SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
people for the american way
Groups Sound Alarm Over Trump Plot to Install Nominees Without Senate Approval
"If you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."
Dec 04, 2024
Dozens of civil rights and pro-democracy organizations teamed up Wednesday to express opposition to President-elect Donald Trump's push to use recess appointments to evade the Senate confirmation process for his political nominees, many of which have
glaring conflicts of interest.
The 70 groups—including People For the American Way, Public Citizen, the Constitutional Accountability Center, and the NAACP—sent a letter to U.S. senators arguing that Senate confirmation procedures provide "crucial data" that helps lawmakers and the public "evaluate nominees' fitness for the important positions to which they are nominated."
"The framers of the Constitution included the requirement of Senate 'Advice and Consent' for high-ranking officers for a reason: The requirement can protect our freedom, just as the Bill of Rights does, by providing an indispensable check on presidential power," reads the new letter. "None of that would happen with recess appointments. The American people would be kept in the dark."
Since his victory in last month's election, Trump has publicly expressed his desire to bypass the often time-consuming Senate confirmation process via recess appointments, which are allowed under the Constitution and have been used in the past by presidents of both parties. The need for Senate confirmation is already proving to be a significant obstacle for the incoming administration: Trump's first attorney general nominee, Matt Gaetz, withdrew amid seemingly insurmountable Senate opposition, and Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth appears to be on the ropes.
"Giving in to the president-elect's demand for recess appointments under the current circumstances would dramatically depart from how important positions have always been filled at the start of an administration," the groups wrote in their letter. "The confirmation process gathers important information that helps ensure that nominees who will be dangerous or ineffective for the American people are not confirmed and given great power, and that those who are confirmed meet at least a minimum standard of acceptability."
"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices, and Trump's nominees are no exception."
Scholars argue recess appointments were intended as a way for presidents to appoint officials to key posts under unusual circumstances, not as an exploit for presidents whose nominees run up against significant opposition.
The Senate could prevent recess appointments by refusing to officially go on recess and making use of pro forma sessions, but incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said that "we have to have all the options on the table" to push through Trump's nominees.
"We are not going to allow the Democrats to thwart the will of the American people in giving President Trump the people that he wants in those positions to implement his agenda," Thune said last month.
Trump has also previously threatened to invoke a never-before-used provision of the Constitution that he claims would allow him to force both chambers of Congress to adjourn, paving the way for recess appointments.
Conservative scholar Edward Whelan, a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, denounced that proposed route as a "cockamamie scheme" that would mean "eviscerating the Senate's advice-and-consent role."
Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way, said in a statement Wednesday that "if you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."
"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices," said Myrick, "and Trump's nominees are no exception."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dem Launches Push to Overturn Supreme Court Immunity Ruling
"It is incumbent upon Congress to fix this problem, and with his proposed constitutional amendment, Rep. Joseph Morelle is taking the first step," said the head of one group backing the effort.
Jul 25, 2024
The top Democrat of the Committee on House Administration on Wednesday proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would reverse the Supreme Court's recent decision to grant presidents "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution for "official acts."
Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court's right-wing members ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee for the November election, triggering a wave of warnings, including from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote in her early July dissent that "the president is now a king above the law."
Congressman Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) is leading the fight for an amendment to reverse that ruling. He said in a statement that the high court "undermined not just the foundation of our constitutional government, but the foundation of our democracy."
"At its core, our nation relies on the principle that no American stands above another in the eyes of the law," he continued. "I introduced this constitutional amendment to correct a grave error of this Supreme Court and protect our democracy by ensuring no president is ever above the law. The American people expect their leaders to be held to the same standards we hold for any member of our community. Presidents are not monarchy, they are not tyrants, and shall not be immune."
Morelle proposed an amendment that would make clear "there is no immunity from criminal prosecution for an act on the grounds that such act was within the constitutional authority or official duties of an individual," and presidents may not pardon themselves.
"The Roberts Court, in a fit of neomonarchical enthusiasm for Donald Trump, has tried to lay out the red carpet for a lawless autocratic president."
The effort is backed by over 40 other House Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a constitutional law scholar.
"We must do everything in our power to reverse the Supreme Court's outrageous betrayal of more than two centuries of constitutional law in America," said Raskin. "Nothing has been more sacred to American constitutional jurisprudence than the idea that no one is above the law, but the Roberts Court, in a fit of neomonarchical enthusiasm for Donald Trump, has tried to lay out the red carpet for a lawless autocratic president."
"We should do everything we can in a statutory way to repair the damage," he argued, "but ultimately, this will require some kind of constitutional amendment to block a fundamental change in American constitutional and political culture."
Advocacy groups are also supporting Morelle's proposal and highlighting what the recent ruling could mean for the future.
"The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States has imposed serious obstacles to holding Trump accountable for his role in the violence on January 6 and the attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power," said Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert. "As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, under the holding of Trump v. United States, a president could order the assassination of a rival, take a bribe for pardons, or order a military coup and—in each case—be immune from criminal liability."
"It is incumbent upon Congress to fix this problem, and with his proposed constitutional amendment, Rep. Joseph Morelle is taking the first step to right an obvious constitutional wrong," she continued. "By design, it's not easy to pass a constitutional amendment. But it can be done—and in this case, it must be done. Public Citizen strongly supports this amendment, and along with our allies in the Not Above the Law coalition are committed to ensuring its passage, to restore presidential accountability and basic democratic norms."
People for the American Way president and CEO Svante Myrick stressed that "big problems need big solutions, and the Supreme Court's ruling granting presidents unprecedented immunity is a big problem. Not just now, in the specific case involving Donald Trump, but in countless foreseeable and unforeseeable ways in the future."
"Our democracy is built on the principle that nobody is above the law," he added. "People For the American Way is proud to support this proposed amendment to strengthen and shore up that principle at this critical moment in our history."
Common Cause has also endorsed the effort. Virginia Kase Solomón, the group's president and CEO, called the court's decision "dangerous" and a departure from "what the framers intended."
"We thank Congressman Morelle for his leadership to uphold the rule of law and ensure accountability for all Americans, and we urge Congress to quickly pass this constitutional amendment," she said.
In the United States, constitutional amendments may be proposed either by Congress with two-thirds majority support in both chambers or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.
Although Morelle's proposal lacks the support it would need to get through Congress, it sends a clear signal to voters going into the November election, when control of both chambers is up for grabs and the American people will likely get to choose between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular