for ourselves and speak about how current SCOTUS justices are violating their oaths of office and our Constitution.
Both Thomas and Alito admit that they apply "natural law" before the text of the Consitution. That fits the definition of bias or prejudice.
But that's not why they're vulnerable. They have a track record of violating the ethics rules and favoring their benefactors.
I keep waiting for a party to file motions to recuse.....
One of the biggest problems with laws, justice is that case upon case for 250 yrs. are layer on to the plain words of the Constitution. Lawyers have become so necessary to go to court to right a wrong because lawyers have to quote case after case that supports their arguments. I have had a case in court and I said I would rather have an intelligent, fair, deliberative Lord of the Manor decide my case based on the intentions of the laws, fairness and the long term morality of his decisions. Skip the thousands of dollars for lawyers, years of waiting, etc. Give a decision, stop the lawlessness, correct the balance of power in a month-no years. Stare decisis is the worst way to decide cases. We depend on legalize and other judges' decisions to tell us what the laws are meant to do. Do WE not know what is right and moral in most instances? Yes, protect the accused from framing etc. but REALLY. YEARS for a case to come to a conclusion? $$$, time, remedies? All tangled in stare decisis and lawyer speak. Citizens should be able to go to court and plead their cases without having to follow all the rules set up to stop us from doing that. Small claims courts and Judge Judy are not the answer to most large problems most people cannot afford to address in court now. Pro bono, class actions, enough money in a win for a lawyer to even take on a mediumly lucrative, favorable decision. THAT IS WRONG!
Great summation. The issues we face, however, are far more complex than even our aged Constitution. We face a SCOTUS majority convinced that the democracy the Constitution was designed to protect is now considered flexible to the extent of the needs of the wealthy and white rulers. First and foremost is the reestablishment of the 1920s economic structure. That, along with a Congress willing to follow the ruling class under any condition, and a President who is essentially mentally incompetent, racist, and worse, we have a situation that appears to be beyond the capability of the opposition to address, let alone understand.
These people have been working on this for 40+ years, testing laws relentlessly to see what the opposition and citizens will accept. This is not a sprint to power by any means, and subsequently, it may not fall quickly. Member of the SCOTUS, yes, even going back to RBG's term, were preparing for this takeover, and we have no idea whether her relationship with Scalia influenced her to remain on the Court for so long!
As you point out so clearly, the Court's aping of Orwell's classic cannot be denied. The "double speak" and worse, all of the actions to destroy government, could have come from that book! I suggest that as long as the SCOTUS remains intact, with its current members, the coup will be sustained.
Bill, you're right that the problem is that the people who are meant to be public servants (our representatives, not our rulers) have been working to flip the script. They have been trying to make themselves our rulers and trying to make us serve their purposes. But that was a problem--an obvious problem--even when our Constitution and its first 10 amendments were being written, ratified and amended by the People in 1787-1791.
It's not true that "[t]he issues we face" are "far more complex than even our aged Constitution." The problem is that we have forgotten how to see what our Constitution says and means. We have forgotten how it was carefully crafted to address very complex issues that were as much on the minds of people in 1787-1791 as they are today.
Perhaps the biggest problems facing America is that we have forgotten how our Constitution was designed to enable the people to control the worst instincts and remedy the worst conduct of our public servants. Trump and his conduct (including his pardons)--and the current DOJ and the current SCOTUS majority--are shining a bright light on big blind spots in our laws.
Generations of those purported public servants--especially judges--have lulled us into a false sense of security because our Constitution provides for impeachment, conviction and removal of presidents and judges. We have forgotten the vast and vital significance of the famous Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I.
Clearly, our Constitution was not meant to stand alone. For very good and relevant reason, Article I emphasized that the People vested in (delegated to) Congress the power (and assigned the duty) to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." For very good and relevant reason, Article VI emphasized that "the supreme Law of the Land" comprises not only our "Constitution," but also federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution ("and all Treaties"). For very good and relevant reason, the People in Article I and Amendment XVII reserved to ourselves the power to directly elect every member of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of Senators every 2 years.
We need (and we need to vote for) members of Congress who are willing to write laws that govern pardons and govern impeachment, conviction and removal of presidents and judges who attack and undermine our Constitution. We need (and we need to vote for) members of Congress who are willing to write laws that provide for such processes to be governed by law (like civil or criminal trials are) instead of governed by politics or political theater or just plain greed.
We should have laws, for example, that require the impeachment, conviction and removal of presidents and judges who knowingly violate their oaths and our Constitution for the purpose of undermining our Constitution. We already have laws making their conduct criminal. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 371. We need better process of law for enforcement.
