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
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
'The Alternative to Democracy Is Dictatorship,' Warns Biden
"The guy who claims law and order stands for lawlessness and disorder," said the Democratic president in speech ahead of third anniversary of January 6 insurrection. "Trump's not concerned about your future, I promise you."
Jan 05, 2024
Noting that the violent insurrection that engulfed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 was "not the beginning of a fight and neither was it the end of a fight" for U.S. democracy, civil society leaders and progressive lawmakers on Friday marked the third anniversary of the attack Friday by outlining the threat posed by right-wing extremists and why former President Donald Trump must once again be defeated.
The event was held shortly before President Joe Biden gave his first major national address of 2024 near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, asking American voters whether democracy is still "America's sacred cause."
Three years after the insurrection, said Biden, that question "is what the 2024 election is all about.”
On Capitol Hill, joined by Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), advocates applauded the extent to which participants in the insurrection have been held to account, with more than 700 people convicted or pleading guilty to crimes ranging from misdemeanors such as trespassing and illegal picketing, to seditious conspiracy—a felony.
For his part, Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges related to his alleged criminal efforts to stop the peaceful transfer of power leading up to the attack, in which his supporters—some of them armed—marched to the Capitol and breached the building, sending U.S. House members into hiding when they had been assembled to certify Biden's election victory.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments soon regarding Trump's potential removal from 2024 election ballots, while a federal appeals court is scheduled next week to take up Trump's attempt to have his charged dismissed, based on his claim of presidential immunity.
"The good news is that our system of justice is working," said Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "Donald Trump is in the midst of being held accountable for his crimes in the courts. The more stressful news is that it is 2024, so we are now less than a year out from the next presidential election. And reasonable people are justifiably worried about whether the will of the American people will actually prevail."
While the courts are gradually holding some people responsible for January 6 to account, those at the Capitol Hill press event pointed out how Republican lawmakers across the country followed the insurrection with efforts to make voting less accessible and spreading false conspiracy theories about nonexistent levels of election fraud.
Meanwhile, Biden emphasized in his speech, Trump has made clear in his campaign, which the former president opened with a video of the insurrection, that his "assault on democracy isn't just part of his past—it's what he’s promising for the future. He's been straightforward. He's not hiding the ball."
"The guy who claims law and order stands for lawlessness and disorder," he added. "Trump's not concerned about your future, I promise you. Trump is now promising a full scale campaign of revenge and retribution, his words, for some years to come."
The U.S. Justice Department said in August that more than a dozen people have been charged so far with sending death threats to election workers since the Biden administration opened a task force to confront such threats. In 2021, a Reuters analysis found that Trump supporters, inspired by the former president's "Big Lie" that the 2020 election was stolen, had sent threats to more than 100 poll workers.
"The Big Lie continues to this day," said Dustin Czarny, elections commissioner of the Onondaga County Board of Elections in New York, on Capitol Hill on Friday. "It resulted in decreased resources for Boards of Elections to do their job. I'm hopeful that we could see legislation in this next year in the states and in the federal government and resources directed, so that those boards of elections can do their job in a safe and accurate manner and deliver the voice of the American people to the ballot box and give them their choice in this election.”
Svante Myrick, president of People for the American Way, noted that advocates have "turned back hundreds of state [voter suppression] bills, but 56 of them have gotten through—12 in the last year alone have gotten through, pushed by far-right extremists to restrict people's right to vote."
"On January 6, I watched and it occurred to me that there are forces in this country that, left unchecked, could unravel everything that we've built," said Myrick at the press conference. "If we fight through this year, in 2024 we can keep safe everything we hold dear, because our democracy is not an abstract thing. Our democracy is the key to keeping us all safe."
Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, warned in a statement that a mass mobilization is needed to ensure Trump does not win a second term in 2024, which he is "desperately seeking... in the hopes of avoiding accountability for his crimes."
"If Trump is reelected, he and other MAGA Republicans are already plotting schemes to pardon themselves, exact revenge on their enemies, and further undermine our democracy, rather than focusing on the needs of everyday Americans," said Harvey. "The presidency isn't a 'get out of jail free' card, and over the next year, the Stand Up America community will be mobilizing to ensure that Trump is held accountable in the court of law and at the ballot box."
Part of the necessary work ahead of the 2024 election, said Gilbert, will be focused on pushing for the passage of far-reaching federal voting rights legislation.
"The truth of the matter is that in the three years since the insurrection, we actually have not done enough to protect our democracy," said Gilbert. "We need real concrete action to fix that. We need to adequately fund our elections, we need to protect our poll workers and election workers on the ground. We need to fight against mis- and disinformation, including the new threat of artificial intelligence generated as misinformation. We need to continue to hold accountable the perpetrators of the big lie... And of course we need to pass all of this as legislation."
"That comes in the form of the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act," she said. "Together we can all make sure that we don't repeat these mistakes, and that we have a robust democracy that is blacked up by the confidence of the American people."
In his speech, Biden warned that Trump has again refused to commit to respecting the results of the 2024 election.
"America, as we began this election year, we must be clear: Democracy is on the ballot," said the president. "Your freedom is on the ballot. Yes, we’ll be voting on many issues and the freedom to vote and have your vote counted. The freedom of choice. Freedom to have a fair shot. A freedom from fear. We will debate, disagree. Without democracy, no progress is possible."
"Think about it," he added. "The alternative to democracy is dictatorship."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular