The aftermath of the Trump immunity case provides a useful foil for one of the nerdier niches of Supreme Court practice, followed by some some (unrelated) thoughts about Saturday’s news
The articles of impeachment may be futile in terms of actual political action, but they are useful in a performative way -- they move the Overton window. If Democrats only ever mention what's possible or practical, while Republicans are vocal about what they want, what is possible can only move in the Republican direction. By saying that she's not going to quietly acquiesce to corruption, AOC is making clear that corruption is a valid topic that something can be done about.
Except it's not just about whose policies are favored it's about fundamental threats to the rule of law.
Now if Trump wants to do something and SCOTUS says he can't we've fucking paved the path for him to threaten to impeach justices in response and made it easier for him to say the court is illegitimate and ignore it Jackson style.
The cost of constantly calling the court illegitimate is that someone might believe you. Or that they won't believe that this time things are really different when Trump appoints some judge Cannon style justice.
--
And yah, it's unfair but that's the nature of being the good guy -- you have to worry about consequences the other guy won't.
"Missouri’s (preposterous) effort to use the Court’s “original jurisdiction” to halt further proceedings in the New York state criminal fraud case against former President Trump." Both current MO Senators, Schmitt and Hawley) were MO AGs and both got publicity, and later elected to the Senate, by filing "preposterous" lawsuits that MO taxpayers had to pay for. Hawley also violated MO sunset laws and was hit with a $250,000 fine that MO taxpayers will have to pay. Our current AG, Bailey is the doofus who filed the NY state lawsuit which again, we in MO will have to pay for. Republican party rule is very costly in terms of gun safety, education, abortion, and in frivolous lawsuits that only benefit the AG.
Thanks for including Bobby Kennedy’s speech! I wish it would resonate with the masses today. However, our attention spans have been trained by social media not to tolerate much more that quick clips of information regardless of their reliability. Consequently for large segments of the population we no longer are a nation that truly has a common set of values. Instead we sadly are a nation of individuals being led by the algorithms governing what they see on their screens.
So does AOC and those applauding her move really believe Trump presents an existential threat to our republic like they claim or not?
If they do then attacking the court as illegitimate or bringing articles of impeachment is the last thing they should be doing. By all means, disagree with the deciscions -- I know I think they made some big blunders this term because they are biased humans -- but when it comes down to it in a second Trump term it surely makes things worse if he can point to the left and AOC when he wants to ignore a court ruling.
It's hard to convince the public it's unthinkable to ignore what the court says when you've been calling it illegitimate. And it's going to be hard to make the case about what's so wrong when Trump appoints justice Cannon when we've used maximalist language in critisizing the court as it is.
In the RFK speech to the Cleveland City Club, you include this sentence: "The question is now what programs we should seek to enact." In context, I think that "now" is a "not."
There are many good proposals for court reform & it is proper to have hearings regarding various things. But, AOC's impeachment resolutions are fine as a messaging measure + at least for Thomas are correct on the merits [we can carp on the exact terms]. Impeachment is in place partially to deal with such over the top violations of good behavior. At least in theory.
There's a tension in your comment here: is impeachment "in place partially to deal with such over the top violations of good behavior" or is it a mechanism that's "fine as a messaging measure"?
I think it's wrong when Republicans do their performative impeachments of Biden and Mayorkas. I also think AOC's performative, messaging impeachment is wrong.
It can be both. It is messaging because there is no real chance it will be successfully prosecuted. Unlike the "performative" impeachments cited, it is correct on the merits. I tried to go out of my way there & grant maybe Alito is a stretch. Thomas is not. His actions at this point are worthy of an impeachment process being carried out.
While a bit tangential, and it is unlikely that DOJ/Jack Smith would seek reconsideration of the immunity ruling (and probably even less likely in light of today's other news), a couple of questions relating to the scope of the immunity ruling. First of all, is it possible in the event of impeachment and conviction by the Congress for high crimes and misdemeanors involving official acts of the President, would that be sufficient to overcome the determination of absolute immunity for subsequent prosecution of those crimes or would absolute immunity for official acts continue to exist. Secondly, while it has been posited that, as an extreme example, while immunity would shield the President for any crimes arising from official acts, if an underling carries out an order for which the President is shielded, Presidential immunity should not flow down to that underling as well. I can certainly imagine defense counsel aggressively trying to argue that a criminal act committed by an underling in direct response to a Presidential order involving the exercise of an official act should shield the underling as well. Your thoughts on both questions.
The articles of impeachment may be futile in terms of actual political action, but they are useful in a performative way -- they move the Overton window. If Democrats only ever mention what's possible or practical, while Republicans are vocal about what they want, what is possible can only move in the Republican direction. By saying that she's not going to quietly acquiesce to corruption, AOC is making clear that corruption is a valid topic that something can be done about.
Except it's not just about whose policies are favored it's about fundamental threats to the rule of law.
Now if Trump wants to do something and SCOTUS says he can't we've fucking paved the path for him to threaten to impeach justices in response and made it easier for him to say the court is illegitimate and ignore it Jackson style.
The cost of constantly calling the court illegitimate is that someone might believe you. Or that they won't believe that this time things are really different when Trump appoints some judge Cannon style justice.
--
And yah, it's unfair but that's the nature of being the good guy -- you have to worry about consequences the other guy won't.
"Missouri’s (preposterous) effort to use the Court’s “original jurisdiction” to halt further proceedings in the New York state criminal fraud case against former President Trump." Both current MO Senators, Schmitt and Hawley) were MO AGs and both got publicity, and later elected to the Senate, by filing "preposterous" lawsuits that MO taxpayers had to pay for. Hawley also violated MO sunset laws and was hit with a $250,000 fine that MO taxpayers will have to pay. Our current AG, Bailey is the doofus who filed the NY state lawsuit which again, we in MO will have to pay for. Republican party rule is very costly in terms of gun safety, education, abortion, and in frivolous lawsuits that only benefit the AG.
Thanks for including Bobby Kennedy’s speech! I wish it would resonate with the masses today. However, our attention spans have been trained by social media not to tolerate much more that quick clips of information regardless of their reliability. Consequently for large segments of the population we no longer are a nation that truly has a common set of values. Instead we sadly are a nation of individuals being led by the algorithms governing what they see on their screens.
So does AOC and those applauding her move really believe Trump presents an existential threat to our republic like they claim or not?
If they do then attacking the court as illegitimate or bringing articles of impeachment is the last thing they should be doing. By all means, disagree with the deciscions -- I know I think they made some big blunders this term because they are biased humans -- but when it comes down to it in a second Trump term it surely makes things worse if he can point to the left and AOC when he wants to ignore a court ruling.
It's hard to convince the public it's unthinkable to ignore what the court says when you've been calling it illegitimate. And it's going to be hard to make the case about what's so wrong when Trump appoints justice Cannon when we've used maximalist language in critisizing the court as it is.
In the RFK speech to the Cleveland City Club, you include this sentence: "The question is now what programs we should seek to enact." In context, I think that "now" is a "not."
Thank you for RFK's sadly ironic comments. I'll bet the most responses you will get to day are
"WTF will SCOTUS do with Cannon. And when?"
There are many good proposals for court reform & it is proper to have hearings regarding various things. But, AOC's impeachment resolutions are fine as a messaging measure + at least for Thomas are correct on the merits [we can carp on the exact terms]. Impeachment is in place partially to deal with such over the top violations of good behavior. At least in theory.
There's a tension in your comment here: is impeachment "in place partially to deal with such over the top violations of good behavior" or is it a mechanism that's "fine as a messaging measure"?
I think it's wrong when Republicans do their performative impeachments of Biden and Mayorkas. I also think AOC's performative, messaging impeachment is wrong.
It can be both. It is messaging because there is no real chance it will be successfully prosecuted. Unlike the "performative" impeachments cited, it is correct on the merits. I tried to go out of my way there & grant maybe Alito is a stretch. Thomas is not. His actions at this point are worthy of an impeachment process being carried out.
While a bit tangential, and it is unlikely that DOJ/Jack Smith would seek reconsideration of the immunity ruling (and probably even less likely in light of today's other news), a couple of questions relating to the scope of the immunity ruling. First of all, is it possible in the event of impeachment and conviction by the Congress for high crimes and misdemeanors involving official acts of the President, would that be sufficient to overcome the determination of absolute immunity for subsequent prosecution of those crimes or would absolute immunity for official acts continue to exist. Secondly, while it has been posited that, as an extreme example, while immunity would shield the President for any crimes arising from official acts, if an underling carries out an order for which the President is shielded, Presidential immunity should not flow down to that underling as well. I can certainly imagine defense counsel aggressively trying to argue that a criminal act committed by an underling in direct response to a Presidential order involving the exercise of an official act should shield the underling as well. Your thoughts on both questions.
The Federal Government says it was an assassination attempt, why are your elect ant to do the same?
*reluctant