The Washington Post offers tips on how to keep your EV battery running in frigid temperatures. The link at the end of this graf is supposed to be a "gift link" (from me, Marie Burns, the giftor!), meaning that non-subscribers can read the article. Hope it works: https://wapo.st/3u8Z705
Monday
Jul012024
The Conversation -- July 2, 2024
Philip Marcelo of the AP: "Rudolph Giulian, the former New York City mayor, federal prosecutor and legal adviser to Donald Trump, was disbarred in New York on Tuesday after a court found he repeatedly made false statements about Trump's 2020 election loss. The Manhattan appeals court ruled Giuliani, who had his New York law license suspended in 2021 for making false statements around the election, is no longer allowed to practice law in the state, effective immediately."
Peter Baker, et al., of the New York Times: "In the weeks and months before President Biden's politically devastating performance on the debate stage in Atlanta, several current and former officials and others who encountered him behind closed doors noticed that he increasingly appeared confused or listless, or would lose the thread of conversations.... In interviews, people in the room with him more recently said that the lapses seemed to be growing more frequent, more pronounced and more worrisome.... The recent moments of disorientation generated concern among advisers and allies alike. He seemed confused at points during a D-Day anniversary ceremony in France on June 6. The next day, he misstated the purpose of a new tranche of military aid to Ukraine when meeting with its president. On June 10, he appeared to freeze up at an early celebration of the Juneteenth holiday. On June 18, his soft-spoken tone and brief struggle to summon the name of his homeland security secretary at an immigration event unnerved some of his allies at the event...."
Farnoush Amiri of the AP: "A House Democratic lawmaker has become the first in the party to publicly call for President Joe Biden to step down as the party's nominee for president, citing Biden's debate performance against Donald Trump failing to 'effectively defend his many accomplishments.' Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said in a statement Tuesday..., 'My decision to make these strong reservations public is not done lightly nor does it in any way diminish my respect for all that President Biden has achieved,' Doggett said. 'Recognizing that, unlike Trump, President Biden's first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so.'"
Liz Goodwin, et al., of the Washington Post: "As panic and confusion over President Biden's faltering debate performance swept the ranks of Democratic lawmakers late last week, Sen. Joe Manchin III informed a few key allies that he would soon break with Biden in an interview on a Sunday news show, a high-profile defection that would underscore the president's weakness.... But he didn't. Senior Democrats heard of Manchin's plans and started making calls to the independent-minded senator.... The 'full-court press' was quickly assembled to help dissuade Manchin from appearing on the show...."
Bloody Biden Buddy Bunker. Eli Stokols, et al., of Politico: "Over the course of his presidency, Joe Biden's small clutch of advisers have built an increasingly protective circle around him, limiting his exposure to the media and outside advice -- an effort to manage public perceptions of the oldest person to ever hold the office and tightly control his political operation. But inside the White House, Biden's growing limitations were becoming apparent long before his meltdown in last week's debate, with the senior team's management of the president growing more strictly controlled as his term has gone on.... Following the debate, the pervasive view throughout much of the party is of Biden's inner circle as an impenetrable group of enablers who deluded themselves about his ability to run again even as they've assiduously worked to accommodate his limitations and shield them from view."
** Ben Protess, et al., of the New York Times: "The judge in Donald J. Trump's Manhattan criminal case delayed his sentencing until Sept. 18 to weigh whether a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling might imperil the former president's conviction, the judge said Tuesday in a letter to prosecutors and defense lawyers. The judge, Juan M. Merchan, may ultimately find no basis to overturn the jury's verdict, but the delay was a surprising turn of events in a case that had led to the first conviction of an American president. With the election on the horizon, the sentencing might be the only moment of criminal accountability for the twice-impeached and four-time-indicted former president whose other cases are mired in delay." This is an update of a story linked earlier.
