Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums'Son of Bush v. Gore' Day at the Supreme Court, Which henceforth must be referred to as the 'Supreme Court (R)'
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-04-25-son-of-bush-v-gore-day-supreme-court/
It looks like some work needs to be done to the pediment atop the front doors of the Supreme Court (R). There, chiseled in marble in large letters for all to see, are the words Equal Justice Under Law. The Republican justices comments during todays oral arguments in the Trump immunity case made such a mockery of those words that those words will need to be replaced, or at minimum, augmented. Something like Equal Justice Under Law, Except for Republican Presidents, Who Are Henceforth Immune When They Violate It. Thats a lot to chisel, but chiseling (and worse), if youre a Republican president, is now OK. As the special prosecutors case against Donald Trump for inciting a violent mob seeking, at his behest, to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election wended its way through lower courts, those courts found no merit in Trumps claim that anything he did while president was not subject to U.S. law because presidents are immune from U.S. laws strictures.
Only when the case reached the Supremes did it find Republican judges so partisan that they were willing to grant immunity to Republican presidents running amok. While most of the Republican justices seemed willing to imply that not every action a president commits is inherently immune from the laws that every other American is obliged to follow, they made clear that courts had to distinguish those actions made as president from those actions made, say, as a candidate, or a bribe recipient, or an abusive husband, or a belligerent drunk. And unless they choose to spell out these distinctions in their own ruling, the Republican justices are likely to send this case back to the federal district court whence it originated, requiring the judge there to rule which of the charges brought against Trump pertain to his presidential duties and must therefore be dismissed, and which do not. This would surely push Trumps trial into next year, or into never-never land should Trump win the November election.
Rather than deal directly themselves with the case filed against Trump, most of the Republican justices sought to cloak themselves with a patina of concern for larger questions. Were writing a rule for the ages, Justice Neil Gorsuch (R) intoned, raising the specter of future presidents being persecuted during their well-deserved retirements. The redoubtable Sam Alito (MAGA) expanded that thought to the point that it quite reversed the identity of the guilty parties in the assaults to American democracy. The president who incited an insurrection? No, the prosecutors whove sought to hold him accountable. A stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully, Alito said. Then, however, he noted that if a president thought he might be prosecuted for whatever he did to cling to the office, he would be likely to keep clinging by any means possible. So as to the possibility of post-presidential prosecution, Alito pondered, Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?
In Alito-Land, its not the insurrection that destabilized American democracy, its prosecuting the guy who fomented that insurrection. Never mind that the case before the justices concerned whether fomenting that insurrection was a prosecutable offense. No less than Chief Justice John Roberts (R) once warned against courts treating the case before them as a pretext to make some larger point that was not actually before the court. If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, Roberts wrote, then it is necessary not to decide more. But simply by the fact that it decided not to rule immediately on Trumps absurd case for blanket presidential immunity, and now with the likelihood that it will return the case for further study to the district court, the Court is effectively doing all it can to decide a great deal more: It is endeavoring to decide the upcoming presidential election in Trumps favor. In his To be or not to be soliloquy, Hamlet cites as one of the reasons to end it all the laws delay. The delay that the Courts Republicans have caused, and today further abetted, is shoving American democracy in the direction of not to be.
snip
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 227 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
'Son of Bush v. Gore' Day at the Supreme Court, Which henceforth must be referred to as the 'Supreme Court (R)' (Original Post)
Celerity
Apr 25
OP
The anti-democracy SCOTUS Bush vs Gore ruling in 2000 will haunt our country forever!
GoreWon2000
Apr 27
#1
GoreWon2000
(104 posts)1. The anti-democracy SCOTUS Bush vs Gore ruling in 2000 will haunt our country forever!