Tag: supreme court
Supreme Court

During State Of The Union, Biden Put Supreme Court On Blast Over Abortion

President Joe Biden’s fiery State of the Union address on Thursday was made even stronger with some near-seamless ad-libs. None were more unexpected or more effective than when he directly took on the Supreme Court justices over their 2022 decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion.

Biden’s prepared remarks included a reference to the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, quoting Justice Samuel Alito’s excuse that the matter of abortion access should be handled at the ballot box in the states: “Women are not without electoral or political power.” Biden extemporaneously turned that passage into a direct attack on the high court.

“In its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court majority wrote the following—and with all due respect, justices—‘women are not without electoral or political power,’” Biden said, directly addressing the six judges attending. “You’re about to realize just how much you were right about that.”

“Clearly, those bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade have no clue about the power of women, but they found out when reproductive freedom was on the ballot, we won in 2022 and we will win again in 2024,” Biden continued. “If you, the American people, send me a Congress that supports the right to choose, I promise you I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again.”

That’s an “astonishing” moment in a state of the union, said Lawrence O’Donnell, the MSNBC commentator and former Senate aide. “There was that moment that I think we all remember of the way he attacked—I guess, is the word for it—the Supreme Court to their faces, where the camera then goes to this shot of the six SCOTUS justices, three of whom he was very specifically attacking,” he said.

Three, that is, because Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the author of the horribly momentous Dobbs decision, didn’t bother to show. “That’s never been done before, to the extent that a president has a disagreement with the Supreme Court expressed in the State of the Union address,” O’Donnell continued. “That was just astonishing.”

It’s not just astonishing. It’s a critical admonishment to the Supreme Court, which still has some democracy-defining decisions to make this term, not the least of which is whether an insurrectionist ex-president is above the law.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Former President Donald Trump

These Are The Ways Trump Will Destroy Liberty In A Second Term

Apparently interpreting the Supreme Court's decision on the 14th Amendment as a personal vote of confidence, Donald Trump pushed his luck, urging the justices to rule swiftly that he has absolute immunity as well.

That is not likely. Most observers thought the court would reject Colorado's action because permitting it would have invited chaos in the middle of an ongoing election and because the court husbands its legitimacy. Had it upheld Colorado's disqualification, the court would instantly have become a hate object for 70% of Republicans, who would have perceived its ruling as baldly political, denying to voters their free choice of candidate.

The presidential immunity claim is another matter. A ruling that completely adopted Trump's position in that case would essentially gut the Constitution, permitting a president to accept bribes, use taxpayer money to build a series of palaces for himself all over the world, or arrest and torture his critics. As the D.C. Circuit Court put it: "At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches."

Here's the rub: If Trump is reelected in November, he will essentially have total immunity, regardless of what the court says.

A reelected Trump would have the voters' imprimatur for lawlessness. If he wins in November, the message from voters will be: Yes, we know he mishandled the most sensitive classified documents and obstructed justice rather than return them. And we know he caused the deaths of millions of COVID patients by lying about the threat of the virus and discouraging precautions. And we know he invited his followers to threaten and harass innocent election workers, secretaries of state and governors. And we know that he called for shoplifters to be shot on sight and said the Constitution should be terminated. We know he said he'd be a dictator for a day. Above all, we know that he attempted to subvert the peaceful transfer of power and remain in office despite the will of the people. And we chose him anyway. Reelection would grant absolution for all of it.

The supposed guardrails of democracy are already creaking and groaning at the prospect of another Trump term. Just look at the state of the GOP. As a "might be" president, he is already able to dictate the composition of the Republican National Committee, rig a primary in Nevada, kill a border bill that would have given Republicans 90% of what they've been demanding for years and undermine Republican support for Ukraine.

Now imagine that Trump is president again and instructs the Justice Department to bring treason charges against Jack Smith. Who will stop him? The carefully vetted MAGA lawyers he has hired precisely for their loyalty?

What if he instructs the IRS to audit and fine Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, George Conway, and hundreds of other prominent critics? This violates IRS rules. But will IRS employees, again hired for loyalty to Trump, demur? After all, he did run on the promise, "I am your retribution," and his voters agreed.

What if he directs the SEC to investigate banks that refuse to loan the Trump Organization money? Would any whistleblower risk his job or worse?

What if, in response to street demonstrations, Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and federalizes the national guard, allowing the military to shut down protests and arrest (or worse) demonstrators without cause?

In Trump's first term, he was partially thwarted by strong institutions, yes — but above all by a deep commitment to the rule of law among the citizens of this country. A mid-level NSC staffer found the courage to defy the president's illegal and immoral acts because of his deep faith in the people's values. As Alexander Vindman said to his father, who, having grown up in the totalitarian USSR, worried about what might happen to his son for opposing the president, "Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth."

Except he wasn't. Not quite. He and (for spite) his twin brother were fired from the NSC. His military promotion was put on hold. He was harassed. It would be far, far worse in a second Trump term. Would there even be Alexander Vindmans in a second Trump presidency?

Doubtful. The mob justice that Trump has practiced and been rewarded for would intimidate nearly all. And they would not be enough to preserve constitutional democracy.

As Judge Learned Hand said in his 1944 "Spirit of Liberty" speech:

"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."