The decades of the GOP dismantling our school systems is showing up big-time.
Yep. Big time.
Of course, that is true. But in those decades, the Democrats had a chance to begin reversing things! They did nothing! Obama and the Democrats won in 2008 and had the same majority that Trump does today! He walked into office after 8 years of Bush, that included using torture on prisoners! Torture! Then he instituted the "No Child Left Behind Act" which, along with the end of teaching Cicics in public schools, began the downhill process of our educational system. Yet, he and the Democrats had NO agenda! That is correct, they had no agenda! They lost control in 2 years because they did not know how to govern! They did not even raise the minimum wage during that period! And Obama still is shuffling the deck!
Can you imagine that 8 Democratic Senators actually voted to support this President? We need new leaders in the opposition! Leaders who can do the homework and then stand up and fight this battle using many of the ways that are mentioned above regarding the Constitution!
You had me at “imbecile”!
"Clearly, every power of the president is subordinate, first, to the legislative power of the People (our Constitution) and, second, to the legislative power of our representatives in Congress. That fact is emphasized by the plain meaning of the plain text of Article I."
Clearly, this president has ignored the restrictions of the Constitution, and the GOP led Congress has played no part in abridging his acts that circumvent it.
And in that failure to act appropriately for these horrific acts they’ve violated their own oaths and should be replaced.
Steve, please see my reply to Bill, above.
"The problem is that we have forgotten how to see what our Constitution says and means."
Another problem is that we have been told for so long by attorneys, politicians, and the media "massaging" the message of the Constitution that we don't know what it really says. Few have gone to the effort to read the document and think about the meaning of the written words.
Steve, you're right. We're talking about the same problem.
You are to be commended for studying and explaining this issue.
Very probably true BUT if a case against trump is in court WHO defines the limits of a President's duties and power? Who will hear all appeals, motions, etc. during a trial? SCOTUS! They wrote the decision that this 1 man is above the law while in and out of office. SCOTUS remarked they would write a "law for the ages." Lawyers and courts will parse the laws, Constitution, Federalist Papers, every single word in evidence and arguments. There will never be an end to the investigation, indictment, trial. Just as the 2-3 cases against trump from his 1st term were ended by a trump, President Ford pardoned Nixon, politicians will end it by saying it is too expensive, to divisive and will end the whole mess. US Congress will never pass enough laws to prevent autocrats, oligarchs from taking over our country again. We the People must stay on the prowl, on the backs of US Congresspeople to see everything they do and don't do. They are the only hope WE have. SCOTUS is unethical, corrupt, DOJ is corrupted, Executive Branch has seized all power with the GOP Congressional Majority patting trump on the back for 11 months. This can never be something that happens again. We the People must have the power to recall representatives, replace them before 2 yrs, or 6 yrs. have gone by. NO CONFIDENCE VOTES may not be the answer but give us something to intervene while so much corruption, lawlessness, pardon abuse and harm is being done every day.
Becca, please see my reply to Bill, above.
I assume your refer to your post ending “our Constitution for the purpose of undermining our Constitution. We already have laws making their conduct criminal. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 371. We need better process of law for enforcement..”
I read your response and think we agree for the most part. Do you agree or disagree with my observation?
Becca, I agree that your observations reflect the status quo. But I don't agree that's the way things must be or should be or that our Constitution was designed to limit us to the way things are. Our Constitution was very carefully crafted to permit us to recalibrate and correct how our institutions and our public servants check and balance each others powers.
The court of human opinion needs to throw this bum and all his cohorts and political supporters out of office. Then where would he be?
Well written, clearly explained. Thank you.
refreshed mu memory by reading what ACLU and Brennan Center had to say about Trump vs. US immunity ruling. What they wrote was not as sanguine as your take. Some of the facts of the case were whether Trump could be prosecuted for misuse of the DOJ to overturn results of the election. Court said NO, couldn't be prosecuted even if the acts were arguably criminal or in furtherance of personal interests.
Wendy, nearly all law professors (and lawyers and judges) who say they teach or study our Constitution look to what SCOTUS said to try to understand our Constitution. I started out doing that. But experience taught me not to trust a handful of judges who were hand-picked by presidents.
I learned from seeing how judges (including the current SCOTUS majority) have knowingly misrepresented or just ignored important parts of our Constitution. I saw them do that blatantly in Dobbs and in Trump v. Anderson and in United States v. Trump. I saw them do that regarding partisan gerrymandering in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.