** Ian Millhiser of Vox: "The Court's six Republicans handed down a decision on Monday that gives Donald Trump such sweeping immunity from prosecution that there are unlikely to be any legal checks on his behavior if he returns to the White House. The Court's three Democrats dissented. Trump v. United States is an astonishing opinion. It holds that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution -- essentially, a license to commit crimes -- so long as they use the official powers of their office to do so.... [It is] a blueprint for dictatorship." Millhiser goes on to explain the Court's decision, with nuggets like this: "... Roberts does concede that the president may be prosecuted for 'unofficial' acts. So, for example, if Trump had personally attempted to shoot and kill then-presidential candidate Joe Biden in the lead-up to the 2020 election, rather than ordering a subordinate to do so, then Trump could probably be prosecuted for murder. But even this caveat to Roberts's sweeping immunity decision is not very strong."
Joyce Vance is a good explainer, too. Besides hitting all the low points, she adds, for instance, "The majority opinion closes with a section where the Chief Justice, in a most decidedly uncollegial fashion, criticizes the Justices who dissent. He starts by calling out the dissents for striking 'a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.' Sit down, little ladies, the Chief Justice says." And, "It's remarkable that the Court is able to go on for 43 pages without acknowledging that Donald Trump tried to undo our democracy."
Judd Legum of Popular Information: "The Supreme Court invented this new kind of presidential immunity 235 years after the Constitution was ratified. And it lacks any grounding in the Constitution's text.... In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the President would be 'liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.' This, Hamilton wrote is the key distinction between the 'King of England,' who was 'sacred and invulnerable,'" and the 'President of the United States.'" ~~~
~~~ Marie: I recall reading Federalist No. 69 when I was a freshman in college. Hamilton's words were still true when I read No. 69 in 1963. This, a young girl supposed, is what made the United States great. As of yesterday, the words are not true anymore. So the United States is no longer great. MAGA = Make America God-Awful.
Kate Shaw in a New York Times op-ed: "It is increasingly clear that this court sees itself as something other than a participant in our democratic system. It sees itself as the enforcer of the separation of powers, but not itself subject to that separation.... The court ... has removed a major check on the office of the presidency at the very moment when Mr. Trump is running for office on a promise to weaponize the apparatus of government against those he views as his enemies.... The court in this case announces that an important mechanism of accountability, criminal charges under statutes passed by Congress, is almost entirely unavailable in the context of former presidents.... Justice Samuel Alito [made a] statement last July to The Wall Street Journal about Congress and the court:... 'No provision in the Constitution gives them' -- meaning Congress -- 'the authority to regulate the Supreme Court -- period.' Sub in 'president' for Supreme Court, and that's Monday's opinion in a nutshell. The court's reasoning here is also in line with what Chief Justice John Roberts said to the Senate.... Roberts's brusque refusal [to meet with senators] invoked broad 'separation of powers concerns' that he claimed 'counsel against such appearances.' It is now clear that the Roberts court believes the separation of powers means that both presidents and courts stand beyond the reach of the law."
Israel/Palestine, et al. The New York Times is live-updating developments Tuesday in the Israel/Hamas war here.
~~~~~~~~~~
As the Nation Falls
Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that ... Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution, delivering a major statement on the scope of presidential power. The ruling will almost surely delay the trial of the case against him on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election past the coming election in November. The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Mr. Trump had at least presumptive immunity for his official acts. He added that the trial judge must undertake an intensive factual review to separate official and unofficial conduct and to assess whether prosecutors can overcome the presumption protecting Mr. Trump for his official conduct. That will entail significant delays, and the prospects for a trial before the election seem vanishingly remote." ~~~
~~~ Here's the decision, concurring opinions and dissents, via the Court. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ From the New York Times liveblog:
Charlie Savage: "The Supreme Court has ruled 6 to 3 that former presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in office.... The Supreme Court has remanded the case to the Federal District Court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which former President Trump has been charged -- which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity and which are official ones he undertook as president."
