RFK Jr. secures the coveted Kevin Spacey endorsement

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday May 06, 2024 · 4:15 PM PDT

2024/05/06 · 16:15

Screenshot2024-05-06at4.19.17PM.png — Kevin Spacey defending himself against charges of sexual assault in the character of Frank Underwood wearing a Santa Claus apron for some reason

Today, Kevin Spacey announced he has endorsed “loyal friend” Robert F Kennedy Jr. for President. In reposting an RFK paean to himself, Spacey added commentary explaining that his endorsement was a quid pro quo. He also referred to Kennedy as a “formidable fighter for justice.” Proving that Spacey is comfortable with lying.

“There’s a lot I can learn from this man. When the world turned its back on me, Bobby leaned in.

He’s a formidable fighter for justice and a loyal friend that’s not afraid to stand up for what he believes.”

There’s a lot I can learn from this man. When the world turned its back on me, Bobby leaned in. 🙏🏼

He’s a formidable fighter for justice and a loyal friend that’s not afraid to stand up for what he believes. https://t.co/DSYLbiiJjz
— Kevin Spacey (@KevinSpacey) May 6, 2024

The internet immediately declared the endorsement a win for Biden. And why not? If there is a poster child for creepy, it is Kevin Spacey. More than 30 men (and one woman) have accused him of a series of sexual assaults. The earliest in 1985. The latest in 2016.

Here are a few posts typical of the general belief Spacey will not be a plus for RFK’s inept, amateur, and conspiracy-driven campaign:

@the howie: “Kevin spacey doing everything he can to help Biden!”

@BenZelevansky: “A powerful endorsement, but I’m gonna stay undecided until Weinstein and Cosby weigh in”

@MaxSkyNews: “Biden must be crushed not to have got such a sought-after endorsement...”

@Timodc: ”Strong endorsement for RFK Jr! Let’s get this creep out on the trail!”

@nick_field90: “RFK Jr: The Candidate of Jeffrey Epstein and Kevin Spacey”

@Ponderosa1415: “Just the endorsement every candidate needs. I have certainly changed my opinion that RFK, Jr is a predatory slimeball after seeing this.”

It is not just the multiple accusations that Spacey is a sexual predator who used his fame and influence to assault young men. He alienated the LGBTQ community by trying to deflect attention from his alleged assault of a 14-year-old boy by coming out as a “gay man.” A fellow gay actor, Billy Eichner, wryly posted “Kevin Spacey has just invented something that has never existed before: a bad time to come out.”

Even Spacey’s social media defense was weird. In a YouTube video, which he posted to make an abstruse defense of his behavior, he adopted the Machiavellian persona of Frank Underwood, the role he played in the series House of Cards. A role he lost after the sexual assault accusations started. He must have had a reason. But most people did not get it.

In addition, Spacey's timing has sucked again. Britain’s TV Channel 4 is about to air a docuseries outlining the charges against Spacey brought by multiple men, including minors, accusing him of aggressive and uninvited sexual advances.

If Kevin has any fans left, they may point out that he has skated on the charges — so far. Spacey has been tried twice and found not guilty. So legally, he did not do the assaults he was in court for. But the court of public opinion does not heed judicial regulation. And the multiple other accusations leveled against him will further shred his tattered reputation.

I have no idea what Kennedy will do — I have no expertise with madness. But Democrats must be hoping he will embrace Spacey. Unfortunately for the left, it will not help RFK garner any GOP/MAGA support. Those folks will not care about the sexual assaults — they support Trump. But they will have a problem with the gay angle.

Beware of a sheep in sheep's clothing: Beta Tim Scott won't say the 2024 election will be legitimate

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday May 05, 2024 · 5:06 PM PDT

2024/05/05 · 17:06

Screenshot2024-05-05at4.40.53PM.png — "I just love you' — Tim Scott to Donald Trump. "I won't answer your questions" Tim Scott to Kristen Welker

“Knowing what's right doesn't mean much unless you do what's right” ― Theodore Roosevelt

On Sunday, NBC’s Kristen Welker interviewed Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), the newly-minted Trump apologist. During the conversation, Scott proved that he would say anything — except answer a straightforward question — to cover for the bully whose approval he desperately craves. Any hope that Scott was a stand-up guy ran aground on the pusillanimous shores of this beta male’s craven prostration to another man.

We should expect this from a weak man. He is one of a legion of former Trump opponents who have knelt and kissed the ring. He did not have far to go. As a candidate during the GOP primaries, Scott never had the spine to take on Trump. From the get-go, the only point of his vacuous exercise seemed to be scoring enough name recognition for Trump to consider him a VP candidate.

Welker started the affair by pointing out that Scott had been pro-democracy before his self-emasculation. She laid the groundwork by pointing out that Trump still denies the result of the 2020 election. And she asked Scott about the possibility of him becoming Trump’s running mate despite his previous position on the election.

“You, of course, did vote to certify the 2020 election results and you’ve said ‘It was not stolen.’ Why would you join a ticket with someone who believes the exact opposite on this critical point."

Scott did not answer the question. Instead, he slimed the media for accurately reporting what Trump said.

“I think we have to listen to what Trump said and not what the reporters said he actually said (He chuckles). Here is one of the things that he has been very clear — and even talking about the situation in Wisconsin. What he said was, he expects an honest election. He expects the results to be clear, and for him to be successful. I expect him to be successful as well.

He then adopted the Trumpian position that only a Trump win would show the election was on the up-and-up.

“There is no doubt as we look at the polls across our country, the one thing that is crystal clear, that American people are now having a contrast between four years of Joe Biden and four years of Donald Trump, they are really excited to get back to the Trump years. And so I expect the election to be fair. I expect Donald Trump to be our next president.”

Welker tried again. She reminded Scott that Trump was claiming he was the victim of an election fraud that Scott denied existed. And again asked Tim how he could agree to run with a man he knew to be a liar.

“In terms of what he said, he specifically said, ‘If it’s not’ (if it’s not fair, as you are saying) you have to fight for the right of the country’. And just this week he said he won Wisconsin falsely, Senator. So again, to the point, you voted to certify the election results of 2020. It's the exact opposite of what you said and did after 2020. Why would you want to be on a ticket with someone where there's such a fundamental difference?”

Scott again ignored the question. Instead, he wrapped himself in the go-to conservative security blankey by claiming to speak for the “American people” — which is a right-wing synonym for “white bigots.”

“There is clear facts here. President Trump himself said, he expects this election to be fair. He expects it to be honest. And he expects to win. That is what a presidential candidate should expect. And I expect the exact same thing. And frankly, the American people agree with him. This is an issue that is not an issue. So I am not gonna make it an issue.

Welker gave up on Scott’s non-answers and hypocritical embrace of an immoral man by turning to the upcoming election.

“Senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line?”

Scott again ignored the question, stuttered, struggled for an answer to a question not asked, and started a stump speech.

“At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump. And I am excited to get back to low inflation, low unemployment.”

Welker cuts off the politicking. For the second time, she tried to get Scott to answer a question about the election.

“Senator, yes or no, Will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter who wins who wins?”

Scott offers a non-sequitur.

“That is my statement.”

Welker tries a third time.

“But, just yes or no, will you accept the election results of 2024?”

Scott stutters and again ignores the question despite acknowledging that she has asked it several times.

“I look forward to President Trump being the 47th president. Kristen, you can ask multiple times.”

Welker tries a fourth time.

“Senator, just a yes or no answer."

Scott again sticks his thumb in his mouth while clutching his blankey.

“The American people, the American people will make the decision … ”

Welker interjects to illuminate Scott’s failure to answer.

“But I don't hear you committing … "

Scott sails on in his misdirection.

“ … and the decision will be for President Trump.”

Welker keeps at it. And asks a fifth time if Scott believes in American democracy.

“I don't hear you committing to the election results.” (Scott sputters). “Will you commit to accepting the election results?”

Scott again ignores the question with some unoriginal and false media bashing. This smug Christian obviously believes the commandment about not bearing false witness is more of a suggestion.

“This is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat party. At the end of the day, I have said what I have said. And I know, the American people, their voices will be heard. And I believe that President Trump will be on next president. It's that simple.”

Welker tries a sixth time to pin the slippery bastard down.

“But Senator, as you know, the hallmark of our democracy is that both candidates agree to a peaceful transfer of power. So I am asking you, as a potential VP nominee, will you commit to the election results in this election cycle, no matter who wins?”

“Just a simple yes or no.”

The shameless Scott stuck to his dissembling.

“I expect, I expect President Trump to win the next election. Listen, I'm not gonna answer your hypothetical question when in fact, I believe the American people are speaking today on the results of the election. If it continues for the next six months, we will find ourselves in a great position where we will get back to another century of American prosperity. I'm looking forward to that.”

At this point, Welker realizes she is trying to nail jello to the wall. And moves on.

If the American people, all of them, are in favor of preserving democracy in America, they should ask why Scott cannot give a straightforward answer to a simple question.

He could have said, “Yes, I believe in America and its people.” By not doing so, he has declared he is willing for America to be an autocracy. And if we lose our democracy, it will not be because of the bullies — we have always had those — it will be because weak and cowardly men have thrown away their honor for thirty pieces of silver.

Note: There are some women equally weak. But the female of the species has shown, on average, to have more iron in their spine than the sad male specimens who wear another man’s name on their shirt.

Screenshot2024-05-05at5.34.31PM.png — Beta men supporting a bully.

Devout Christian Alan 'Reacher' Ritchson calls Trump a "rapist" and "conman" - Rips MAGA hypocrisy

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday May 04, 2024 · 5:46 PM PDT

2024/05/04 · 17:46

Conservatives accuse Hollywood of being an atheist, bleeding heart, liberal hellhole with anti-Christian impulses. Yet Hollywood has also distributed pro-Christian blockbusters (The Passion of the Christ). It has produced some Christian epics (The Ten Commandments). It still makes pro-Christian movies. And Christian actors can make a living.

Despite this, fake Christianity’s political wing, conservative evangelical preachers, find Hollywood-bashing is a profitable wallet opener. They warn of Sodom and Gomorrah in Southern California. Meanwhile, in a show of shameless hypocrisy, these sanctimonious Bible-thumpers have waved away the sins of church management. And sinning preachers continue to stain the pulpit.

These second-raters have even embraced a sinner, whose behavior makes Hollywood an also-ran in the race to the moral bottom. When Alan Ritchson, an actor of profound and modest Christianity, slammed Donald Trump, the religious apologists oozed out of the woodwork to criticize him — while still bending the knee to the flagitious fraud whose ass they kiss.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Ritchson — best known for his role as Jack Reacher on TV’s Reacher — expressed confusion at Trump’s appeal to a wide swath of religious hypocrites. Unlike many who fear alienating fans by taking a stand, Ritchson is willing to tell it like it is.

“Trump is a rapist and a con man, and yet the entire Christian church seems to treat him like he’s their poster child and it’s unreal. I don’t understand it.”

Ritchson is not a casual Christian. He preaches what he practices. On his YouTube channel, InstaChurch, he talks about issues important to him through a Christian/biblical lens.

In one video titled, “What’s the antidote to violence and who should should receive it?” Ritchson argues:

“I believe Christians have it backwards today. I believe Christians today believe institutions deserve generosity. And individuals deserve violence. I think the opposite is true.”

He adds, “I believe institutions are fertile ground for oppression, for marginalization, and for victimizing those who are weak or voiceless. And I believe we are called to stand up for those people.”

Ritchson says that society needs to recalibrate, remove power from institutions, and return it to the individual. It is a message you would have thought would be catnip to the individual liberty crowd. You would be wrong.

Ritchson accused institutions of perpetuating violence against the individual. But he alienated the MAGAs by siding with protesting students against the cops using violence to stifle their First Amendment right to speak up.

He goes on to propose that the solution to violence is not “peace” — that is not “active” enough to overcome “the contagious nature of violence.” Instead Ritchson proposes ”acts of generosity.” That seems pretty Christian to me. He adds that the Bible demands that people express generosity through “justice and righteousness.”

Ritchson then goes into a scriptural exegesis through an analysis of biblical Hebrew. I will take his word for the accuracy of his translation. If nothing else, it shows Alan has thought long and hard about his faith. He is not relying — as do so many church-goers — on the interpretation of scripture offered by people with an ax to grind.

He adds biblical verses to support his point that generosity is the key to thwarting institutionalized violence. To wit:

Psalm 112:5 “Good will come to those who are generous and lend freely, who conduct their affairs with justice.”

Proverbs 31:8-9 “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

Jeremiah 22:3 “This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.”

Ritchson then tied the last verse to Christian hypocrisy, saying

“When I think about that, I think about politics. I think about an entire platform by those who mostly claim to be Christians who are doing the exact opposite of this with their voting power. Who are trying to do violence to the foreigner. Who are not helping the fatherless. Who are making victims of widows.”

Ritchson did not single out MAGAs. He did not mention Trump. But those bigots knew who he was referring to when he ripped those who “claim to be Christians.” He left no doubt when he explained that God was not an America Firster.

“This is the kind of generosity we are called to. And it’s for everybody. It’s not just for believers. It is not just for those who have been indoctrinated into the church. It is not just for those who are American, or fit your nation-state, or fly your flag. It is for everybody.

If you want to see violence flee the world be more generous to everybody. That is the Christian ethic.”

In the comment section, there were plenty of ‘right-ons.’ And then there were the thin-skinned souls who did not like their bastardized Christianity called out.

@rickparker1144: “Sadly, I just read Alans comments on his dislike for 'Trump supporting Christians'. Thats me. Im no longer a supporter of you work, and am unsubscribing. Shame.”

@davidford2030: “so you preach about being a christian but then insult cops and conservatives who happen to like trump?-if i want the opinion of just another dopey hollywood actor,i'll give ya a call allen”

@Brother_Jack: “You're an actor. Stay in your lane.”

@shforrister: “Still praying for God to open your mind and your heart. The way things are going, we won’t have a nation where you can speak your mind much longer- in large part thanks to the invasion we are currently experiencing.”

So be it. There is a third season of ‘Reacher’ in production. And Ritchson’s God has his back. He will be fine. Sadly, the MAGAs will still think they are doing God's work — because they have never read the Bible — especially the Beatitudes or Matthew 25:40-45.

YouTube Video

NH lawmaker fantasizes about "ripe, fertile" teen girls having babies.

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday May 03, 2024 · 5:24 PM PDT

2024/05/03 · 17:24

Screenshot2024-05-03at6.04.12PM.png — Jess Edwards

“Sitting on a park bench, Eying little girls with bad intent

Snot's running down his nose, Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes
Hey, Aqualung” — Jethro Tull

By the time they are 40, 99% of Americans have had sex — 95% before marriage. After life-supporting activities — breathing and whatnot — it is our most popular pastime. Most of us, however, especially as we get older, spend most of our time thinking about something else. Not so religious fundamentalists and other perverts.

Take Jess Edwards, a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. During a debate over a bill that would mandate 18 — without exceptions — as the minimum age for marriage in the Granite State, he expressed concern that the measure, SB 359, would increase the rate of abortions for minor girls. In his words:

“… If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not, in fact, making abortion a much more desirable alternative, when marriage might be the right solution for some freedom-loving couples?” (bolding mine)

I do not know Edwards’ age. However, he graduated from Texas Christian University in 1980 — so let’s call him sixty-something. In other words, way too old to be looking at teen girls as “ripe” and “fertile.”

The rest of Edwards’ complaint does nothing to sand the jags off his antediluvian philosophy. How is child marriage an expression of “freedom.” Brides may rarely swear “to obey” anymore (although the odds are Edwards rues its disuse). But I suspect that most women — and men — would not say they were ‘freer’ after marriage.

Do not get me wrong. I am married. And I do not regret one iota I left the freedom of bachelorhood behind. But there is a reason people refer to marriage as “tying the knot.”

If Edwards were legitimately interested in freedom for teenage girls, he would support their right to choose. Reproductive freedom allows girls to pursue academic and economic futures otherwise dimmed by early maternity. Globally, controlling when and how many kids to have is significant in helping millions of women out of poverty.

But logic is the enemy of a patronizing sexist. And you know he is a sexist because he — like all the child-bride fans — never looks at it from a teenage boy’s point of view.

How would Edwards feel if he had a 16-year-old son who announced he was getting married to a 42-year-old woman because he had impregnated her? We will never know because these people never frame the issue that way.

People like Edwards live in a fantasy. When youths marry, Jess may see a Disney bride with her Prince Charming, but the prospects for a teenage union are grim. No one can predict the outcome in an individual case, but as a whole, young brides get divorced at a higher rate than women marrying older.

Anyone doubting that statistic should then explain why the Bible Belt, which tends to have young brides, also sees high divorce rates. It is a pattern repeated in the Mountain States.

Most civilized countries have established a person's majority — or the age at which we believe they are old enough to make adult decisions — at 18. It is the age at which a newly-minted adult can buy a legal drink as they enlist in the military.

New Hampshire, like the rest of the US, does not think its youth are mature enough for alcohol until they are 21. But Edwards believes they are mature enough to get married at 16. Where is the logic? (Rhetorical question.)

A farcical pro-Trump op-ed shows how both-siderism is killing the New York Times

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday May 02, 2024 · 5:46 PM PDT

2024/05/02 · 17:46

I am all for a range of opinions. It is easier to defend your position if you know how your opponent plans to attack it. If the New York Times (NYT) wants to publish conservative op-eds (a.k.a. "Guest Essays"), this liberal will read them. However, no matter how broad-minded a newspaper is, they should never publish a hagiography. On Thursday, the self-congratulatory “Newspaper of Record,” did just that.

The NYT presented its readers with a piece with the farcical headline “Trump Embraces Lawlessness, but in the Name of a Higher Law.” Read it and feel the disbelief wash over you. (The paywall should be down.).

The author, Matthew Schmitz, bless his heart, founded the Compact online magazine and he contributes to the American Conservative. His journalist schlock is predictable. And he is knee-bending in his bobby-soxer obeisance to Trump.

Undeterred by facts, Schmitz uses his space to paint the 2020 loser as a mythical savior of America’s most abused demographic — heteronormative white conservatives. Because, in Schmitz’s calculus, those poor, put-upon folks have suffered the most at the hands of “the establishment.”

So be it. Schmitz can write what he wants. But why is the NYT giving him a platform? It is one thing to present an opinion. It is another for a (once?) reputable national newspaper to embrace the hate-click business model used by lazy reporters and dollar-blinded editors.

Let us have a look at what he writes. This is how he starts.

“Donald Trump is often denounced in terms that suggest he poses an existential threat to the American political tradition. He is a fascist, a Russian agent, an aspiring caudillo: something foreign and menacing. To his critics, the four criminal indictments he faces are further evidence that he is a danger to democracy.”

I write to criticize his content. But first, a comment on his style. Schmitz is an unconfident writer. His aggressive prose shields a pusillanimous heart. “In terms that suggest he poses” is flabby. He should rewrite his first sentence as “Donald Trump is often denounced as an existential threat to the American political tradition.”

OK. No more style commentary. But you will see more of Schmitz's insecurity throughout his polemic.

Let us look at his content. Who has suggested Trump is foreign and menacing? Everyone knows he is an outer-borough New Yorker who fled the state to Florida. He may act as an enabler of America’s enemies, and his pronunciation is weird, but his menace is all domestic.

In addition, you do not have to be a critic of Trump to believe indictments for election fixing, insurrection promotion, and document theft are evidence he is potentially dangerous.

Schmitz adds this:

“For Mr. Trump’s detractors, such an open embrace of lawlessness confirms the danger he presents. But this understanding of his newfound criminal persona, a persona his legal opponents have helped to thrust upon him, overlooks something important: Mr. Trump may pose a threat to our political system as it now exists, but it is a threat animated by a democratic spirit. It is the threat of the outlaw hero, a figure of defiance with deep roots in American culture who exposes the injustices and hypocrisies of a corrupt system.”

Put the pipe down, Matt. Trump’s criminal persona is self-earned. He does not have “legal opponents”. He faces prosecutors doing their job — which includes amassing evidence against bad people until it is sufficient for a grand jury of regular Americans to indict.

I will grant you that is not a high bar. But reaching a guilty verdict in a trial is. And I challenge Schmitz to identify a white billionaire the system has railroaded into an incorrect guilty verdict.

Moving on. WTF does Schmitz mean by Trump being “animated by a democratic spirit”? Where is the evidence? And what is this “outlaw hero” vs. a “corrupt system” nonsense? Trump is the corrupt system.

