Sonia Sotomayor

Justice Sotomayor’s Blistering Dissent to the Supreme Court’s Gift of Immunity to King Trump

Posted by on July 1, 2024 at 1:25 pm. 3 Comments :

After an interminable, deliberate, and unwarranted delay, the MAGA majority on the Supreme Court has finally ruled that convicted felon Donald Trump has some measure of immunity for so-called “official” conduct as president. It was a 6-3 ruling on predictably ideological lines.

Click here to Tweet this article

Donald Trump, Constitution

What this means in practice is that the president is now unbound by the rule of law and may commit crimes at will with little to no consequences. In other words, what was once the office of the presidency is now the throne of a king. The court did not so much decide on immunity as impunity. And they did so with an election coming up that could return a recidivist criminal (Trump) to office.

SEE THIS: Don’t Even Try It? Trump Issues Threat to ‘Anyone Considering Doing Anything’ Before He’s Elected

The majority opinion delivered to Trump almost everything that he hoped for. And he thanked them in a series of posts on his floundering social media scam, Truth Social.

However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that not only shredded the brazenly biased opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, it also sounded the alarm for the imminent danger that the nation faces in the event of the election of a president who takes advantage of the new totalitarian license provided by a court whose own members (Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) are themselves legally and/or ethically tainted. Sotomayor wrote (with emphasis added) that…

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ‘bold and unhesitating action’ by the President, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.” […]

“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. 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.

“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.”

So what now? First and foremost, Trump must be soundly defeated in November. If reelected he has promised to exact “retribution” on his political foes. That means anyone who is less than unflinchingly loyal to him among members of Congress, judges and prosecutors, state officials, business leaders, private citizens, and journalists and media organizations.

Secondly, Congress must act to undo the atrocity that the Supreme Court has imposed. They must pass laws that explicitly hold the president accountable for crimes that he commits. They must reform the Supreme Court by adding new members, placing term limits on them, and enacting a code of ethics with real consequences for violators.

Finally, they should proceed to impeach Trump for the third time. That’s right. There is nothing that prohibits an impeachment for a former president. And if successful in the House, it can proceed to the Senate, giving them another opportunity to convict Trump and forbid him from holding any federal office. That would at least provide some protection from this particular criminal from becoming president again and committing more crimes under the Court’s now rules.

RELATED STORIES:

Be sure to visit and follow News Corpse
on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and Threads.

And check out my books on Amazon:

Fox Nation vs. Reality:
The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.

Thanks so much for your support.

The Supreme Court Immunity Case is Even Scarier Knowing Trump Threatened to Execute His Critics

Posted by on April 28, 2024 at 2:03 pm. 0 Comments :

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether a president is entitled to immunity for any crimes he or she may commit while in office. Donald Trump has been frantically posting dozens of utterly ludicrous demands for such immunity because he’s currently facing 88 felony charges for violating laws ranging from campaign finance, to election interference, to inciting an insurrection, and even the Espionage Act.

Click here to Tweet this article

Donald Trump

Trump’s signature whining consists entirely of his ridiculous belief that a president cannot function if he has to worry about being prosecuted for unlawful activities. But worrying about being held accountable for criminal acts (e.g. deterrence) is one of the main reasons we have laws. What’s more, not a single president prior to Trump has ever asked for or needed immunity in order to make the difficult decisions required of them.

SEE THIS: Trump Says All Presidents Must Have ‘Total Immunity’ from Crimes – Except for President Biden

The Court specifically addressed certain ghastly hypotheticals in their questioning of Trump’s attorney. And his answers were troubling in the extreme. For instance…

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can give immunity?
Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.

Other equally disturbing scenarios that Trump’s lawyer sanctioned as deserving of immunity were staging a coup, fabricating false slates of electors, and selling nuclear secrets to foreign adversaries. Apparently no act of treason was too much for Trump or the right-wing Justices he appointed.

MORE HERE: Here’s a Summary of the Crimes Trump’s Lawyer Tells the Supreme Court He Has Immunity to Commit

What makes all of this ever more frightening is that it transcends the realm of the hypothetical. In an interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Trump’s former Attorney General, Bill Barr, was asked about a report that he was present when Trump suggested executing an actual person who was suspected of leaking information. Which led to the following exchange…

Collins: Do you remember that?
Barr: I remember him being very mad about that. I actually don’t remember him saying, executing. But I wouldn’t dispute it, you know? I mean, it doesn’t sound — I mean, the President would lose his temper and say things like that. I doubt he would have actually carried it out. I don’t, you know.
Collins: But he would say that on other occasions? You said he would lose his temper.
Barr: The President, you know, the President had a — I think people sometimes took him too literally. And he would say things like, similar to that on occasions, to blow off steam. But I wouldn’t take him literally every time he did it.
Collins: Why not?
Barr: Because at the end of the day, it wouldn’t be carried out, and you could talk sense into him.
Collins: But just because it’s not carried out, and you could talk sense into him, doesn’t that still mean that the threat is there?

So Trump has actually considered assassinating Americans who he regards as political foes. This is no longer just fanciful musing. And Barr’s dismissal of Trump’s overt threats is pitifully weak. What would happen in another Trump administration wherein there was no one to talk him out of his murderous intentions? Which, by the way, is precisely the sort of administration that Trump is already planning, should he be reelected. It’s one that would be populated by unflinching loyalists vetted by his family and cult confederates.

Putting together Trump’s already articulated desire to rule as a brutal tyrant in the mold of his hero, Vladimir Putin, with the acceptance by the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court of such barbaric acts, paints a dire picture of what the United States would become under another Trump regime.

It would effectively make Trump an untouchable dictator, capable of monstrous savagery. Or, as he puts it, “retribution” for the wrongs he believes have been inflicted on him. But it would not be anything remotely recognizable as the America described by its Founders, its Constitution, or the aspirations of its citizens. And it must not be permitted to occur. If the Courts will not prevent it, the people must do so by voting overwhelmingly for democracy and liberty and justice.

Which means voting for Democrats up and down the ballot. Because Republicans like Barr, and Lindsey Graham, and Ted Cruz, and Mike Johnson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, et al, ad infinitum, are all committed to Trump even if he’s convicted of felonious crimes. They’ve said so. Believe them.

RELATED STORIES:

Be sure to visit and follow News Corpse
on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and Threads.

And check out my books on Amazon:

Fox Nation vs. Reality:
The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.

Thanks so much for your support.

Here’s a Summary of the Crimes Trump’s Lawyer Tells the Supreme Court He Has Immunity to Commit

Posted by on April 25, 2024 at 12:39 pm. 3 Comments :

After a needless delay of several weeks, the Supreme Court has finally assembled to hear arguments over whether Donald Trump can be held accountable for the crimes he committed while occupying the White House. He is asserting that an imaginary doctrine of “presidential immunity” relieves him of any responsibility for his overtly anti-democratic actions.

Click here to Tweet this article

Donald Trump, Constitution

Trump has been extraordinarily anxious about this case. He has spent weeks posting dozens of comments on his floundering social media scam, Truth Social, regurgitating ad infinitum the same complaints that without immunity a president would be subject to legal consequences for unlawful behavior. Which, to Trump’s dismay, is exactly what the Constitution requires, and the American people overwhelmingly support.

MORE HERE: Felonious Punk Trump Demands ‘TOTAL IMMUNITY’ – Even for Acts that ‘CROSS THE LINE’

On Thursday the Supreme Court heard the case and engaged in a lively debate with the lawyers representing Trump and special counsel Jack Smith. What follows are a few of the notable questions by the Justices. The answers provided by Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, are so patently preposterous that they require no further commentary.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can give immunity?
Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.

Justice Elena Kagan: How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?
Sauer: If one adopted the test we advanced, that might well be an official act.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: What is plausible about the president assisting in creating a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates? Is that plausible that would be within his right to do?
Sauer: Absolutely.

Justice Elena Kagan: If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?
Sauer: If it’s structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.

And there you have it. The official position of Donald Trump is that he has a right to assassinate his opponents or judges, or journalists; to stage coups against the U.S. government; to undermine democracy by manufacturing slates of fake electors; and to sell nuclear secrets to Russia or any other unfriendly entity. And he believes he should be able to do all of that and more without any consequences, legally or otherwise.

That’s a position for which there is no justification in the Constitution. Moreover, it is also contrary to the long held doctrine that no one in America is above the law. It would effectively make any president who invokes it an untouchable dictator. Which is, of course, precisely why Trump is pursuing it.

Any of the Justices who might be entertaining a finding in Trump’s favor should be careful. Although that would relieve Trump of his current legal problems. It would also give him unprecedented and dangerous powers were he to be reelected. However, it would give President Biden those powers right now.

Are they sure that they want that? Biden, of course, would never consider any of the abhorrent actions that Trump’s lawyer asserts would be permitted. But Biden could find some other less controversial measures to undertake in the defense of democracy that Trump and his conservative justices would find objectionable, including replacing those Justices. Just the prospect of that should lead them to a proper, constitutional conclusion. We’ll see.

RELATED STORIES:

Be sure to visit and follow News Corpse
on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and Threads.

And check out my books on Amazon:

Fox Nation vs. Reality:
The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.

Thanks so much for your support.