Alan Feuer: "... one of the practical effects of it on Trump;s federal election case in Washington is that he will now enjoy immunity from any allegation in the indictment concerning his dealings with the Justice Department. Recall that one of the main accusations was that Trump sought to install a loyalist, Jeff Clark, as acting attorney general in order, the indictment says, to do his bid in claiming there was fraud in the election.... Another practical effect on the ruling; The justices have ordered that the trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, will have to determine whether Trump is immune from prosecution on allegations related to his pressure campaign on ... Mike Pence."
Savage: "As Justice Sotomayor's appalled dissent makes clear, this ruling is a dramatic expansion of presidential power -- not just for Trump but for all presidents. She cites the notorious World War II ruling that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast. '... The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.... "
Savage: “In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the legitimacy of the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith: 'If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.' That is an issue that the judge in the Trump classified documents case, Aileen Cannon, just held a hearing about. Notably, none of the other eight justices joined his concurring opinion."
Maggie Haberman: "Trump posted a victorious message on his social media site, Truth Social: 'BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!'"
Feuer: "Chief Justice Roberts's ruling expresses skepticism that Trump could be prosecuted for the speech he gave on Jan. 6 or any of his tweets that day. Roberts notes that 'most of a president's public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.' But he leaves open the possibility that Trump could face charges for his words if they were delivered as 'a candidate for office'."
Adam Liptak: "Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejecting calls for their disqualification, participated in the decision on the scope of ... Donald J. Trump's immunity from prosecution. Experts in legal ethics have said that the activities of the justices' wives raised serious questions about their impartiality."
Simon Levien: "In a call with reporters, the Biden campaign is using the decision to sound an alarm. 'They just handed Donald Trump the keys to a dictatorship,' Quentin Fulks, the deputy campaign manager, said. 'We have to do everything in our power to stop him.'"
Feuer: "Here's one of the sleeper holdings in the court's ruling: The decision finds not only that a president can't be charged for any official acts, but also that evidence involving official acts can't be introduced to bolster accusations made about unofficial acts. If I'm reading this right, Chief Justice Roberts has reversed himself from his position during oral arguments." (Also linked yesterday.)
~~~ CNN's liveblog is here.~~~
From Justice Sotomayor's "scathing" dissent, joined by Kagan & Jackson: "Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.... With fear for our democracy, I dissent.'" (Also linked yesterday.)
Marie: One thing justices do when there is disagreement on a decision is "talk to" each other in their opinions and dissents. As an example, in the NYT liveblog of the decision, Charlie Savage pointed to Amy Coney Barrett's concurrence in which "She disagreed with the majority's holding that the Constitution does not permit prosecutors to tell a jury about an ex-president's official actions that are relevant to some private action being charged.... [So] In a footnote of the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts addressed Justice Barrett's example.... He disagreed that the court's ruling meant prosecutors could not mention any official act, saying 'of course' prosecutors could point to the public record to show that a president performed the official act in question."~~~
~~~ BUT THEN. Andrew Weissmann pointed out that Roberts made no attempt to answer or refute Justice Sotomayor's catalogue of horrors: "... the President is now a king above the law. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune." That is, Roberts tacitly admits that Sotomayor is right: the president can do whatever he wants, exactly what Trump himself infamously asserted when he said he "had an Article II." ~~~
~~~ Update. Weissmann is not quite right. As Patrick Marley of the WashPo notes in a story linked below, &"The dissenters, Roberts wrote, were engaging in 'fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.'" Gosh, Johnnie boy, your reassurance would be a tad more convincing if Trump had not already proposed (see linked story below) military tribunals to prosecute a boatload of federal officlals and former officials for treason. Not an "extreme hypothetical," Chief, but a real thing proposed by the very real reprobate to whom you have granted immunity in this disastrous opinion. And, you know, if you don't keep on toeing the line, Johnnie-O, you could find yourself in the dock, too.
Philip Bump of the Washington Post: This decision came about "largely because of the systematic advantages Republicans have enjoyed in the Senate and thanks to the electoral college." Bump does the arithmetic. MB: I suppose it's ironic that the U.S.'s form of democracy has failed again because it is inherently not democratic but privileges minorities, well, to a fault. The attempt to appease the minority was surely the cause of the 1860 Civil War. It was only a matter of time, perhaps, before that same flaw ruptured the constitutional order again.
** Scott Lemieux in LG&$: "The incredibly cynical and lawless two-step the Republican Party engaged in -- Trump shouldn't be impeached because he can be prosecuted, and he can't be prosecuted because he could have been impeached -- has been enshrined into 'constitutional law.'... This is enough to make Roberts the 21st century Taney in itself.... Much of Roberts's opinion ... provides an indefensible answer to a question it didn't need to ask to address this case in the first place."
Michael Shear of the New York Times: "President Biden warned on Monday that the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity meant that there were 'virtually no limits on what the president can do' and urged voters to prevent ... Donald J. Trump from returning to the White House freed from the constraints of the law.... 'I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers, as I have for three and a half years,' Mr. Biden said on Monday night. 'But any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law.' Mr. Biden said he agreed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that 'with fear for our democracy, I dissent.' Mr. Biden echoed her language as he concluded his remarks. 'I dissent,' he said. 'May God bless you all and may God help preserve our democracy.'"
Patrick Marley of the Washington Post: "The court's decision raised fears [among scholars] that a future president will be able to act with impunity because official acts of the president have been deemed off limits from prosecution.... They warned of future presidents unbound from the rule of law who could freely engage in criminal activity. And they pointed to the prospect of a second term for Donald Trump -- the man whose indictment on charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election prompted the Supreme Court to weigh in -- as a moment when their worst fears could be realized.... In an all-caps post on social media, Trump praised the ruling as a 'BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND WISE' decision that would causes charges against him to disappear or 'WITHER INTO OBSCURITY.'"
Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times: "Yesterday, in a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, the Supreme Court affirmed Nixon's bold assertion of presidential immunity.... This time when the president does it, it really won't be illegal.... Ruling on the federal prosecution of Donald Trump for his role in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the president has 'absolute immunity' for 'official acts' when those acts relate to the core powers of the office.... And while the majority might say here that the president is still subject to criminal prosecution for 'unofficial acts,' Sotomayor aptly notes that the chief justice has created a standard that effectively renders nearly every act official if it can be tied in some way, however tenuously, to the president's core powers."
Marie: As shocking, backward-looking & disruptive as Dobbs is, yesterday's ruling is even worse. Our government provides a mechanism to reverse Dobbs. Congress can override it. But Congress cannot reverse Trump. Yesterday, I described the U.S. as the world's biggest banana republic. But it's worse than that. Most so-called banana republics have constitutions and laws which require their leaders to behave lawfully. Their practices, not the letter of their laws, allow for corrupt official behavior. But the United States now has a formal legal document condoning, encouraging & inviting presidential* corruption. There are no legal means to reverse what six unscrupulous judges have wrought. We are watching the free-fall of the United States. ~~~
~~~ Update: It occurs to me that the one way to get rid of a lawless president* would be to impeach & convict him. But we now know that even when the president*'s men physically attack members of Congress, the Senate cannot muster 67 votes to impeach him & disqualify him from running for re-election. So even though impeachment is a theoretical possibility for a quick resolution to a presidential* crisis, it turns out not to be a realistic solution, even in the most dramatic and violent of circumstances. (And the president* could still refuse to leave office, with the aid of military forces he had commandeered.) ~~~
~~~ Oh, I see Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has found another good use for impeachment: ~~~
~~~ Zachary Leeman of Mediaite: "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced on Monday she intends to file articles of impeachment following the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. 'The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control,' she wrote on X. 'Today's [Monday's] ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.'... Impeaching a Supreme Court Justice would be quite an uphill climb...." It isn't clear who-all AOC has in mind to impeach.
Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post: "The risk is no longer just that Donald Trump will evade responsibility for his actions as president, though that seems close to foreordained by Monday's [Supreme Court] ruling. It is that he will be emboldened by the protection the court just gave him to behave even more unconscionably in a second term.... Before Monday's ruling, no previous president imagined that he had immunity from criminal prosecution -- and they somehow managed to engage in plenty of 'bold and unhesitating action.'" Read on if you have a WashPo subscription. Marcus lays out the extent of the permanent get-out-of-jail-free card the Supremes have issued presidents*.
Ben Protess & William Rashbaum of the New York Times: "Donald J. Trump began an effort on Monday to throw out his recent criminal conviction in Manhattan and postpone his upcoming sentencing, citing a new Supreme Court ruling that granted him broad immunity from prosecution for official actions he took as president, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. In a letter to the judge overseeing the case, Mr. Trump's lawyers sought permission to file a motion to set aside the verdict, doing so just hours after the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling involving one of Mr. Trump's other criminal cases. The letter will not be public until Tuesday at the earliest, after which prosecutors will have a chance to respond. The move from Mr. Trump's lawyers came 10 days before the judge was set to sentence the former president for his crimes in Manhattan, where a jury convicted him on 34 felony counts related to his cover-up of a sex scandal in the run-up to the 2016 election." The NBC News story is here. ~~~
~~~ Marie: Not sure how signing checks to pay off a porn star is an "official act," but I'm certain John Roberts can find a way.
Chris Cameron of the New York Times: "... Donald J. Trump over the weekend escalated his vows to prosecute his political opponents, circulating posts on his social media website invoking 'televised military tribunals' and calling for the jailing of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and former Vice President Mike Pence, among other high-profile politicians. Mr. Trump, using his account on Truth Social on Sunday, promoted two posts from other users of the site that called for the jailing of his perceived political enemies. One post that he circulated on Sunday singled out Liz Cheney..., and called for her to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals. 'Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is guilty of treason,' the post said. 'Retruth if you want televised military tribunals.'
"A separate post included photos of 15 former and current elected officials that said, in all-capital letters, 'they should be going to jail on Monday not Steve Bannon!' Those officials included Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, Mr. Pence, Mr. Schumer and Mr. McConnell -- the top leaders in the Senate -- and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker. The list in the second post also had members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, including Ms. Cheney and the former Illinois congressman Adam Kinzinger, another Republican, and the Democratic Representatives Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren and Bennie Thompson, who chaired the committee." ~~~
~~~ Marie: These sham trials would be "official acts," so all perfectly legal. It's true that it would not be the president* who carried out these military tribunals but other officials, so you might think those officials would be afraid of being prosecuted for participating in extra-legal tribunals. But no. As Patrick noted in yesterday's thread, the president* can -- and would -- pardon these officials.
Lindsay Whitehurst & Susan Haigh of the AP: "Longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon was taken into custody Monday after surrendering at a federal prison to begin a four-month sentence on contempt charges for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol attack. Bannon arrived at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut, around noon and was formally taken into federal custody, the Bureau of Prisons said. Speaking to reporters, Bannon called himself a 'political prisoner,' said ... Donald Trump was 'very supportive' of him and slammed Democrats, including Attorney General Merrick Garland. 'I am proud of going to prison,' Bannon said, adding he was 'standing up to the Garland corrupt DOJ.'" (Also linked yesterday.)
Jenny Gathright of the Washington Post: "Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) was charged with a weapons violation Friday at Dulles International Airport after security officers found an unloaded handgun in her carry-on bag, authorities said. A spokesperson for Spartz, 45, on Monday acknowledged the incident and said that the congresswoman had been able to proceed to an international flight." CNN's report is here.
Anna Phillips of the Washington Post: "The Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed a rule Tuesday outlining steps employers must take to protect indoor and outdoor workers from the risk of heat illness, the first major regulation aimed at preventing heat-related deaths on the job. The rule, if finalized, could add protections for 35 million workers nationwide. But it will face opposition from industry groups and major hurdles beyond that, including the possibility that Donald Trump could win a second term and block the rule from becoming final." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Oh, it's worse than that. Last week the Supremes decided that the courts would curb the decisions of regulatory agencies like OSHA. So let's put Neil Gorsuch (who wrote the anti-deference opinion) on OSHA's case. We already know he thinks workers should literally freeze to death if that's what their companies demand, so we don't have to ponder how he feels about requiring corporations not to let workers die of heat stroke.
Idiocracy Rules. Maxine Joselow of the Washington Post: "A federal court on Monday blocked the Biden administration's pause on approving new facilities that export liquefied natural gas, dealing another legal blow to the president's ambitious climate agenda. In a decision issued late Monday, U.S. District Judge James D. Cain Jr. ruled in favor of Louisiana and 15 other Republican-led states that had challenged the move. The judge, who was appointed by Donald Trump, wrote that the pause 'is completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy [sic].'" MB: Maybe Cain means "ideology"? If it's any consolation, I'm not sure he knows what "epiphany" means, either; in context, it seems misplaced.
Presidential Race
Shane Goldmacher of the New York Times: "Around [President] Biden, a siege mentality has set in for a team that remembers -- and is fond of repeating -- how it outlasted the doubters four years ago to win the nomination in the first place.... Mr. Biden has visibly aged, as most presidents do. But as early as late 2021, the White House physician had noticed a change, observing more frequent and severe 'throat clearing' and a gait that was 'perceptibly stiffer' than a year earlier.... Mr. Biden's handlers insisted he could handle a re-election campaign even as their handling of him gave hints otherwise. He began using the shorter stairs to board Air Force One after his tripping went viral. He has done fewer news conferences than his predecessors. He passed on a pregame Super Bowl interview. His events have become intentionally shorter, too."
Dan Balz of the Washington Post: "... the drubbing that French President Emmanuel Macron's party took in elections on Sunday should come as a warning to President Biden, his campaign and the whole of the Democratic Party.... The National Rally is led by Marine Le Pen. It is a hard-right, nationalistic, anti-immigration party with antisemitic roots.... Macron bet that he could force voters to confront the prospect of Le Pen's party in power and that they would recoil from that future.... He pushed every possible button to rally voters to reject what Le Pen's party offers.... In the first of two rounds of voting, he lost in spectacular fashion.... For Biden and the Democrats, one lesson from Sunday's voting in France seems clear. Trying to scare voters with grim predictions of what a Trump victory would mean for the future of American democracy might not be sufficient to win in November."
Tim Miller in the Bulwark takes apart Democratic gaslighting of President Biden's debate performance. No, it was not "just a bad night" similar to those Presidents Obama & Reagan had in their first presidential debates of the year. Thanks to laura h. for the link. (Also linked yesterday.)
Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times: "Though Joe Biden's debate performance last week was among the most painful things I've ever witnessed, it at least seemed to offer clarity. Suddenly, even many people who love this president realized that his campaign has become untenable.... Since then, several news reports have made it clear that the Biden we all saw onstage is familiar to those who see him behind the scenes.... As long as there's time to replace Biden, Democrats should not allow themselves to be bullied into fatalism and complacency."
"Lady MacBiden." Jacob Bernstein of the New York Times: "The August cover of Vogue featuring Dr. Jill Biden was released online Monday -- four days after the big debate -- and brought with it a fresh round of scrutiny over her role as a die-hard campaigner for her husband, who is locked in a nail-biting campaign for re-election.... Dr. Biden took center stage after Mr. Biden struggled to finish his sentences during a dismal debate performance on Thursday against ... Donald J. Trump. Afterward, The New York Times reported that Dr. Biden was the first person he had turned to: 'The first lady's message to him was clear: They'd been counted out before, she was all in, and he -- they -- would stay in the race.'... Soon after the magazine posted the cover image to its Instagram account on Monday, the comments were overwhelmingly negative." ~~~
~~~ Marie: If I were Vogue editor Anna Wintour, I would have rushed another cover story to print: maybe Steve Bannon with his lovely layered-shirts look (perfect for summer!) and the question of what-all he will be wearing under his orange jumpsuit. Really, people who run things should leave more decisions to me.
Marie: It takes a lot to get Jim VandeHei & Mike Allen of Axios concerned about the dim prospects for Western liberal democracy in the U.S., but darned if Trump and the Supremes didn't do it: "Former President Trump, if re-elected, plans to immediately test the boundaries of presidential and governing power, knowing the restraints of Congress and the courts are dramatically looser than during his first term, his advisers tell us.... It's not just the Supreme Court ruling on Monday that presidents enjoy substantial legal immunity for actions in office. Trump would come to office with a Cabinet and staff pre-vetted for loyalty, and a fully compliant Republican coalition in Congress -- devoid of critics in positions of real power.... Trump promises an unabashedly imperial presidency -- one that would turn the Justice Department against critics, deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally, slap 10% tariffs on thousands of products, and fire perhaps tens of thousands of government staff deemed insufficiently loyal. He'd stretch the powers of the presidency in ways not seen in our lifetime. He says this consistently and clearly -- so it's not conjecture." Read on.
~~~~~~~~~~
France. The Center Did Not Hold. Roger Cohen of the New York Times: "An era has ended in France. The seven-year domination of national politics by President Emmanuel Macron was laid to rest by his party's overwhelming defeat in the first round of parliamentary elections on Sunday. Not only did he dissolve Parliament by calling a snap vote, he effectively dissolved the centrist movement known as 'Macronism.' The far-right National Rally, in winning a third of the vote, did not guarantee that it will win an absolute majority in a runoff six days from now, although it will likely get close. But Mr. Macron, risking all by calling the election, did end up guaranteeing that he will be marginalized, with perhaps no more than a third of the seats his party now holds."
News Lede
Washington Post: "Hurricane Beryl is now a 'potentially catastrophic' Category 5 hurricane, the earliest ever to reach that strength in the Atlantic. The storm, fueled by record-warm waters, made landfall on Grenada's Carriacou Island on Monday as an 'extremely dangerous' Category 4 hurricane with winds that had increased to 150 mph. Grenada and the nation of St. Vincent and the Grenadines were reeling from a storm that probably will be the region's most intense hurricane on record."
20 Comments
Reader Comments (20)
I think judge cain meant to write "epitome". "Epiphany" passes the spell check and sounds impressive, but it's wrong.
@NiskyGuy: Ha! I'll bet you're right. Thanks. What a dunce that guy is.
Absolutely evil. The blackest day in US history. Even worse? Blacker days to come now that the Supreme Traitors have declared Trump an untouchable god.
Call it judges taking care of their own:
In the last week we've had both the presidential immunity and the Chevron decisions. In each case SCOTUS decided that only courts can decide.
Which presidential behaviors qualify as official acts? Or which regulatory acts fall within the limits prescribed legislation action?
Both decisions must make the ghost of Justice Marshall smile. Both are the ultimate in make work programs for lawyers...
One more thought: These very Catholic decisions are especially frightening coming as they do from self-styled high priests and priestesses.
Back when I took a course to become a soccer referee, I concluded that soccer was a Catholic sport insofar as the determination of which foul to call depended heavily on the referee's assessment of intent or perceived harm. In other words, even in cases when fouls or dirty-seeming play were obvious to others, only the referee's judgement counted.
Seemed very theocratic to me then--and now.
Unsure how paying off a porn star for her silence before being elected President can be shoehorned into Presidential Immunity, but apparently John Roberts was concerned that we might prosecute George Washington for chopping down that cherry tree. Although, considering this Court's recent decisions, Trump could probably just raise the spectre that E. Jean and Merchan engaged in malicious persecution because of his fervent Christianity. If I were Jack Smith, I would be mulling all those hours I spent sifting through laws that apparently were illusory.
The Trump may have been thinking of idiocracy, the Mike Judge movie about the American future after a second Trump term.
Now we know why there was so much crying at the Supreme Court.