“The outlaws in whose image Mr. Trump styles himself gained fame in the United States because they seemed to embody freedom and spontaneity, along with mistrust of authority and indifference to polite convention. They appealed to democratic impulses, however perversely.”

Everybody loves a good, bad guy — in their fantasies. Many people pipe-dream of breaking free from the shackles of their routine. But who thinks Bonnie and Clyde were promoting democracy? And who believes Al Capone should have been president?

After some obligatory puffery about Trump and Robin Hood being kindred spirits — supported by quotes from Sebastian Gorka and Lauren Boebert — Schmitz brings up another “hero” of the downtrodden.

“Whether these outlaws did the good deeds attributed to them hardly matters, because the appeal of the outlaw hero rests on a deeper truth: When the authorities are regarded as corrupt and malevolent, people will celebrate those who defy them. Like Joaquín Murrieta, the 19th-century Mexican laborer working in California who, according to legend, responded to injustice by vowing that he “would live henceforth for revenge,” Mr. Trump has promised to avenge the downtrodden.

Matt is blind to irony. If Murrieta lived today, Trump would have called the Sonora-born man a rapist, drug terrorist, and sex trafficker — and recommended his execution.

There is more:

“Mr. Trump’s embrace of an outlaw image marks a change on the American right. A political formation that once was committed to what Russell Kirk called the “defense of order” is now drawn to the most anarchic figures in our national mythology. The exchange of George Washington for Jesse James reflects the right’s growing alienation from America’s leading institutions.”

Dear God, please make it stop. The right does not have a “growing alienation from America’s leading institutions.” They want to take those leading institutions — the courts, the DOJ, federal agencies, even the military — and staff them with hand-picked fellow travelers.

If Schmitz is unaware of the Federalist Society’s 40-year campaign to corrupt the criminal justice system, he is a moron. And I doubt he is a moron.

Matt goes on:

“But the break may not be as total as it seems. Even as Robin Hood defies the local sheriff, he maintains his loyalty to the king. He may humiliate the bishop, but he prays to the Virgin Mary. A similar combination of rebellion and reverence characterizes Mr. Trump’s attempt to run as an outlaw who will restore law and order.”

Fantasy is what you embrace when reality does not support your desires. Robin Hood is not real. I am not saying he did not exist. But who you think he is depends on which screen representation you favor.

For all the hero worship, it was not the bandit — no matter how well-intentioned — who brought law to the masses in England. It was the steady spread of democracy and the creation of civic institutions that now protect the rights of the average Joan.

The very institutions and democracy the autocratic Trump would corrupt.

I understand that many MAGAs are simplistic thinkers — easily seduced by memes of their hero as a knight in shining armor — but the citizen should be able to rely on professional newspeople taking important subjects seriously.

American political discourse suffers when the Times gives this fantastical nonsense its imprimatur.

An NPR report reveals the rot in the federal judiciary is not limited to the Supreme Court

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday May 01, 2024 · 5:54 PM PDT

2024/05/01 · 17:54

Screenshot2024-05-01at5.40.13PM.png — District Judge Thomas Porteous. The last federal Judge to be impeached and convicted (2010)

How can the law permit Judge Aileen Cannon to preside over the trial of the man who named her to a $243,300 per annum job? A position with excellent benefits and a pension, which she will keep as long as she wants to, and has no mandatory retirement age.

Tradition expects Judges to recuse themselves with just the appearance of a conflict of interest. But expectation, without an enforcement mechanism, is a toothless guard dog.

This infirmity will not shock observers of the judiciary’s dismal attempt to self-regulate. After Pro-Publica busted Clarence Thomas for taking bribes (in the form of luxury vacations) without reporting them, Chief Justice John Roberts put his foot down. He issued an ethics code for SCOTUS — with no enforcement mechanism.

Even that pointless exercise does not address the extent of the problem.

An NPR investigation reveals that the ethics failures apparent in the Supreme Court have blighted the entire federal judiciary. We should not be surprised. Anyone who has owned a house knows if you see rot in one place, the odds are there is rot somewhere else — even if it is still invisible. It seems the judiciary is similarly afflicted. Thomas may be the poster child for what is wrong with the third branch of government. But he is not the only judge using their position to vacuum up billionaire benefits.

NPR put it thus:

"Federal judges — occasionally with family members or even their dog in tow — traveled to luxury resorts in locations as far-flung as London; Palm Beach, Fla.; Bar Harbor, Maine; and the outskirts of Yellowstone National Park for weeklong seminars. The judges received free rooms, free meals and free money toward travel expenses, together worth a few thousand dollars."

No one expects politicians to be honest — especially in the age of Trump. It used to be understood that elected officials would stretch and bend the truth, cherry-pick facts, and use imaginary friends to make a point. “Americans are fed up with … ”, “many people are saying ….”, “my constituents want … “. Now bald-faced lies are political currency.

But at least those bastards have to periodically reapply for their jobs — giving citizens an easy way to kick them out.

The Founders thought that job insecurity would make Judges too political, so they wrote lifetime tenure for federal judges into the Constitution. Aware that the President might name some scoundrel who would fool enough Senators to get past the vetting process, the Founders did add that Judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

And if their Behaviour was not good, the Constitution allowed the removal of a bad Judge in Article II Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

It is an almost toothless remedy. There are currently 890 Article III federal judgeships. Historically, there have been multiples more — unfortunately, my AI does not know the number. However, in the 235 years since George Washington nominated the first federal judges in 1789, the House has only impeached 15. Eight were Senate convicted and booted. Three resigned before trial. And four were Senate acquitted.

As rare as the removal of federal judges has been, it is hard to imagine, in this hype-partisan age, that 67 Senators would ever again agree to convict an impeached judge. Consequently, these jurists have little to worry about.

Perhaps I have too dim a view of my fellow Americans on the federal bench. Maybe the gravity of their office will keep them on the straight and narrow. Just kidding. NPR’s investigation revealed what these scamps get up to. Here is more of their report:

"At one event, a far-right German politician with a history of racially inflammatory and anti-immigrant statements made a presentation to dozens of judges. At others, judges heard from an advocacy group that uses lawsuits in federal court to change environmental policy, as well as from corporate CEOs in the oil and pharmaceutical industries."

George Mason University has become a dating club where vested-interest suitors can pitch woo at receptive judges. As NPR further reports:

"Nonprofits, legal organizations and private universities all host judicial education events around the world. But those groups are generally not subject to public records laws. As a result, their full attendee lists are shielded from public scrutiny.

When it comes to the hosts of these events, George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., is exceptional in two ways.

For one, GMU — particularly the university's conservative-leaning Law & Economics Center — has long stood out as one of the most prolific hosts of judicial education events. Collectively, hundreds of judges have attended the university's events at luxury resorts over the years. GMU is quick to point out that the events are paid for by private donors.

The Law & Economics Center's website lists donors that include major corporations like Amazon, Pfizer, Google and Facebook, as well as the business lobby group the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the New York Times, conservative activist Leonard Leo helped gather $30 million in donations to rename the law school after late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia."

