Peering into the Corrupt Court's Pretensions and Corruption
From Talking Points Memo:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/peering-into-the-corrupt-courts-pretensions-and-corruption
There were so many things that happened yesterday in the Supreme Courts hearing on presidential immunity that its hard to know where to start. But one part that captured it for me was Sam Alitos line of argument that presidential immunity might be necessary to make it possible for presidents to leave office voluntarily, or that not having some broad grant of immunity would make refusal to leave office more likely.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I am not naive enough to think that judicial interpretations and rulings dont have policy implications. Of course they do. Whats more, the policy implications of judicial interpretations frequently are a reasonable part of the prudential analysis that goes into judges work: if we think the law and the Constitution say something, we need to have open eyes about what that something actually means in practice. What was so striking about yesterdays performances, if not at all surprising, were that there was little effort to even keep up these pretenses. It was almost like these were de novo questions. Even down to the point where multiple justices waived off dealing with the actual case and facts before them, arguing that theyre being called upon to set up the big rules for posterity.
- - - - - - - - -
The display we saw yesterday was a vivid illustration of how the Court has gone thoroughly rogue, cutting itself off from even the appearances of the processes that give it legitimacy. That is the core of the current Courts corruption. If we assume that there might be some limited ways that official acts cant be reinterpreted as crimes, it seems to go without saying that refusing to honor the results of an election cant be one of them. Trying to overthrow the government cant be one of those official acts. If thats the case this hypothetical, narrow kind of immunity then the Courts proper path is clear. You say that there may be some cases where a very narrow kind of immunity applies. But what we have before us now certainly isnt one of those cases. End of story.
But thats not what we got.
Its a rogue court, a thoroughly corrupt one, one that is so far gone in its corruption that it feels free even from the practical obligation to clothe its corruption for the sake of appearances.