Al Franken, Sonia Sotomayor, and Perry Mason

Posted by on July 15, 2009 at 8:58 pm. 3 Comments :

In today’s Senate hearings on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Sen. Al Franken sparked a mystery that has consumed Washington and beyond. Both Sotomayor and Franken were fans of the 1960’s version of Law and Order, “The Perry Mason Show.” Throughout its run, Mason, a defense attorney, had lost only a single case.

Well, after extensive and costly research, I can now reveal what that case was:

The Case of the Deadly Verdict
Janice Barton is found guilty of the murder of her wealthy relative and sentenced to death. Can Perry find the evidence to clear her of the crime before the pellets in the gas chamber fall?

Interestingly, one of the guest stars on the program was an actor named Steve Franken, who may be better known as Chatsworth Osborne, Jr. III from the “The Dobie Gillis Show.” Also on Dobie was Bob Denver (later Gilligan) and Sheila Kuehl (presently a former California State Senator). So you figure out your own “6 degrees” stories.

Palin vs. Sotomayor

Posted by on July 6, 2009 at 7:33 pm. 1 Comments :

So Sarah Palin can no longer abide attacks by political opponents. So she is unwilling to endure the unconscionable smears from the media. So it has become too much to ask her and her family to stand by idly as she is demonized and disparaged. All of these laments were included in Palin’s resignation speech on Friday.

Her defenders in the rightist media concurred with her and launched a PR campaign to spin Palin’s cowardly retreat as an unconventional response to an environment wherein she was mercilessly battered and besmirched. They condemned what they characterized as unfair attacks against the poor defenseless governor and conservative icon.

I wonder if those same Palin defenders will now condemn Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, who is promoting a campaign to defeat Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor with the flier pictured here. The flier that this image comes from describes Sotomayor as “a radical supporter of child-killing.” I wonder if they will consider it to be an unfair and disgusting personal attack. I wonder if they will condemn the rest of her far-right critics who have cast Sotomayor as a racist, or stupid, or Marxist, etc.

It is instructive to note how these two very different women respond to the slings and arrows of public life. Palin, who has a record of quitting when the kitchen gets too hot, is fleeing the scene and leaving the state she pledged to serve in the lurch. Sotomayor is soldiering on and will soon take her place on the nation’s highest court.

The truth is that everyone in public life has had to dodge mud and worse. The only way Palin can expect to avoid getting hit is to stay out of the ring. Yet she seemed to imply that a higher calling compels her to further service on her country’s behalf. Does she think that when she reappears there will be no one who disagrees with her policies or agenda? And when they do, as they inevitably will, is she going to quit again?

Hopefully the lessons learned from these confrontational days are that the real heroes are those who stand for something. The true role models are the ones who don’t back down from adversity. In the future women, and all Americans, will be able to look up to Justice Sotomayor with pride. And, in the best case scenario, we will look back at Palin and laugh.

Fox News: Republicans Divided Over How to Attack Sotomayor

Posted by on May 29, 2009 at 12:21 pm. NO Comments :

An article on FoxNews.com is lamenting the difficult position in which Republicans find themselves with regard to President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court:

“Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court, is posing a conundrum for Republicans who are struggling to unite against a woman they presume will be a reliable vote for liberal causes.

“The GOP doesn’t want to give Sotomayer (sic) a free ride, because they believe she is a judicial activist who will legislate from the bench.”

So what’s the problem? Why don’t they just attack her as a liberal judicial activist? If that’s really their objection to her, it seems that there would be nothing controversial about taking that approach. All they have to do is fire up their slogans about Socialism and set Glenn Beck and his posse loose, and they have the makings of a conventional rightist campaign of obstructionism. The truth is, that isn’t really their objection. The article states that they are…

“…concerned that if they launch a no-holds barred attack on Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to be nominated to the court, they risk alienating a growing minority they want on their side in the voting booth.”

The only way that they can alienate the Hispanic electorate is if they were to oppose Sotomayor on the basis of her race. Consequently, they are inadvertently admitting that that is precisely what they want to do. The argument within the ranks of Republicans is not centered on Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy or record. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and others have already staked their claims that she is a racist, and that her gender renders her susceptible to that peculiarly feminine characteristic of empathy.

It becomes crystal clear that the dilemma facing Republicans, and Fox News, is tied solely to race and gender when you consider this simple scenario: If the nominee were a white male, would they have any hesitation to executing a straightforward campaign criticizing his record as a jurist?

The fact that there is a debate going on in the party at all, and trumpeted in right-wing media, is conclusive evidence that the real subject of the controversy is the nominee’s race and gender. They just don’t want to admit it. And we can count on Fox to obfuscate that truth and to portray the internecine squabble as something more benign. But if they were truly worried about how Sotomayor would rule as a Justice, then why would criticizing that risk their standing amongst Hispanics?

The answer? It wouldn’t. They’re lying. As usual.