Why is GMU quick to point out that, “the events are paid for by private donors”? The institution seems to believe that if you admit to bribery it is not a crime — or even a sin. And, although the report does not break down the ratio of GOP-appointed to Democratic-appointed jurists nosing the trough, I will warrant the conservative judges are usually the ones with the overflowing plates.

As the piece says, GMU named its law school after corporate America's favorite Justice, Antonin Scalia. Who also happens to be a Saint to conservative America.

Are we stuck with venality on the bench? Probably. As hard as it is to imagine impeaching a single judge, it is exponentially less likely that a constitutional amendment to limit judicial terms or relax the procedures to remove a judge will pass.

However, when Biden wins re-election, he should use his last term of public service to expand the Supreme Court, assuming the Democrats also hold onto the Senate. And if 2025 sees a GOP Senate installed, the Democrats should leave it all on the field to win the Upper House back in a more favorable year — during the 2026 elections.

The Supreme Court is running interference for Trump. It would satisfy justice, promote democracy, and feel damn good, if fresh blood diluted the poison that is killing America’s justice system.

The bad, the worse, all of them ugly - handicapping Trump's VP choices

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday April 30, 2024 · 5:37 PM PDT

2024/04/30 · 17:37

Screenshot2024-04-30at5.53.26PM.png — Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer Photos: Getty

“The Vice Presidency isn’t worth a pitcher of warm piss” — John Nance Garner (FDR’s first VP 1933-41)

Picking a VP

Does a VP pick help a presidential aspirant? Probably not much. But the candidate looking for a number two should assume it does. Political wisdom says a running mate should ‘balance the ticket.’ Which usually means a white man should pick a minority or a woman — with extra points for a minority woman. It is a bonus if that candidate is from a swing state.

Considering that, let us look at Trump’s potential VP picks. Note: there are comments on rumored sexuality, appearance, and physique because this piece looks at the candidates through Trump’s eyes — not the author’s.

Trump’s candidates

The one sure fact about Trump’s new running mate is that it will not be his old one. In 2016, Trump picked Mike Pence. Political logic demanded that the godless man needed a man of God to shore up his evangelical support. This wisdom was common before anyone knew the religious fundamentalists would line up to kiss God-free orange ass. Back then, we thought conservative evangelicals were Christians.

Don and Mike’s political bromance ended badly. Pence thought his boss had perhaps overstepped the mark. Trump thought MAGA should lynch his #2. This difference of opinion has left the spot wide open for a new opportunist — raising two questions: Who? And: Who knows?

To answer that. I will ignore political prognosticators and instead rely on bettors for the current contenders’ rankings. To that end, see below for the current VP odds at various bookie sites.

Tim Scott

Pro: He is Black and obsequious. Even though he ran against Trump in the GOP primaries, he never disparaged the candidate. After dropping out of the race, he quickly endorsed Trump over Nikki Haley, despite the ex-SC Governor appointing him a Senator. He is devout — always a selling point in the GOP for anyone not Trump. The always-smiling Scott has not particularly offended anyone. And in a time of crazy, a soft-spoken Senator may be a calming presence.

Con: Scott is an unmarried 58-year-old representative of a party where an unmarried man past a certain age causes comment. Especially as he is no Warren Beatty — a man late to matrimony but with an exuberant dating record. Before his presidential run, Scott announced he was engaged to Mindy Noce, whom he has called a “good Christian lady" he met on a Bible study app. So perhaps that will put rumors to rest. Although it will not stifle the cynics

Scott’s more significant problem is that while Trump likes to keep ass-kissers around (see Lindsey Graham), he has the hots for strong men. And Scott is not that. He cemented his beta status with a cringy "I just love you!" shoutout to Trump before the NH primary.

Tulsi Gabbard

Pro: She is a minority (Samoan-American) woman. An ex-Democrat, she could support a specious claim that Trump is trying to expand his appeal. She is a fixture on Fox, even subbing for Tucker Carlson. Gabbard is stridently anti-Muslim. Although she is also pro-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — perhaps she thinks he is one of the good ones because he likes to slaughter his co-religionists. In addition, she worked for The Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values, an anti-gay marriage PAC founded by her father to pass an amendment giving Hawaii the power to "reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples;"

Con: She is Hindu. Her need for publicity is anathema to the man who must dominate the media bandwidth. She backed Bernie Sanders in 2016 and Biden in 2020. And there is no guarantee she will stick with the MAGA program.

Elise Stefanik

Pro: Her loyalty to Trump is her political identity. During the 2016 campaign, Stefanik harshly criticized Trump for his incendiary rhetoric and policies, saying he “has been insulting to women.” But as soon as she sensed that Trump was the GOP’s future, she went all in. She was against his impeachment. And for his claims of a stolen election.

She lobbied for and got the #3 job in the GOP House, Chair of the House Republican Conference. And she is determined not to suffer the fate of her predecessor, Liz Cheney.

Con: Trump is shallow. Is the matronly (despite being only 39) Stefanik pretty enough for him?

Ben Carson

Pro: He is black — but not in a civil rights way. And his up-by-his-bootstraps biography is impressive — although there are the typical fabrications. (He claimed he had received a scholarship offer from West Point — they have no record he applied. And the Academy is free — it does not award scholarships.) He was Trump’s sole HUD secretary. And did nothing particularly embarrassing beyond his furniture purchases.

Con: He is boring — will Trump want two white bread VPs in a row? Worse he is a poor fit for Trump’s new-found expediency (let the states decide) on abortion. Carson, who wants a national abortion ban, once compared women’s choice to slavery and said he wants the procedure outlawed with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

Nikki Haley

Pro: On paper, this would be an excellent choice. Haley has the resume. She was a Governor and Trump’s Ambassador to the UN. She is a woman of color. Haley did fight a short but bitter campaign against Trump. But he is easily mollified by shows of contrition from former rivals. And it would give him much of the residual c.15% support she still receives from the GOP primary voters a month after she dropped out of the race.

Con: Everyone who has taken on Trump has either run away, been fired, or kissed the ring. So far, Haley has done none of those things. Haley is one of the few Republicans who have non-Trump credibility for a future run. Normally, the VP for a second-term president has a leg up in the next presidential election. But if Trump wins in 2024, he will not leave willingly. Haley is better off keeping her skirts clean for a run after Biden’s second term

Marco Rubio

Pro: He is Latino. He has good name recognition. He has experience. He speaks well. He has moved on from his ‘small hands’ apostasy. And Trump loves grovelers and apologists.

Con: He is short (a fact he tried to hide with zip-up booties). And he has a comb-over. Trump hates what he perceives as physical shortcomings (see Stefanik). In addition, he is a Floridian. So the Constitution requires he or Trump must move — and you know Trump will not.

Doug Burgum

Pro: Unlike many supposed business candidates, Burgum is the real deal. He parlayed modest equity (he mortgaged the family farm) into a billion-dollar tech/real estate concern. And he has executive political experience as the Governor of North Dakota. He focuses on fiscal/economic issues. But has signed anti-CRT and anti-trans healthcare bills into law

Con: He has zero name recognition. Of course, neither did Mike Pence. While not a never-Trumper, he is also not a drum-banging fan. Burgum has largely ignored him. And he has been pro-LGBTQ.

Kristi Noem

Pro: She is a woman. She is the Governor of South Dakota (when was the last time both Dakotas were in a presidential campaign conversation). She is a telegenic, ultra-MAGA, unapologetic Trump ass. She sent SD’s national guard to the Mexico border. And she would be a fine political wife for the adulterer.

Con: She is a dog killer — which is a political mortal sin, even in MAGAland. Worse was her glee at the execution. She also faces claims of abusing her office, getting her teeth done out of state, and promoting the dental company without declaring her financial interest in it. None of which is necessarily a deal breaker for a Republican. But the canicide has killed her career.

There are other candidates the punters have yet to like

Greg Abbot

Forget it. Trump will not campaign with a guy in a wheelchair

J.D. Vance

Big book. Medium movie. Huge ass-kisser. Why not?

Vivek Ramaswamy

Too much ego.

Ron DeSantis

Useless on the campaign trail. A genuine loser. A GOP soy boy.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Weird looks. But she did handle the podiumgate brouhaha well.

Kari Lake

Too nuts even for Trump. Has worn out her welcome.

Tucker Carlson

No way. Trump has to make a play for the independents

Byron Donalds

Young conservative Black guy. 100% MAGA. Why not? He may live in Florida now, but he could always move back to NY.

Who will it be?

No one can say. Even Trump has no idea. And he will not announce it until the last possible moment so he can keep yanking chains. However, unlike in 2016 when the establishment influenced his choice, in 2024, Mango Unchained will not let anyone get in his way of picking someone bad for America.

Or as John Nance Garner also called the VP, the president’s “spare tire.”

Unions rediscover optimism under Biden - even in the South.

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday April 28, 2024 · 5:21 PM PDT

2024/04/28 · 17:21

A victory for working folks

For the first time in 40 years, workers in a southern auto plant voted to unionize. On Friday, April 19th, hourly workers at Volkswagen’s plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, overwhelmingly voted to join the United Auto Workers (UAW). It is no coincidence that the US has the most pro-worker President in living memory. And Biden's Scranton cred has given American workers the belief they will be listened to.

The result was not close. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that oversees unionizing votes, announced that 73% of the 3,600 workers at the plant who cast ballots had voted to join the union. There was an 84% turnout among eligible voters.

Kelcey Smith, a worker in the paint department at Volkswagen summed up the general tenor of the worker’s victory:

“This election is big. This is the time; this is the place. Southern workers are ready to stand up and win a better life.”

Workers are beginning to realize the anti-union propaganda blared out by the owner class — and echoed throughout the plutocrat-friendly, right-wing mediasphere — does not benefit them. For too long, many working-class voters have placed more trust in politicians sponsored by big business than in people they elect to represent their economic interests.

For the sake of their paycheck, labor should nurture its newfound clarity.

How we got here

Political wisdom has it that Reagan’s popularity soared when northern white working-class joined their religious southern brothers to flex their bigoted, states’ rights muscles — while America kicked Soviet ass. Real men embraced guns, God, Old Glory, and the GOP. And the Democrats became a refuge for rainbow flag-waving, social warriors, minorities, and pantywaisted, atheistic, America-hating quiche eaters.

The rich people party attracted poor people who believed they were one break away from wealth. Workers voted for pro-management policies. People living paycheck to paycheck voted to reduce taxes on inherited wealth. And the lunch-pail crowd self-emasculated by embracing ‘right to work’ laws.

Car manufacturers opened factories in the non-union South. And workers rejoiced as they snapped up jobs that paid them less than their unionized peers in the Rust Belt. Everyone was happy. Ownership repeated the profits. Workers rejoiced that the Kochs were shielding them from government overreach and socialism. And any doubts about the arrangement were salved by pastors assuring their fleeced flocks that Jesus loved them.

But things began to change. In 2023, Unions showed signs of life. The media noticed. Even the capitalist bible, the Wall Street Journal, had something to say. At the end of the year, they reported: “The Big Wins by Unions in 2023“ Although you may not be able to read it, as the capitalist bible is behind a paywall.

The future

The outlook for US trade unions is not rosy, but 2023 produced some optimism. Overall, the percentage of workers in unions ticked down to 10% — less than half of the 20.1% in 1983. But there were some solid wins. Unions themselves enjoyed a long-term upward trend in approval (with some year-to-year variation).

As Investopedia reports:

United Autoworkers members won pay increases and other concessions from Detroit automakers after a first-of-its-kind simultaneous strike against the big three companies.

Workers from at least 385 Starbucks locations have voted to unionize since an organizing drive began in 2021 despite fierce opposition from the company, although the coffee retailer has yet to agree to any contracts with members of the Starbucks Workers United union.

Screenwriters won pay raises and restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence after striking against Hollywood studios.

Unions got support from the administration of President Joe Biden, who calls himself “the most pro-union president in history.” That included a new federal labor rule that makes it easier for contractors and employees of franchises to form unions.

Unions have been growing more popular in recent years. As of August, 67% of people had a favorable opinion of unions according to a Gallup poll, down from 71% in 2022, which had been its highest since 1965.

The reliably pro-business Supreme Court did its bit to thumb the scales for the economic aristocracy. In 2018, SCOTUS’s five conservatives decided, in Janus vs. AFSCME, that public employees no longer had to pay dues to unions if they worked under a union contract but were not union members. Note: It will not get better soon, as Amy Coney Barrett has replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

SCOTUS’s decision does not prohibit unions from organizing. But it hits public sector unions in the finances. Why would an employee pay dues for union protections when they could get the same protections without paying for them?

Mind you, those workers should consider that if every public employee thought that way, public sector unions would go away. Meanwhile, at the same time, Trump and his crew are giddy at the thought of firing government employees.

Which brings us back to politics.

How people feel about unions depends on their party affiliation. 74% of Democrats think unions are good for workers. 55% of Republicans think they are not. I wish the survey had asked those GOPers — and the 25% of Democrats who agreed — why they thought unions were a detriment to the worker.

Unions are not perfect. But before the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) American workers were not guaranteed a minimum wage or overtime pay. Their impact is obvious when you plot union membership against wealth distribution. As membership grew, the workers shared more of the national wealth. As it declined, the rich roared back.

The UAW’s unionizing drive in Tennessee panicked Gov. Bill Lee into reassuring Big Business he would fight to protect their profits, no matter how many people got hurt. He announced — along with five other southern governors: Kay Ivey (AL), Brian Kemp, (GA) Tate Reeves (MS), Henry McMaster (SC), and Greg Abbott (TX) — that he would resist a living wage and reasonable benefits for working stiffs.

Taking it to the polls

Anti-abortion activists have energized pro-choice women (the vast majority) and like-minded men (not enough) to turn their backs on Republican rights strippers. They have repeatedly told conservative politicians to feck off. Will anti-unionism start to convince some workers that conservative politicians do not give a damn about them either?

It is time for American workers to wake up and realize that permission to be a bigot — if that is what informs their vote — is not worth the price of depressed wages.

Retailers fled. Trump's landmark tower is now a cheap, empty, closed-off New York embarrassment

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday April 27, 2024 · 5:32 PM PDT

2024/04/27 · 17:32

Even Trump’s websites lie. The internet home of Trump Tower is a work of fiction. If you click the “Retail” tab, the link invites you to “EXPLORE OUR IMPRESSIVE PORTFOLIO OF RETAIL TENANTS.” A picture boasts that Gucci, Tiffany, and Starbucks have set up shop there.

The claim is 33% correct. Gucci is still there. Tiffany, which was never in Trump Tower — it was temporarily in a Trump building around the corner on 57th St — returned to its historic store a year ago. Starbucks left in 2022. Besides, why would Starbucks be under “Retail” when the site has a “Dining” option? In addition, what other supposedly luxury retail destination features an overpriced coffee shop as an anchor destination?

The Dining section is headlined by the “Trump Cafe.” However, you cannot eat there. It is closed for renovations. Trump promises a reopening in the spring. But if you believe that, you might be a MAGA.

The chief retail tenant is the Trump Store — where you can buy his second-rate branded merchandise at a premium. How about a scented candle for $48? Mother’s Day is in two weeks. No? Wise choice. For less expensive schlock, you can go to the Trump gift shop. Which, for some reason, features campaign merch from 2020 — and looks like it would be at home in a train station.

However, you can no longer patronize Ivanka’s jewelry store. She bailed in 2017.

The facility itself is a shadow of its past glory. The Trump Organization website hyperventilates: “One of the most notable features of Trump Tower is the breath-taking 60-foot waterfall embellishing the eastern wall of the building.” Sadly, the building has turned the water off. So you must use your imagination while staring at a tall wall.As part of a deal with the City in which Trump was allowed to increase the building's square footage, he included two public terraces. They are now closed to the public. The smaller, still visible interior space is straggly and untended. The large glass doors that once opened onto the second, grander terrace are now mirrored over and locked.

The currency exchange behind Trump as he descended the escalator to make his announcement in 2015 is no more. Its space stands empty, collecting dust - a bleak reminder that no one wants it.

And nothing screams elegance like a plastic garbage can and a baby’s chair.

Trump lied about the size of his apartment in Trump Tower — it is 11,000 sq ft, not 30,000. He lied about the height of the building — it is 58 stories, not 68. And on his website, he lies about the view. The picture below was taken from somewhere on Central Park South. Trump Tower is three blocks south of the Park on the other side of 5th Ave.

Trump Tower was always ugly. The exterior design is derivative and boring. The public spaces were designed to appeal to an unimaginative and esthetically challenged, outer-borough boy with the taste of an Albanian crime boss.

The only people who would appreciate it are people who cannot afford to live there. Although, if they wait for a second, the desperate owners of Trump Tower apartments may soon take ‘any reasonable offer’.

Trump VP candidate Kristi Noem boasts of shooting a "worthless" puppy, "rancid" goat

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday April 26, 2024 · 9:43 AM PDT

2024/04/26 · 09:43

Kristi Noem is the Governor of South Dakota. A leading candidate for Trump VP. And a woman who takes pleasure in killing things. To promote her candidacy, she will publish her obligatory autobiography, “No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward” next month. The Guardian newspaper got hold of an advanced copy. In it, Noem boasted of killing two animals. The paper reports:

She includes her story about the ill-fated Cricket, she says, to illustrate her willingness, in politics as well as in South Dakota life, to do anything “difficult, messy and ugly” if it simply needs to be done.

By taking Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs, Noem says, she hoped to calm the young dog down and begin to teach her how to behave. Unfortunately, Cricket ruined the hunt, going “out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life”.

Noem describes calling Cricket, then using an electronic collar to attempt to bring her under control. Nothing worked. Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, “grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another”.

Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like “a trained assassin”.

When Noem finally grabbed Cricket, she says, the dog “whipped around to bite me”. Then, as the chickens’ owner wept, Noem repeatedly apologised, wrote the shocked family a check “for the price they asked, and helped them dispose of the carcasses littering the scene of the crime”.

Through it all, Noem says, Cricket was “the picture of pure joy”.

“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself “untrainable”, “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog”.

“At that moment,” Noem says, “I realised I had to put her down.”

Noem, who also represented her state in Congress for eight years, got her gun, then led Cricket to a gravel pit.

“It was not a pleasant job,” she writes, “but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realised another unpleasant job needed to be done.”

Noem was not done. As the Guardian further reports:

Her family, she writes, also owned a male goat that was “nasty and mean”, because it had not been castrated. Furthermore, the goat smelled “disgusting, musky, rancid” and “loved to chase” Noem’s children, knocking them down and ruining their clothes.

Noem decided to kill the unnamed goat the same way she had just killed Cricket the dog. But though she “dragged him to a gravel pit”, the goat jumped as she shot and therefore survived the wound. Noem says she went back to her truck, retrieved another shell, then “hurried back to the gravel pit and put him down”.

At that point, Noem writes, she realised a construction crew had watched her kill both animals. The startled workers swiftly got back to work, she writes, only for a school bus to arrive and drop off Noem’s children.

“Kennedy looked around confused,” Noem writes of her daughter, who asked: “Hey, where’s Cricket?”

Life in rural America can be a bloody affair. And humans' relationships with animals often do not work out in the animal’s favor. But what is grotesque is the glee with which Noem celebrates her killing ways.

Dear MAGA, be aware there is no more evidence that Noem has any more regard for your life than she does for animals she does not have the desire or ability to train.

Has the Supreme Court gone rogue?

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday April 25, 2024 · 4:46 PM PDT

2024/04/25 · 16:46

Screenshot2024-04-25at3.50.03PM.png — The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present. Front row, left to right: Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

If the Supreme Court thinks former presidents have, or do not have, some or absolute immunity against criminal prosecution, why not just say so now? Why would it take months? Do they have something better to do? Are there other priorities on their to-do list? They may need some time for discussions. And clerks will have to type the decision up and proofread it. However, previous Courts were capable of making important decisions affecting presidents without dawdling.

In 1974, SCOTUS ruled that Nixon had no right to withhold the Oval Office tapes from Congress. It took them 99 days from April 16, when Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski served a subpoena for the tapes, until July 24, when they decided 8-0 to deny Nixon his claimed executive privilege to withhold evidence. Note: The 9th Justice, William Rehnquist, recused himself because of a conflict of interest (he had worked in Nixon’s White House). Are you paying attention, Clarence Thomas?

In 2000, SCOTUS took only three days to decide George W. Bush was the election winner. The Court had stayed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to allow a recount on December 9. They heard oral arguments on December 11. They gave Bush his win on December 12.

In 2024, SCOTUS is lollygagging. Trump’s legal team floated the immunity claim in November 2023. Federal District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan denied it. And her words resonate today. In her opinion, she wrote:

“Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”

She added that Trump’s “four-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens.”

Trump appealed. The DC Appeals Court upheld Chutkan on February 6, 2024. At the time, Jack Smith, sensitive to the election calendar, had requested that SCOTUS — if they were going to take the case on appeal from the DC Court anyway — cut out the middleman and take it up then. SCOTUS declined.

When SCOTUS did decide to hear Trump’s appeal — which they knew they would — they designated April 25 as the date for oral arguments — 144 days after the original claim of immunity. God only knows when they will issue a decision — if they do. There is already scuttlebutt that Chief Justice John Roberts might send the issue back to the lower courts for some more time wasting.

Why the hold-up? Is it possible that between bribes and being in the tank for Trump, five of the Justices are willing to dawdle long enough to see the 2020 loser reelected? What else would explain a delay?

Either their interpretation of the Constitution, case law, tradition, commentary and precedent allows for an unaccountable president — or it does not.

None of them are novices. The youngest Justice, Amy Coney Barrett (52), is 27 years removed from law school. The oldest, Clarence Thomas (75), has been practicing law for 50 years. And between the lot of them, they have over 30 clerks.

If they wanted to get it done, they could. Despite the importance of the ruling, it is not a complex case.

To help them arrive at an appropriate conclusion, they should ask themselves this question: Where is the evidence that the framers of the Constitution intended a President to be free to commit treason, order political assassinations, and take bribes — while an unelected court of lifetime appointees signed off on his criminality?

The Supremes know that the president cannot have cart blanche immunity. They also know that voters should be entitled to know if their prospective president is a crook. The only reason to slow-play the decision is to allow Trump time to win the election. And thus blow up the federal and Georgia cases. And I doubt he is facing jail time in the Manhattan documents case.

Trump will not care about a non-custodial conviction. It will give him more Mandela cred without the incarceration inconvenience. Imagine the merch the MAGAs will vacuum up. It will not even dim his career prospects. He is not applying for a job at Home Depot, where criminals face an uphill struggle. He is asking for a job that has no prohibition on felons.

Had the founders had foresight, they would have tightened up the qualifications for elected office. It is absurd that Trump could be in a position to win an election might not allowed to vote in. However, it did not occur to them that people would willingly vote for an attempted election fixer, document thief, serial bankrupt, and sexual abuser.

Worse, they did not anticipate a major political party would line up behind a felon. Or that major media outlets would unashamedly lie to promote his candidacy. Or that the Supreme Court would sacrifice its honor and reputation to grease a criminal’s skids.

When Sarah Palin called her 2009 autobiography “Going Rogue”, people thought it smacked of small-minded self-congratulation. Who knew it would also be an apt title for a history of the Trump Supreme Court?

SCOTUS hears arguments to decide if the US is a democratic or totalitarian state

TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday April 24, 2024 · 5:22 PM PDT

2024/04/24 · 17:22

Introduction

Even before the ink was dry, people started arguing about what the Constitution meant. But having just thrown off the yoke of monarchy — and fought for political representation — few early Americans would have argued that the document allowed substituting one tyranny for another. Tomorrow, the US Supreme Court will listen to Trump’s lawyers make the case that the risk of tyranny was acceptable to the Founders.

Background

Trump is on trial in the DC Federal District Court for attempting to deny the voters their right to pick their President. In 2020, Joe Biden overcame the built-in bias of the Electoral College, and the sustained attempts by Republican legislatures to disenfranchise Democratic voters, to win the election by 7 million votes.

Federal and state courts affirmed the election's legitimacy multiple times. Trump’s B-team of legal zealots tried 62 times to change the result. They lost 61 times. The one they won was a meaningless procedural victory in PA.

The 2020 loser could not accept he was a loser. Infamously, he encouraged his MAGA followers to march on the Capitol to prevent VP Mike Pence’s pro-forma count of the Electoral College votes.

Courts have convicted almost 900 of those rioters for their role in the attempted insurrection — and sentenced 467 to jail. Those followers discovered that they were not above the law. Their idol is determined not to be among their number.

The District Court denied Trump was special. The DC Appeals Court agreed he was no better than any other American. But the Supreme Court chose to take up the question. And set a leisurely pace for briefs and oral arguments. Finally, on Thursday, they will deign to listen to those arguments.

Meanwhile, as the issue festered for five months, Trump’s trial was dead in the water. And will remain dormant until SCOTUS issues its decision.

The Supreme Court

In arguing that Trump had immunity for his actions between the November 2020 election and the January 2021 storming of the Capitol, Trump’s legal team is essentially conceding that Trump did conspire to:

defraud the United States
obstruct an official proceeding (x2)
against rights (to vote)

Their position is that Trump could commit crimes without penalty because, as President, he had absolute immunity — based on the Constitution, case law, commentary, precedent, and tradition — to do whatever the feck he pleased. The law be damned.

Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors countered that it was a legally unfounded proposition that, as President, Trump was free to commit whatever crimes he cared to. And rational Americans are gobsmacked that there is even a doubt that the President has to follow the laws he swore to uphold.

But when you have a Supreme Court where the criminal (petitioner) has picked three of the Justices (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett) — and two others (Thomas, Alito) are fascism enablers — there is no guarantee that they will do the right thing.

They do not even have to decide in Trump’s favor for them to hand him a win. They can hear arguments tomorrow and sit on their decision until it would be too late to try Trump before the election. If Trump won, he could tell the DOJ to drop the matter. And anyone who thinks that he would willingly leave the White House in 2029 is deluded.

Trump’s argument

Trump’s lawyers have argued various reasons for Trump’s stay-out-of-jail-free card. Their main legal argument is that the Constitution requires a President to be first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for him to face criminal charges after his term ends.

They also say that a President facing the possibility of criminal prosecution would be too scared to do their job. And once out of office, they would be hounded by their political opponents in perpetuity. In addition, they claim that Biden is behind the attempt to hobble his 2024 rival. And that no President has ever faced prosecution before.

It is all bullshit. Nixon could have been charged for his Watergate crimes until Ford pardoned him. This absolution raises the question, why was a pardon necessary if a President has absolute immunity? Bill Clinton also reached a deal to avoid prosecution for lying under oath. Why bother if he had immunity?

As for Presidents hamstrung in office and hounded afterward, that has never happened. Why not? Because, besides Nixon and Clinton, no other President was seriously accused of a crime while doing their job.

And, as this whole saga proves, if they had been, they would have had all the legal protections Trump has enjoyed. Dear God, the Supreme Court is entertaining his totalitarian impulses. How much more proof does a citizen need that American Justice does not allow show trials?

Those will only occur if SCOTUS allows Presidents to have absolute immunity.

Conclusion

I like to think the Supreme Court is pro-democracy. Until 2016, I believed it was. Today, I am not so sure. They have one chance to show they are. They can deny presidents have absolute immunity. And render their decision in weeks, not months. I am not holding my breath.

Newer
Older

RSS