Some past justices, and especially the current SCOTUS majority (but at times all justices currently on the Court, as in Trump v. Anderson) have proved they are not to be believed. Their judgments cannot be trusted to reflect even what they know our Constitution says and means. So now, I look at our Constitution to try to understand whether the statements or judgments of SCOTUS justices are consistent with or violate our Constitution.
Unlike the SCOTUS justices in United States v. Trump and Trump v. Anderson, my writing focuses on our Constitution and its text, structure and purpose. The justices' writing in those cases was what deception and distraction by a judge look like.
The bottom line is that our Constitution prescribes the supreme law of the land. Our Constitution is paramount. Judges and presidents didn't even make the short list. Instead, our Constitution (their oaths, which I quoted) establish that their duty is to support and defend our Constitution. They are our representatives, our public servants. No lawyer, judge or president was delegated the power to knowingly violate our Constitution. So when they violate their oaths and our Constitution, there is no reason for us to acquiesce.
I also think the 'concept of a law' enacted by DOJ long ago, ie that Presidents could not be charged with crimes while in office, needs to be thrown in the dustbin forever. It isn't a law. It is an opinion and a sadly misdirected one. Obviously we can't have the Gym Jordans and Comers of the world charging a sitting potus frivolously, but there needs to be a point, some evidence threshold, where the alleged crimes are egregious enough to require action rather than wait 4 or 8 years and then the next potus says "ohh, let's look forward not backwards".
Indeed. The glaring lack of accountability and responsibility (as well as illegal/criminal activity) needs to be addressed at the time of the occurrence, or justice is being ill-served.
John Roberts doesn't make mistakes. His dismantling of the institutions of our democracy has been deliberate and strategic. Going back decades, despite his demure, almost scholarly public persona and the ease with which he lulled the Beltway press into believing in his mystique (the modest man who calls "balls and strikes"), the man has been a fanatic with theocratic impulses, a democracy-hater, and a white nationalist throughout his career.
Like all of them, he has the reverence for riches: he believes wealthy men should rule without limit or restraint, even when it means they act outside the rule of law and against the greater good. That's why, in collusion with David Bossie, he put Citizens United on the Court's limited docket then rammed it through in 2010.
Roberts is a real villain: not a good guy who made some bad decisions, not a pawn of Trump (if anything, it's the opposite), but a very, very bad man who spent years angling for a seat on the Court, even marrying and adopting a family of kids in order to improve his chances, in order to do precisely what he's done.
You'll find that Roberts and his crew will discern exceptions that mean his sweeping immunity ruling doesn't apply to Democratic leaders. The cynicism of this Court majority simply cannot be overstated.
What's far worse is the supreme courts interference with Trump being convicted for the January 6th riot to overthrow our country. Had the supreme court not taken Trumps crazy request, Trump would be in jail for one of his many crimes instead of leading our country now with 1,000's of crimes being committed . F Roberts!
Oh, I didn’t mean that John Roberts was complicit by any means. I know he’s not a good person along with Thomas, Kavanagh, and the others. That’s why if we can get this regime out of power, there needs to be an ethics law put into place for the Supreme Court justices, there needs to be term limits, not lifetime appointments, same thing with senators and congressman. Term limits!
I'm sure the "fine print" says that this Royal Immunity only pertains to Republican Presidents whose last name begins with T.
That is either true, or the SCOTUS didn't look far enough ahead to see that the decision would affect all presidents past and future. They could, however, revisit it (as they have done to the Voting Rights Act and Wade vs. Roe) and rescind it. This doesn't look likely.
So very true!!!!
I don’t think it was a mistake—it was a conscious and deliberate choice to enable autocracy. And that is more shameful by far.
Wonderful analogy.
True. The Roberts Star Chamber has a lot to answer for..
And so will the next (hopefully Democratic) President. Just sayin…
And now the SCOTUS enjoys immunity, as long as they continue to entertain king Donnie's every whim, So far, 9 of them still survive.
I am learning that in America the buck stops at the voters.
(Perhaps he could direct us to the person who is in charge.) That’s a good question for the reporters to ask, every day and twice on Sunday.
I can tell you who is in charge of the lawless, cruel immigration pogrom: Herr Stephen Miller. His pathological hatred of brown people has caused untold misery to American citizens and those legally in this country who happen not to be white. Miller was aided and abetted by the 09/08/2025 ruling by SCOTUS that it's OK for immigration agents to consider apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accept and the type of work one does to justify harassing them. Crazy, huh? These actions have been correctly dubbed "Kavanaugh Stops" because of Brett's support of the ruling elucidated in his concurrence opinion. And the madness continues unabated.
Press the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.
