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
scotus
A Jury of 12 Upheld the Rule of the Law. Don't Hold Your Breath for the Right-Wing Supreme Court
So many thanks to the dozen anonymous everyday people in New York who courageously did what the nation's highest court likely will not.
Jun 05, 2024
Last Thursday, 12 ordinary citizens unanimously convicted Donald Trump of 34 felonies. As many have commented, in doing so they upheld the rule of law—the fundamental principle that no person is above the law and that even a former president may be convicted for violating it.
Later this month, however, the six right-wing Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court may issue a decision in U.S. v Trump that would significantly undermine the rule of law, finding that presidents are either wholly or partially immune from federal prosecution (although it would not overturn the New York State conviction.)
SCOTUS has already slow walked its decision for so long that even if it decides that Trump is not immune from prosecution for inciting the January 6 insurrection, it will probably be too late to try him before the November 2024 election.
In late 2023, trial court Judge Tanya Chutkin denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges on Trump’s claim that he’s immune from prosecution. She set a trial date for March 4, 2024. Last December, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith asked SCOTUS to review that decision without waiting for a D.C. Circuit Appeal Court ruling but SCOTUS refused. On February 6, the D.C. Circuit unanimously rejected Trump’s claim and ruled that the trial could move forward unless SCOTUS intervened.
SCOTUS did intervene on February 28, postponing the trial indefinitely and agreeing to decide whether and, if so, to what extent a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. SCOTUS set oral arguments for nearly two months later on April 24, the very last day of the term to hear oral arguments, virtually ensuring that there would be no decision until late June or early July, effectively giving Trump the delay that he most wanted.
The right-wing Justices hardly asked questions about text or original meaning. Instead, they behaved like they were delegates to a Constitutional convention debating whether or not a President should have some degree of immunity...
The right-wing SCOTUS majority claims to decide cases based on “originalism” or “textualism,” the theory that cases should be decided based on the text of the Constitution as generally understood at the time it was written. But in oral arguments, the right-wing Justices had little to say about text or original meaning. There is no text in the Constitution that mentions or implies presidential immunity from criminal conduct and there’s nothing in the debate about drafting the Constitution that implies that the founders intended to grant king-like immunity to the president. Quite the opposite. The entire purpose and structure of the Constitution is to protect against anyone having power like England's King George III.
So the right-wing Justices hardly asked questions about text or original meaning. Instead, they behaved like they were delegates to a Constitutional convention debating whether or not a President should have some degree of immunity—whether for official or unofficial acts—as a matter of pure policy as if they were writing a new Constitution from scratch.
Justice Samuel Alito (he of the two pro-coup flags over his house) argued “[I]f an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” And where does it say this in the text or original meaning of the Constitution?
Gorsuch claimed that “I’m not concerned about this case so much as future ones.” Kavanaugh agreed stating “…like Justice Gorsuch, I’m not focused on the here and now of this case. I’m very concerned about the future.” This is in complete violation of the text of Article III of the Constitution which limits the power of Federal Courts to reviewing actual “cases and controversies” and bars them from issuing advisory opinions which merely advise on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law.
Apparently the right-wing “Justices” only believe in textualism and originalism when these theories can arguably support their policy views. They’re prepared to toss them out when they don’t back up their political views such as Trump should be immune from prosecution for breaking criminal laws by inciting an insurrection.
It’s possible that SCOTUS will forge a “compromise” opinion that Presidents cannot be prosecuted for “official” acts (like ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent) but only for “unofficial” acts and send the case back to the lower court to determine whether Trump’s insurrectionary acts were “official” or “unofficial.” This will accomplish Trump’s goal of delaying a trial until after the election, if ever.
So many thanks to the 12 anonymous jurors in New York who courageously upheld the rule of law. But be ready for the U.S. Supreme Court to undermine the rule of law and effectively declare that the president of the United States is a king.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing The Wire's Slim Charles, Hawaii Supreme Court Rebukes SCOTUS on 2nd Amendment
"The thing about the old days, they the old days."
Feb 08, 2024
A 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling paved the way for states to weaken gun safety laws, but the Hawaii Supreme Court made clear on Wednesday—with the help of the character Slim Charles on HBO's "The Wire"—that the high court's regressive decision would not force the state to allow residents to carry unlicensed firearms in public.
The court unanimously upheld the state's ban, saying that "states retain the authority to require individuals have a license before carrying firearms in public."
The 5-0 decision was at odds with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the 2022 case in which the Supreme Court's right-wing majority ruled that laws and regulations pertaining to firearms must fall within the United States' so-called "historical tradition."
Last year, Bruen underpinned a decision made by a federal judge in Virginia that 18-to-20-year-olds could not be barred from purchasing guns since men as young as 18 were permitted to join armed militias at the time of the United States' founding.
"Time-traveling to 1791 or 1868 to collar how a state regulates lethal weapons—per the Constitution's democratic design—is a dangerous way to look at the federal constitution," wrote Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins in the ruling. "The Constitution is not a 'suicide pact.'"
Eddins acknowledged that the state's constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, says, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"Those words do not support a right to possess lethal weapons in public for possible self-defense," he wrote.
The court issued an unequivocal rebuke of the importance the Supreme Court placed on the United States' "historical tradition."
"As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era's culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution," wrote Eddins before citing the words of Slim Charles, the fictional character from the popular series, who once said: "The thing about the old days, they the old days."
"This is a top-10 court precedent in history," one lawyer said of the citation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voters Request Expedited SCOTUS Review of Colorado Trump Case
"The critical question of Donald Trump's eligibility—given his incitement of insurrection—should be resolved before primary voters cast their ballots," said a watchdog group involved in the legal battle.
Dec 28, 2023
After the Colorado Republican Party asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a ruling that removed former President Donald Trump from the state GOP's 2024 primary ballot, the legal team for voters behind the initial case requested a swift decision.
The legal battle was launched in September by the government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and law firms representing six GOP and unaffiliated Colorado voters, who argued that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution disqualifies Trump from holding office again because he incited the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
The Colorado Supreme Court last week overturned a lower court's decision and threw Trump off the state's primary ballot but also paused its ruling until January 4, to give the nation's highest court—which includes three Trump appointees—time to weigh in. Hoping the high court's right-wing majority will reverse the Colorado decision, the state party on Wednesday asked the justices to review and rule on the case by Super Tuesday, which is March 5, 2024, or if that's not possible, by the end of the current term.
The voters' legal representatives responded on Thursday with their own motion requesting a decision by February 11, explaining that "Colorado votes almost exclusively by mail" and clerks must mail ballots to many residents starting February 12.
One of the voters' attorneys, Sean Grimsley of Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray, said in a statement that "the ruling issued by the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed our clients' argument: Donald Trump engaged in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution and is consequently disqualified from serving as president and barred from Colorado primary ballots."
"The Colorado Supreme Court's decision was well-rooted in the text and historical context of the 14th Amendment and they correctly applied those principles to the facts of this case," he continued. "The Colorado Republican Party's appeal of our clients' case will address an issue of exceptional national importance—whether, as the Colorado Supreme Court found, a former president, and current candidate for office, who has engaged in insurrection against the Constitution is disqualified from holding office again."
"We have filed a motion asking the United States Supreme Court to expedite their consideration of the Colorado Republican Party's appeal and any subsequent review on the issues so that the important question of Trump's eligibility can be resolved before nearly all primary voters cast their ballots," he added.
As Politico reported Thursday:
The state GOP's petition argues three points: The office of the presidency is not covered by the 14th Amendment, the insurrection clause is not "self-executing"—meaning Congress alone must enforce it, and states cannot make that determination on their own—and that by kicking Trump off the primary ballot, the state Republican Party's First Amendment rights of association have been violated.
The party is represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative Christian law group. Jay Sekulow, who defended Trump during his first impeachment trial, is the organization's chief counsel.
Colorado is the first state where Trump—the GOP's 2024 front-runner—has been barred from the primary ballot but it's not the only one where voters and advocacy groups, backed by legal scholars across the ideological spectrum, are challenging his eligibility. Free Speech for People (FSFP) is leading similar legal challenges in Michigan and Minnesota.
The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the case last month while the Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday let stand a lower court ruling that the secretary of state lacks the legal authority to remove Trump from the ballot.
"We are disappointed by the Michigan Supreme Court's decision," said FSFP legal director Ron Fein. "The ruling conflicts with longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent that makes clear that when political parties use the election machinery of the state to select, via the primary process, their candidates for the general election, they must comply with all constitutional requirements in that process."
"However, the Michigan Supreme Court did not rule out that the question of Donald Trump's disqualification for engaging in insurrection against the U.S. Constitution may be resolved at a later stage," he added. "The decision isn't binding on any court outside Michigan and we continue our current and planned legal actions in other states to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Donald Trump."
The owner of Minocqua Brewing Company, Kirk Bangstad, on Thursday filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission seeking to remove Trump from the state's primary ballot, citing the 14th Amendment. The WEC refused to hear the complaint.
"It's pivotal that someone at least try in Wisconsin to do this," Bangstad told local reporters, vowing that "If WEC, and they will deny our complaint, we will sue in Dane County."
Meanwhile, in Maine, Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows on Thursday barred Trump from the state's primary ballot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular