On the first day of Christmas, Donald Trump’s true love gave to him, a lick on the face from his puppies and lapdogs on the Supreme Court: They made their first move to delay his trial on four felony counts of attempting to overturn the election of 2020 by interfering with and defrauding the United States government.
Well, adding more sh-t to the madness, The NY Times posted an opinion piece by Charlie Savage immediately under the Supreme Court deferral headline (link below). Mr. Savage writes: "The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Donald J. Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for president again pits one fundamental value against another: giving voters in a democracy the right to pick their leaders versus ensuring that no one is above the law. ¶ If the court’s legal reasoning is correct, obeying the rule of law produces an antidemocratic result. "
Well, this deserved a letter to the editor. I'm not very good at these things but here's what I wrote:
"The very premise of Charlie Savage's opinion piece is wrong: there is absolutely no tension between the obeying "the rule of law" and a so-called “undemocratic result” that prevents "voters in a democracy, the right to pick their leaders.” Obeying the Law is what provides a democratic result. It protects against undemocratic results like a president who defies the Constitution and seeks to overthrow the democratically elected government.
In this particular case, the Law is Article 14, Section 3 of the US Constitution.
Mr. Savage’s opinion is that the 14th Amendment obviates voters' rights to pick their leader. It does not. This constitutional amendment only prevents a person who previously took an oath of public office and who thereafter engages "in insurrection or rebellion against" the US Constitution, or gives aid or comfort to such rebellion or insurrection from holding public office again.
Voters are not forbidden to vote for that candidate even if they are disqualified from the ballot. If a voter choses to vote for a person who sought to overthrow the Constitution they swore to support and protect, that voter is free to do so. But they are wasting their vote since that candidate can not hold public office."
Mr. Savage should stick to reporting the news and The NY Times should not publish ridiculous opinions by their reporters. IMHO there's an inherent conflict of interest.
it seems to me that particular train left the station a while back.
my latest theory about the NYT is that they think TFF (should he win) will keep them going because of his sick need to impress the "big-time" newspaper he grew up not reading. y'know...that "Old Grey Lady" bullshit.
of course, his assumption is doubtless that it'll end up being the regime's mouthpiece. the minute it's not...
I hope the Times prints your excellent letter. I've been a loyal reader of the times for 50 years. I still read it, but now, more often than not, it's reporting causes agitata.
Hold on a sec. I think this may be very good news.
I think the SC just doesn't want to deal with this turkey. Hearing ludicrous Trump arguments and then writing time-consuming, doorstop opinions. Punt to appeals court that will promptly rule against Desperate Donnie then refuse to hear his pinhead attorneys' appeals with a one-line decision. Note that there were no dissents in today's decision. That could be telling in a good way.
Also note: Trump has the worst record in appealing to the SC of any modern president.
So pleased you found your way out, David. Thirteen years is a long time under-eggnog. Much as I honestly appreciate the warning, I'm a cheap date—'twas not always so, but now one beer or zero is customary. —diane
actually, if I'd stuck with the eggnog, things would have been a lot better.
I once projectile vomited all over my shoes during a poetry reading at St Mark's. and, from one significant point of view (keeping friends), it did less damage than shit that happened a lot of other times.
Let's hope you're right. Also, importantly, they will also have another matter before them prior to the Court of Appeals' decision on The Don's immunity BS: Is The Don prohibited from holding office under the 14th Amendment? A one line rejection of this appeal of the Colorado State Supreme Court decision would be a wonderful Christmas 🎄 or New Years 🎊 present! Btw, I wonder what's taking The Don's team so long to file his appeal? (Clearly a rhetorical question)
It's worth noting that the CO decision doesn't rely only on the 14th Amendment. CO has a state law that allows citizens to sue to keep a presidential primary candidate off the ballot for lack of qualifications. It seems other states don't have that.
I suspect the Court will be hard pressed to kick the can on an original case like presidential immunity. I think they will hear it and deny it. On the other hand if they do refuse to grant certiorari the ignorant right wing rubes will probably be less likely to blame them. Not sure if they even care about stuff like that.
Fingers crossed that you are right.Your analysis has given me new food for thought from what was a sour grape that I tasted earlier when I heard about the SCOTUS news today.Thanks!
