If You choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
Freewill, Rush
If you really believed that the current Supreme Court would allow Donald J. Trump to be held accountable for his actions, let me show you some pictures of the great bridges I have for sale.
No, the lasting issue isn’t that the court created a “beautiful wall,” an unscalable wall no prosecutor will ever conquer to henceforth drag Trump into court. Nor that the July 1, 2024 ruling probably creates an exit ramp for Trump from his New York felonies.
That was to be expected.
The primary problem? Additional proof that the United States Supreme Court now reliably works against the American people.
And, the members obviously don’t like each other.
From the Trump ruling…
From the majority opinion: The Court’s prior admonition is evident in the principal dissent’s citations. Some of the cherry-picked sources do not even discuss the President in particular.
From Justice Jackson dissenting: Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity – an exemption from criminal law – applicable only to the most powerful official in our government.
Saying your colleagues “cherry-picked” and “concocted” their positions isn’t a sign of a happy work place.
(Remember that stuff about All Men Are Created Equal? Well, one is now more equal than all the others.)
Let’s recaps a few decisions of the court in this century…
In Gore the court held you don’t have to do everything possible to correctly count every vote in an election, making an effort is good enough.
In Citizens United SCOTUS decided corporations are people too – and they have more rights than you do.
In AT&T (2011) the court ruled individuals could be forced to accept arbitration – controlled by the business entity – as their only way to settle disputes.
In Shelby County and many other cases the court defanged, thence effectively executed the Voting Rights Act to allow blatant racial gerrymandering.
In Hobby Lobby the court allowed workers to be coerced into accepting religious practices as a condition of employment.
In Trump/Hawaii (2018) SCOTUS said the government could discriminate against would-be immigrants from Muslim countries just because of their being from majority Muslim countries.
And, then there’s Dobbs.
The Supreme Court majority has moved from being the defender of the common citizen to its sworn enemy. They know what’s good for us and what’s good is only pro-business and pro-Republican.
The non-decision in Trump is really better than anything a Trumpette ever dreamed. It grants practically universal immunity without specifically putting it in writing.
A comment today by MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett confuses me. She maintained that prosecutors could still find ways to prosecute a President within the framework of the decision. So, I wonder, is she naïve, stupid or a liar?
None of the choices ought to apply to a member of the United States Supreme Court.
Glenn