On April 22, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on presidential immunity and will perhaps issue a ruling full of pious talk about the rule of law. But the words will be empty if Trump is elected.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Cindy Hyde-Smith

Senate Republicans Reject IVF Protection They Promised To Support

Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois asked Wednesday for unanimous consent to pass her bill granting federal protections to IVF and other advanced fertility treatments, to prevent more states from doing what the Alabama Supreme Court did to shut the practice down.

All Republicans had to do was to not object to that. They wouldn’t have even had to take a roll call vote on it. But as soon as Duckworth asked her Senate colleagues across the aisle to put their money where their mouth is, Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippiobjected, proving that all of the recent insistence from Republicans about wanting to protect IVF is nothing more than lip service.

It’s not that they don’t want to protect these key reproductive rights, most Republicans argued this week. It’s just not their job to do it. No, they say, the states will take care of all that, because the Supreme Court said so.

For example, Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas said: “I don’t see any need to regulate it at the federal level … I think the Dobbs decision puts this issue back at the state level, and I would encourage your state legislations to protect in-vitro fertilization.”

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana joined in on the buck-passing. “The Dobbs decision said that abortion is not part of the Constitution,” he said, “and they said we’re sending the issue back to the states, and I think that’s where it belongs.”

“Alabama will pass a law to protect IVF,” said Alabama’s Sen. Katie Britt.

Right. Here’s what Alabama is doing to “protect” IVF: proposing legislation that does not challenge the state supreme court ruling that frozen embryos are children, leaves IVF clinics open to lawsuits if they destroy those embryos (a regular part of the process), and automatically expires early next year—after the election. So much for that idea.

Other Republicans are trying to flip the script, saying that this is just about Democrats playing political games on the issue. “It’s idiotic for us to take the bait,” said Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio. Apparently taking the “bait” is making sure IVF is protected.

This all shows once again the trap Republicans created for themselves, claiming that life begins at conception and abortion is a crime but IVF—a process in which many fertilized eggs are going to be destroyed—is different somehow, but still not worth protecting from government restrictions. And they know very well that they’ve dug themselves a hole.

Iowa’s Sen. Joni Ernst says she supports access to IVF, but “I don’t want to say they’re not children.” And Wyoming’s Sen. Cynthia Loomis insists “we desperately want to protect in vitro fertilization,” but, you know, there’s stuff that has to be figured out first.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida attempted to be thoughtful about the mess they’re in.

“How do our laws recognize the dignity of human life but also understand that the procedure that it enables is a life-creating procedure?” he said. “No one has IVF to destroy life, they have IVF to create life,” he said. “Unfortunately, you have to create multiple embryos, and some of those are not used, then you’re now in a quandary.”

So to recap: Republicans love IVF and want to protect it, but letting a bill pass that would do just that? Nope. Not their job.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

'Discredited' Supreme Court Issues 'Traitorous' Writ In Trump Immunity Case

'Discredited' Supreme Court Issues 'Traitorous' Writ In Trump Immunity Case

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announced Wednesday it would hear former President Donald Trump's argument claiming absolute broad immunity from federal prosecution, which is being viewed as a gift to Trump in his efforts to delay a trial until after the November election.

According to CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic, SCOTUS won't hear oral arguments in the immunity case until April 22. And as Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney tweeted, the Court "could tee up his trial for August or September" assuming it doesn't take too long to issue a ruling after the late April hearing. However, he added "the trial is unlikely to come much earlier than that, given [US District Judge] Chutkan's promise to ensure he has another few months of prep."

Following the Court's issuing of a writ of certiorari on Wednesday, numerous legal experts and journalists blasted SCOTUS on social media for what they viewed as a decision in Trump's favor.

"[SCOTUS] will prematurely hear a completely frivolous claim that if sustained, would allow any POTUS to commit crimes with almost unbridled immunity," tweeted Richard Signorelli, a former assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. "This will delay his federal 1/6 trial indefinitely. A political and traitorous decision from a totally discredited SCOTUS."

The announcement to take up Trump's immunity case was unexpected, given that a DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued a scathing ruling earlier this month ripping apart the ex-president's argument that he should enjoy permanent immunity from any and all criminal acts as a former head of state. Vanity Fair special correspondent Molly Jong-Fast made a Beatles reference, tweeting Trump "gets by with a little help from his friends... On the Supreme Court." And when looping in the immunity question with other Trump-related cases SCOTUS is currently weighing, law professor Anthony Michael Kreis called the current SCOTUS term "the most important... since Reconstruction." Others observed that it wasn't out of the question for the 6-3 conservative majority to rule in Trump's favor, thus eliminating his two federal indictments in one fell swoop.

"I don't think it's sunk in with people that Trump is asking the Dobbs Court to rule that he's literally above the law and they apparently might do it," tweeted journalist Matthew Yglesias, defining the Court by the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. Mississippi-based journalist Ashton Pittman piled on the Court, writing that Wednesday's decision could "help Trump potentially avoid having to go to trial in the January 6th case before the election—or ever, possibly."

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted that the likelihood of Trump's election interference trial happening before the November election was slim, and noted that "the only criminal case likely to go to trial before the election is the Manhattan DA case next month, which takes on a heightened significance as a result."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.