Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSusan Glasser: King Donald's Day at the Supreme Court
https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/king-donalds-day-at-the-supreme-courtNo paywall link
https://archive.li/mZmXf
Donald Trump is nothing if not a dreamer. In seeking to return to the Presidency, its as though he has reimagined America as a kingdom and himself the king, an absolute ruler whose actions, no matter how sordid, cannot be stopped or subject to prosecution in a court of law. And yet what remains most remarkable is how far down the road to fulfilling this fantasy he now is, and how many millions of Americans he has managed to carry along with him: the Republican primary voters who, overwhelmingly, chose him again as their partys nominee; the Republican officials, such as former Attorney General Bill Barr, who, despite condemning Trump for calling forth violence and illegality in his effort to overturn the 2020 election, are nevertheless endorsing him this year; the advocates on and off his payroll who say that a federal criminal case against him must be thrown out because, as President, he had every right to seek to overturn the election. This is the Richard Nixon theory of the executive taken to its circular and oh-so-Trumpian extreme: if the President does it, by definition, it is not illegal. I have the right to do whatever I want as President, Trump said when he was in the White House.
On Thursday, Trumps legal team asked the Supreme Court to take this both literally and seriously, advancing his fantastical claims about an unfettered Presidency in oral arguments at the Court, where, alarmingly, they received a respectful hearing. So here we are in the midst of this most consequential election year, debating things such as whether a President has the power to accept bribes for official appointments, to sell nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, or even to call forth a military coup to remain in office. How is it possible in the United States of America that the answer to any of these questions could be yes? And, yet, strip out the hemming and hawing, the polite citations of Marbury v. Madison and the sayings of Benjamin Franklin, and the answer from Trumps lawyer to all of the above was more or less: Yes.
In a remarkable dialogue with that lawyer, D. John Sauer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor established that Trump believes he should even have the right to order the assassination of a political opponent without fear of prosecution. Yup, weve reached the point of the election year where Trumps lawyer says itd be O.K. if Trump were to order a hit job on a rivaland is not immediately laughed out of court. The claims advanced by Sauer on behalf of the most powerful man in the world were so sweeping that, eventually, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was left to wonder what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country.
It says everything about Trump that these are the questions debated and dissected on his behalf. It says everything about this Supreme Courta radical right-wing bench that Trump reshaped with his appointmentsthat several conservative Justices hardly seemed bothered by this absolutist vision of the Presidency. And yet, notably, I did not hear any of them specifically defend Trumps indefensible conduct or the tremendous overreach recommended by his lawyer; instead, they invoked fears of unwarranted prosecutions against other former Presidentsnot this one, they insisted somewhat sanctimoniously, but unnamed others. Im not talking about the present case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Im talking about the future. Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed, stressing this was not so much about Trump as it was about debating a ruling for the ages.
*snip*
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 372 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Susan Glasser: King Donald's Day at the Supreme Court (Original Post)
Nevilledog
Apr 25
OP
raging moderate
(4,311 posts)1. Donald does not understand the meaning of the word "PRESIDENT."
A President is NOT a king. He is NOT a RULER, and he is NOT supposed to RULE us. He is called the PRESIDENT because his job is to PRESIDE over the functions of the Executive branch of the United States government.