The Supreme Court and Presidential Immunity

 Incredibly, though perhaps not surprisingly, it is patently clear that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, based upon their questioning of counsel and statements made by them during argument, are breaking ground for the demise of our democracy.

These justices have left no doubt that they disagree  with the holding of the lower courts and will find Donald Trump enjoys at least some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution. Further, it is apparent that they will send the case back to the trial court with instructions to make findings about whether the charges brought by Special Counsel against Mr. Trump involved official or private acts. This will insure that a trial of the case cannot be held before the November election.
What is surprising is the painfully inadequate response of the liberal justices and the missed opportunities for Special Counsel to present his case with greater cogency and passion.
The consequences of this impending miscarriage of justice is to make more likely the return to power of Donald Trump who will then use the opportunity to complete his destruction of our democracy and the rule of law.

Supreme Court Argument re Obstruction

 

If the conservative majority of the Supreme Court is true to its commitment to textualism it must uphold the convictions of those who assaulted Congress on January 6 for the purpose of obstructing the official proceeding being held that day to declare the winner of the 2020 presidential election. The statute the court has been asked to interpret, by its explicit terms, makes  the conduct of the accused unlawful. And yet the tenor of the questions posed at the argument of the case suggest that the conservative justices are likely to so limit the scope of the obstruction statute as to make it inapplicable to the physical interference which prevented Congress from performing its duty. Compounding that inexplicable departure from their usual approach to statutory interpretation, is the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife supported the attackers of the Capitol, and who therefore should have recused himself, seems to be leading the charge to absolve the obstructionists.
If the Court doesn’t get this right there is little hope that it will rule appropriately after it hears argument next week on the fraudulent claim of presidential immunity being asserted by Donald Trump.
The obvious partisan tenor of the Court’s conservative majority has already done grave damage to the Court’s reputation for integrity. Any further rulings of a similar nature will put that perception beyond redemption.

The Biden Administration's Low Approval Ratings

 One of the perplexing questions of this Age is why so many Americans disapprove of President Joseph Biden notwithstanding the many commendable accomplishments of his administration, accomplishments achieved in the face of an inflexible, politically motivated Republican majority in the House and despite the indisputably strong economy it has restored.

Part of the answer is the growing strength of White nationalism and the racist resentment it has unleashed. That rancor has been stoked and amplified by Donald Trump, a right-wing media that willfully distorts facts and politicians who have surrendered ethical standards in their quest for power.
However, I respectfully submit that the primary reason for Biden’s low approval is a function of optics. The President projects an image of dotage, stumbling in both words and steps. Even admirers of his good judgment, experience and effectiveness are given to wince at his appearance. While the impact of these visuals may be unfair it is understandable. Americans have come to admire the projection of vitality and youthfulness in their leaders. Adding to this disenchantment has been a perceived lack of gravitas exhibited by Vice President Kamala Harris, though this perception has recently begun to change as she forcefully defends the rights of women to appropriate healthcare and bodily autonomy.
If ever there was a need to delve beneath surface appearance and judge the substance of competing candidates, now is that time. America cannot afford to elevate charisma above character.

Alliances on the Supreme Court

 Former Justice Stephen Breyer paints a pretty picture of how well the justices personally relate to one another even when they strongly disagree on the law. His essay ignores certain historical anomalies and hardly draws a complete portrait.

We know that there were times in the past when religious bigotry infected relationships between certain justices. And while Justice Breyer’s assertion, that the justices at their conferences never raise their voices in anger nor make snide or personal remarks may be accurate, it is not uncommon for dissenting justices to harshly criticize or even vilify a colleague in their written (and public) opinions.
Given the recent revelations about the misconduct and corrupt practices of some of the justices, and the obvious political bent of their decisions which have eroded public trust, perhaps it is time for justices to call out their offending colleagues and hold them to account since no one else seems to have the authority or gumption to do so.