From today’s Substack, spoken by tRump’s new lawyer:
“Novel, complex, sensitive and historic issues — such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts — call for more careful deliberation, not less.”
And therein lies the rub- attempting to overturn an election is not an official act of the President.
Case closed, no immunity. It will no doubt be infuriating to watch SC Justices tying themselves up into pretzels to state otherwise.
but doesn't the Constitution specifically state that a President can be tried for crimes AFTER he's left office?
and isn't it already clear that an election campaign is NOT part of a president's official duties?
and didn't the Nixon tapes case establish that the president who does something wrong has actually done something WRONG?
I am admittedly no lawyer, thank god. but it's not brain surgery or rocket science or even reading Homer in Homeric Greek. that last one was a tad gratuitous, but the one closest to my heart. funny thing is that my one friend who actually majored in Classics ended up as a Manhattan prosecutor...
I agree.I said this earlier.If the SCOTUS rules that sitting presidents are above the law and are not accountable then Biden should just stay on with no consequences.
If Trump becomes president his vice president can shoot him in the White House, crime on a federal reservation, declare himself or herself president and grant a pardon for it, all before the AG's head stops spinning.
If Biden wants to shoot Trump he has to do it on federal property or he can't pardon himself. Might not be that easy to do!
How complex can it be to decide if all future presidents will have the privilege of being above the law? If Trump were elected again he could take a bribe from a foreign government in exchange for say a foreign aid package. Could the IRS even go after him if he didn't declare it on his taxes? A child could glance at this proposal and see it makes no sense. And how would the Republicans react if a future democratic president did half the things Trump did? They'd sceam for a reversal of the decision. And how would the impeachment process work if no laws have been broken?
Right! Trump is hoping he will be the first :) I wonder if he ever thinks about all the millions he could have saved in legal fees if he had not inspired a rabid mob to try to disrupt the Electoral College count. or listen to crackpot advisors to create fake electors, or not tried to abscond with top secret documents. etc., or pressure various polling officials too "find" voted for him and disqualify votes for Biden? ,Well, apparently he has the money to do it, to keep appealing every decision all the way up to the "Supreme" Court. I wonder how much the cost will be when it's all over? Any one of us would have been behind bars long ago.one is above the law?
Really, really (really) hoping this means the SC thinks this issue is utter rubbish and therefore will let the lower court rulings stand. I'll joyfully take that as the last Christmas present I ever ask for or receive. Happy Holidays to all.
I've been saying from the beginning, here and elsewhere, that t-Rump will never spend a nanosecond in prison and that he will get away with everything. I hope I'm wrong, but so far...
Yes, I thought of Nixon's response to Frost today. Because, basically, that's what SCOTUS is saying.
Being president, or ever having been president, may very well put Trump above the law. He might have absolute immunity. From any criminal charge. How could they decide this right away?
It's a complicated issue. They need to go through the full process and take a lot of time and deliberation to decide. By which time Trump may be president again and then he will certainly be above the law. Because presidents are. Or at least Republican presidents. Or at least Trump. Because he was born to get away with everything. Rape, insurrection, treason. He's immune!
Its so ridiculous, it doesn't take a lot of time, they all have armies of law clerks to research all minutiae. Their minds are probably all made up before they even look at the law. Just write a decision that we can all then critique. That's what they're paid for.
The Supremes needed a long delay to give Sammy Alito time to examine the various versions and revisions of the Magna Carta (circa 1215-1225) to find THE ONE SENTENCE that, contrary to popular opinion, says the king actually is above the law. “Dang it, Johnny, I know it’s in there somewhere,” Sammy said to the chief justice. “Or maybe it was in Lord Coke’s commentaries. Just give me time to find it. I know it says specifically that the king can ignore the law whenever he wants. Everybody knows there’s a direct line from Magna Carta to our Constitution.” Roberts mulled the “direct line” for a few seconds. “Whatever, Sam,” Roberts said. “You’re gonna skulk around and monkey-wrench this thing anyway.”
With all the chaos Trump creates I think we all (and especially his cult) lose focus on the central point, he's admitted he did all this stuff but is simply claiming IMMUNITY. And he then manages to twist any prosecution trying to hold him responsible into "election interference" and that he's been the victim all his life. Give him credit for at least being a master con-man. Why oh why does anyone believe this stuff?
Well, adding more sh-t to the madness, The NY Times posted an opinion piece by Charlie Savage immediately under the Supreme Court deferral headline (link below). Mr. Savage writes: "The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Donald J. Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for president again pits one fundamental value against another: giving voters in a democracy the right to pick their leaders versus ensuring that no one is above the law. ¶ If the court’s legal reasoning is correct, obeying the rule of law produces an antidemocratic result. "
Well, this deserved a letter to the editor. I'm not very good at these things but here's what I wrote:
"The very premise of Charlie Savage's opinion piece is wrong: there is absolutely no tension between the obeying "the rule of law" and a so-called “undemocratic result” that prevents "voters in a democracy, the right to pick their leaders.” Obeying the Law is what provides a democratic result. It protects against undemocratic results like a president who defies the Constitution and seeks to overthrow the democratically elected government.
In this particular case, the Law is Article 14, Section 3 of the US Constitution.
Mr. Savage’s opinion is that the 14th Amendment obviates voters' rights to pick their leader. It does not. This constitutional amendment only prevents a person who previously took an oath of public office and who thereafter engages "in insurrection or rebellion against" the US Constitution, or gives aid or comfort to such rebellion or insurrection from holding public office again.
Voters are not forbidden to vote for that candidate even if they are disqualified from the ballot. If a voter choses to vote for a person who sought to overthrow the Constitution they swore to support and protect, that voter is free to do so. But they are wasting their vote since that candidate can not hold public office."
Mr. Savage should stick to reporting the news and The NY Times should not publish ridiculous opinions by their reporters. IMHO there's an inherent conflict of interest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/politics/trump-ballot-colorado-supreme-court.html
Excellent point in your letter to NYT. Way to go.
I am happy you got ticked off enough to write that letter, Andrew. It was a darn good one so...Bravo!!👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I’d say you did just fine Andrew, that’s exactly how I see it as well. 👍👍
it seems to me that particular train left the station a while back.
my latest theory about the NYT is that they think TFF (should he win) will keep them going because of his sick need to impress the "big-time" newspaper he grew up not reading. y'know...that "Old Grey Lady" bullshit.
of course, his assumption is doubtless that it'll end up being the regime's mouthpiece. the minute it's not...
Well stated!
Thank You, Andrew! Bravo!
I hope the Times prints your excellent letter. I've been a loyal reader of the times for 50 years. I still read it, but now, more often than not, it's reporting causes agitata.
Hold on a sec. I think this may be very good news.
I think the SC just doesn't want to deal with this turkey. Hearing ludicrous Trump arguments and then writing time-consuming, doorstop opinions. Punt to appeals court that will promptly rule against Desperate Donnie then refuse to hear his pinhead attorneys' appeals with a one-line decision. Note that there were no dissents in today's decision. That could be telling in a good way.
Also note: Trump has the worst record in appealing to the SC of any modern president.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/20/trump-has-worst-record-supreme-court-any-modern-president/
In particular, note these one-liner SCOTUS rejections:
- 11/23/22 - Rejected Trump appeal to shield tax returns from House Democrats (no dissents)
- 2/22/22 - Rejected Trump request to block release of White House records related to 1/6 attack on the Capitol
- 10/13/22 - Rejected a request from Trump to intervene in the litigation over documents seized from his Florida estate (no dissents)
- 3/8/21 – Rejected additional Trump appeals related to 2020 election challenges
- 2/22/21 – Rejected Trump appeals related to 2020 election challenges
- 12/9/20 - Rejected a challenge to President-elect Joe Biden's victory in Pennsylvania
I actually don't think the SC has been particularly deferential to The Orange Monstrosity.
Oh please let it happen. I had been thnking of diving into a punchbowl full of eggnog and not coming up.
careful with the eggnog, dif.
I took a dive into that punchbowl on New Year's Eve, 1969 and didn't come up for air for thirteen years.
Glad you made it back! But it's too bad you missed the 1970s, which was probably the last time we had a (fairly) functional democracy in this country.
I didn't actually MISS them so much as mis-use them.
can I get a witness, Liz Iler?
David: A man I admired a lot, a Jew, used to say that Jews very rarely were alcoholics but when they were they were the worst kind.
That echoes someone a long-ago friend, also a Jew, said to me once. Haven't had enough personal experience to test it against. Probably a good thing.
absolutely.
So pleased you found your way out, David. Thirteen years is a long time under-eggnog. Much as I honestly appreciate the warning, I'm a cheap date—'twas not always so, but now one beer or zero is customary. —diane
actually, if I'd stuck with the eggnog, things would have been a lot better.
I once projectile vomited all over my shoes during a poetry reading at St Mark's. and, from one significant point of view (keeping friends), it did less damage than shit that happened a lot of other times.
I am with you on this Arthur, remain hopeful, and a May trial date is just fine.
You're really positive. I just effing don't know. The neighbors could hear me cursing, as in professionally.
Let's hope you're right. Also, importantly, they will also have another matter before them prior to the Court of Appeals' decision on The Don's immunity BS: Is The Don prohibited from holding office under the 14th Amendment? A one line rejection of this appeal of the Colorado State Supreme Court decision would be a wonderful Christmas 🎄 or New Years 🎊 present! Btw, I wonder what's taking The Don's team so long to file his appeal? (Clearly a rhetorical question)
It's worth noting that the CO decision doesn't rely only on the 14th Amendment. CO has a state law that allows citizens to sue to keep a presidential primary candidate off the ballot for lack of qualifications. It seems other states don't have that.
May it be so
I suspect the Court will be hard pressed to kick the can on an original case like presidential immunity. I think they will hear it and deny it. On the other hand if they do refuse to grant certiorari the ignorant right wing rubes will probably be less likely to blame them. Not sure if they even care about stuff like that.
Fingers crossed that you are right.Your analysis has given me new food for thought from what was a sour grape that I tasted earlier when I heard about the SCOTUS news today.Thanks!
So, they’re just cowards. . .
Or simply lazy.
From today’s Substack, spoken by tRump’s new lawyer:
“Novel, complex, sensitive and historic issues — such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts — call for more careful deliberation, not less.”
And therein lies the rub- attempting to overturn an election is not an official act of the President.
Case closed, no immunity. It will no doubt be infuriating to watch SC Justices tying themselves up into pretzels to state otherwise.
Infuriating if we could watch it but I believe their deliberations are in secret?
but doesn't the Constitution specifically state that a President can be tried for crimes AFTER he's left office?
and isn't it already clear that an election campaign is NOT part of a president's official duties?
and didn't the Nixon tapes case establish that the president who does something wrong has actually done something WRONG?
I am admittedly no lawyer, thank god. but it's not brain surgery or rocket science or even reading Homer in Homeric Greek. that last one was a tad gratuitous, but the one closest to my heart. funny thing is that my one friend who actually majored in Classics ended up as a Manhattan prosecutor...
First - how is it even a question that no man, evennPOTUS is above the law. What is complex about this issue?
Second - if POTUS is immune from all criminal prosecution, couldn’t Biden shoot Trump and face no prosecution?
See - these questions answer themselves. Guess the Trump cultists currently occupying the “court” just don’t want to deal with the issue.
I agree.I said this earlier.If the SCOTUS rules that sitting presidents are above the law and are not accountable then Biden should just stay on with no consequences.
If Trump becomes president his vice president can shoot him in the White House, crime on a federal reservation, declare himself or herself president and grant a pardon for it, all before the AG's head stops spinning.
If Biden wants to shoot Trump he has to do it on federal property or he can't pardon himself. Might not be that easy to do!
he can lure him there with the promise of a fixed golf tournament and a raft of bimbos.
A BOGO cupon for extra crispy chicken sandwiches would do the job also.
C'mon, Joe, you can DO IT!!! It's within your presidential powers now!
my sentiments precisely.
again, not brain surgery.
How complex can it be to decide if all future presidents will have the privilege of being above the law? If Trump were elected again he could take a bribe from a foreign government in exchange for say a foreign aid package. Could the IRS even go after him if he didn't declare it on his taxes? A child could glance at this proposal and see it makes no sense. And how would the Republicans react if a future democratic president did half the things Trump did? They'd sceam for a reversal of the decision. And how would the impeachment process work if no laws have been broken?
No one is above the law, per Merrick Garland!
Right! Trump is hoping he will be the first :) I wonder if he ever thinks about all the millions he could have saved in legal fees if he had not inspired a rabid mob to try to disrupt the Electoral College count. or listen to crackpot advisors to create fake electors, or not tried to abscond with top secret documents. etc., or pressure various polling officials too "find" voted for him and disqualify votes for Biden? ,Well, apparently he has the money to do it, to keep appealing every decision all the way up to the "Supreme" Court. I wonder how much the cost will be when it's all over? Any one of us would have been behind bars long ago.one is above the law?
This whole mess makes me sick! He wasn't immune to covid though....too bad it didn't get him!
Too bad Republicans didn’t do their jobs and impeach and remove him on the first go-round.
This mess is on McConnell and his obtuse enabling. Too clever by half. The base hates you anyway Mitch
Too bad not enough Dems voted for Hillary at the get-go!
And too bad Al Gore gave up in Fla. ALways the wrong person at the wrong time seems to be where we are these days! Where are the JFKs and RFKs today?
Indeed!
It should be the easiest and fastest opinion. No one is immune from being held accountable for criminal acts.
Really, really (really) hoping this means the SC thinks this issue is utter rubbish and therefore will let the lower court rulings stand. I'll joyfully take that as the last Christmas present I ever ask for or receive. Happy Holidays to all.
You could be right. You never know with them.
'Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the White House, not a creature was stirring -- Trump had stolen the spoons.
🤣☮️
I've been saying from the beginning, here and elsewhere, that t-Rump will never spend a nanosecond in prison and that he will get away with everything. I hope I'm wrong, but so far...
You may be correct that he may die or escape jurisdiction while his case is appealed. I can assure you he will be convicted if they get that far.
Yes, I thought of Nixon's response to Frost today. Because, basically, that's what SCOTUS is saying.
Being president, or ever having been president, may very well put Trump above the law. He might have absolute immunity. From any criminal charge. How could they decide this right away?
It's a complicated issue. They need to go through the full process and take a lot of time and deliberation to decide. By which time Trump may be president again and then he will certainly be above the law. Because presidents are. Or at least Republican presidents. Or at least Trump. Because he was born to get away with everything. Rape, insurrection, treason. He's immune!
Its so ridiculous, it doesn't take a lot of time, they all have armies of law clerks to research all minutiae. Their minds are probably all made up before they even look at the law. Just write a decision that we can all then critique. That's what they're paid for.
I. Just. Can’t. Good lord, the big one is coming….
$CROTUS no longer GAF how they are viewed if it ever did. It's going to do everything in its power to protect tangeranus.
What a terrific killer column. You belted it out with Mike Royko level anger. Deserved, to be sure.
The Supremes needed a long delay to give Sammy Alito time to examine the various versions and revisions of the Magna Carta (circa 1215-1225) to find THE ONE SENTENCE that, contrary to popular opinion, says the king actually is above the law. “Dang it, Johnny, I know it’s in there somewhere,” Sammy said to the chief justice. “Or maybe it was in Lord Coke’s commentaries. Just give me time to find it. I know it says specifically that the king can ignore the law whenever he wants. Everybody knows there’s a direct line from Magna Carta to our Constitution.” Roberts mulled the “direct line” for a few seconds. “Whatever, Sam,” Roberts said. “You’re gonna skulk around and monkey-wrench this thing anyway.”
With all the chaos Trump creates I think we all (and especially his cult) lose focus on the central point, he's admitted he did all this stuff but is simply claiming IMMUNITY. And he then manages to twist any prosecution trying to hold him responsible into "election interference" and that he's been the victim all his life. Give him credit for at least being a master con-man. Why oh why does anyone believe this stuff?
I only give Fake 45 credit for fomenting violence due to racism, extremism, rape, etc. by having a big disgusting mouth!
well, for one thing it makes very complicated things very, very simple.