AND
HOW COME THE SUPREME COURT DOESN’T GET THAT TRUMP IS A MADMAN WHO COULD DISBAND THE SUPREME COURT AND MURDER ALL OF THEM ON A PSYCHOTIC WHIM?
SEE:
“…Months earlier, on the ballot case, the chief justice had sought consensus. But the immunity decision, which was issued on July 1 and set off a national uproar, reflected a court cleaved sharply in two.
The majority awarded sweeping immunity to Mr. Trump. The opinion did not say whether any of the crimes he had been accused of were fair game for prosecution, even though Mr. Trump’s lawyer had repeatedly conceded in oral arguments that some of the charges against his client appeared to concern purely private acts outside the role of president.
Chief Justice Roberts’s language in the opinion seemed intended to stay above the fray, extending protections to “all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy or party.” But in a withering dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the majority opinion gave Mr. Trump “all the immunity he asked for and more.” It also, she wrote, protected “treasonous acts,” transformed the president into “a king above the law” and ultimately caused her to “fear for our democracy.”
The court’s leader shot back that the liberal justices “strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.”
The immunity ruling proposed three categories of protection for former presidents accused of having committed crimes while in office: absolute immunity for core responsibilities set out in the Constitution, at least presumptive immunity for all other official conduct and no immunity for private acts that fall outside of presidential duties.
But many legal experts said they could not figure out how the ruling should be applied. Even Justice Barrett, who had joined much of the opinion, wrote that it could have been clearer.
One footnote left scholars wondering whether former presidents could ever be prosecuted for taking bribes. An N.Y.U. professor was startled to discover that the opinion, which leaned heavily on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 case on presidential immunity, truncated a quote from that decision, changing its meaning.
Now one person above all others is charged with interpreting the decision in Trump v. United States: Judge Chutkan, who was presiding over the trial that stalled last winter when the chief justice sent his memo and the court took the case. Since then, Mr. Trump has been convicted of falsifying business records in New York, but the sentencing has been deferred until after the election, and three other efforts to prosecute him have, for now at least, run aground.
For the trial before Judge Chutkan to resume, she must examine the indictment, which prosecutors reframed after the Supreme Court ruling, and decide which charges against Mr. Trump can survive.
Both sides will be able to appeal her interpretation of the new immunity rules. More delay is likely to ensue. Her conclusions could be sent up to the appellate court in Washington. And then the very same question, of just how accountable Mr. Trump can be held for trying to overturn an election, will likely return to the nine justices on the Supreme Court.”
The New York Times
How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak
Behind the scenes, the chief justice molded three momentous Jan. 6 and election cases that helped determine the former president’s fate.
By Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak
Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak welcome tips at nytimes.com/tips.
Sept. 15, 2024, 3:00 a.m. ET
AND:
The New York Times
How the False Story of a Gang ‘Takeover’ in Colorado Reached Trump
The claim that Aurora, Colo., has been overrun by gun-toting migrants stemmed from the city’s fight with a landlord. Now it is central to one of former President Donald J. Trump’s anti-immigrant campaign promises.
Sept. 15, 2024
Photographs by Michael CiagloThe New York Times
AND
The New York Times
Elizabeth Warren: What Donald Trump Isn’t Telling Us
Sept. 14, 2024
By Elizabeth Warren
AND
The New York Times
Republicans Don’t Want to Talk About Jan. 6. Trump Can’t Help Himself.
Donald J. Trump has made his revisionist account of the Capitol attack the foundation of this campaign, even when there is little political advantage.
By Charles Homans and Alan Feuer
Sept. 14, 2024, 5:03 a.m. ET
AND
The New York Times
LYDIA POLGREE
Trump Has Crossed a Truly Unacceptable Line
Sept. 14, 2024
AND
Consider his answer to a simple question about child care during a recent appearance before the Economic Club of New York.
Well, I would do that. And we’re sitting down — you know, I was somebody — we had — Senator Marco Rubio and my daughter Ivanka were so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that — because, look, child care is child care. It’s — couldn’t — you know, it’s something — you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly — and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country.
If there was anything of substance in this jumble of half-thoughts and unfinished sentences, it is suffocated under a heavy fog of thick gibberish…
Donald Trump is deteriorating. He is incoherent. He can barely articulate a view on most issues. But on the question of his political opponents, he’s clear. He will punish them if we give him the power to do so.
The New York Times
JAMELLE BOUIE
Trump Makes No Sense and Is Full of Meaning
Sept. 10, 2024
AND
The New York Times
Harris Is Good on Abortion Rights. Now She Needs to Take It to 11.
Sept. 15, 2024, 6:00 a.m. ET
By Cecile Richards
Ms. Richards is a former president of Planned Parenthood.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You can add your voice to this blog by posting a comment.