Senate: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/
House: https://armedservices.house.gov/about/members.htm
The shooter was reportedly suffering from severe depression even before he was brought to a foreign country where he reportedly was unable to find employment. He had been working with our forces in a war zone, did he also suffer from PTSD? If so, he apparently got no help.
So what does the law say about punishing mentally ill people who supported our forces in a war and then got no help?
In many ways, it isn't too different from how we treat a lot of our veterans, who have likewise supported our forces in time of war. Too often they are treated as expendables.
"But in Donald Trump’s regime, bucks never get near the Oval Office." I know what you mean here, Jen, and agree. That said, if there's one thing we know for sure about this crew, it's that BILLIONS of bucks are getting into the Oval Office!
And that's what I was thinking! Only one type buck gets close to the WH. And crypto, which is easily converted to bucks.
Hi, Steve! Nice to see you here. You are right on point, as always.
Right back atcha, Nan! I don't know whether your email address is still the same as before, but I just sent you a message there.
Trump pardons drug kingpin & calls for hanging decorated vets for stating the law while his secretary of "war", Kegseth, orders the murder of the defenseless. https://newrepublic.com/post/203770/pete-hegseth-war-crimes-chldrens-book-ai-meme?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tnr_daily
Voters & the courts are starting to see Trump for the fraudster, conartist & extorionist he is. https://newrepublic.com/article/203574/trump-lies-media-voters-economy?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tnr_daily
Resist the authoritarians. #VoteBlue
Trump and Hegseth claimed an admiral gave the order to fire on the wounded survivors of the first strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat, in "self-defense," because apparently a small boat is a serious threat to US Navy vessels and aircraft. You can't make this stuff up.
a small boat would pose a threat to the US navy if trump and kushner sold all our destroyers to russia...
“Secretary Hegseth authorised Adm [Frank M] Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” said Leavitt. “Adm Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.”
Two men clinging to the wreckage of a boat were still a threat to the United States of America? Did it require another million-dollar missile to kill them? (Or is it multi-million?)
The Admiral will be the scapegoat.
That's doubtful. More likely, those who followed the Admiral's order will be targeted (no pun intended).
They will, and should be, but the admiral issued the order at the top (via Pete Hegseth) and the admiral should also be held accountable.
Totally agree. All had the responsibility for carrying out these illegal orders. The action was criminal; against the tenets of the international court and the Geneva Convention.
I wonder why we haven't heard from the Admiral himself yet? Where have they hidden him?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/02/us-admiral-to-brief-lawmakers-as-bipartisan-scrutiny-grows-over-boat-strike
Thursday.
We need a repeating weekly drumbeat of the death count (and other serious impacts) for tRump's cuts to various agencies:
1. USAID
2. CDC
3. NIH
4. NSF
5... etc.
The metric of success is declaration of martial law, suspension of congress and elections due to war with Venezuela and imminent threat posed by antifa.
President Truman believed and said something else that we (and Trump) should bear in mind. President Truman's Presidential Library and Museum includes a re-creation of his personal library. In his library hangs a sign: “Not all readers are leaders, but all leaders are readers.” https://www.trumanlibraryinstitute.org/truman/truman-quotes/
I have to wonder if it's pure coincidence that Trump is concealing information from the American public about (at least) one predator who was Trump's close friend and at the same time, "Homeland security agents investigating sexual crimes against children, for instance, have been redeployed to the immigrant crackdown for weeks at a time, hampering their pursuit of child predators. . . . And federal efforts to combat human smuggling and sex trafficking have languished with investigators reassigned to help staff deportation efforts."
Probably not a coincidence. This also shows Trump's priorities - expend all available resources to deport people who are not guilty of crimes, while ignoring complex and critical investigations of child predators and human smugglers.
We need to continue to find our voice, stand our ground and put out a cohesive, consistent message to get these buffoons out of office. I hope we focus on the damage done and not on retribution in our messaging.
On the day of the shooting, I said it was Trump's fault because the National Guard should never have been in D.C. and their presence there was simply inflammatory. Unfortunately, he loves inflammatory and could care less who gets hurt as a tesult,
The National Guard overstayed its 30 day deployment. Had they returned to their home states, the shooting would have been avoided.
Thank you for putting into words the dismay I've been feeling for the past week as all this has played out, Jen. Reading this almost felt cathartic - like a reminder that I didn't take any crazy pills even though it feels like I have.
“Adult leadership” is the key: competence above all else, and how about a soupçon of diplomacy? Jen, you nailed it!
As long as Trump stays in power, he can pardon anyone who violated the law by supporting him. We are completely and totally screwed.