It is funny that John Roberts thinks he is immune from Trump's wrath. Trump only remembers the slights and Roberts didn't help him during the coup. Roberts was singled out by the Right for standing in their way of some of their agenda when he was still trying to preserve the image of the court. Now that he has gone all in with MAGA and GOP's dream hellscape he thinks all will be forgiven. I hope he is wrong.
@RAS: Yes to all that. Ditto to @Akhilleus. It is just hard to believe that any person holding a U.S. law degree would come up with a ruling like the one Johnnie & the Dwarfs devised. If anything, it would be to their benefit to cut the president* down a peg because -- generally speaking -- the less power a president* has, the more power the Supremes have. Primarily, the ruling is as destructive as any Supreme Court opinion since Dred Scott (although Plessie & Koramatsu are contenders), but it's also a head-scratcher. As the Supine Supremes have given, so Trump will taketh away more.
Update: I just read Kate Shaw's NYT op-ed (linked at the top of the page) where she argues that Roberts & the Gang figure the Supremes are entitled to the same immunity from prosecution that the president* is. Her argument makes a lot of sense, so I'll stand corrected. But RAS is still right: woe to the Supreme who defies a newly-empowered Donald Trump.
Re the recent SCOTUS decisions:
Aphorisms have been around forever, because they contain truth and pertinence.
Here's one: "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
Let's hope that really applies to persons and not whole societies. Half the country may be afflicted, but we can probably move past this.
@Patrick: I admire and appreciate your optimism, but I cannot share it. It would require an alignment of the stars more favorable than has ever occurred in our history. Not impossible (see U.K.). But not likely, either (see France).
And I would note that because of the Electoral College, gerrymandering in the House, and a Senate that does not come close to representing the majority of our citizens but is nonetheless charged with confirming SCOTUS appointments, neither the House, Senate, the presidency nor the SCOTUS has any incentive or obligation to accede to the will of the people.
And they've figured that out.
Democracy....blowin' in the wind...
I just had an epiphany. If the MAGAs think trump is God, who do
they believe is Jesus? Jr., Eric or Barron?
@Forrest Morris: Uh, I think for some reason (perhaps because he was so good-looking) it's JFK Jr. But you have proved one thing that slipped past me: "epiphany of idiocracy" does make sense in at least one context.
Thanks, everybody, for comments. I feel like everything has really imploded and I am not sure any of us would have any idea how to make lemonade out of these lemons. Yesterday, the more the discussion airs on MSNBC, was as horrible a day as I can remember, including the day Fatso was elected. Not only was he crowned as the imperial monarch, Dumbo Roberts completed his bucket list which began somewhere in the vicinity of GWB being appointed prez over Gore. I so regret every Democrat since behaving in a rational, sensitive way in response to the evil seeping through every crack of our country. I now see that there was never any future for any Democrat or democratic ideals, what with gerrymandering, the electoral college and voting rights attacks, to say nothing of the filibuster and those with pull, like Schumer. None of this is ordinary. All of this spells doom to what we thought was a working democracy.
Add to that, the possible coverup of Biden's condition, well, I just can't, as the kiddies say.
@Jeanne: It's 5:00 P.M. in Iceland. It's really cold here in Michigan,
so I'm going to pretend we're in Iceland and start cocktail hour soon.
Happy Five O'clock Everywhere, Forrest! I plan to drive to the pool and sit there, with a book, then return home for a nice vodka tonic with lots of lime and Schwepp's, although those little cans are hard to find these days. I think we are all feeling it. Went to a doc appointment for coming cataract removal, and my little lady doctor asked me in all seriousness if I was feeling stress...
So Trump's sentencing is postponed until September. How much pressure will be put on the judge to "go easy" as any penalties at all would be election interference? How quickly could an appeal reach the Supremes if he doesn't? In short, the fat felon is gonna walk.
More on my congressperson's decision to "call on President Joe Biden to step down as his party’s nominee for the White House on Tuesday citing the president’s poor performance at a debate against former President Donald Trump"
Lloyd Doggett calls on Biden to withdraw
Thanks for the posting @laura hunter. There is also this:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/02/biden-replacement-00166318