To Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, the real threat to democracy is not Trump's attempts to steal the election—but the DOJ's effort to hold him accountable.
You have to give it to Trump. He has been the most influential politician in our history. He has, somehow, corrupted the legislator, the presidency and now the judiciary so thoroughly that we are discussing “is a president immune from murdering his competitor? Yes, yes he is.” Truly amazing.
I think conservative inc, not the never trumpers, who told us “it can’t be that bad” need to sit down and shut up. They won’t, but my god, is their judgment completely and utterly useless. I don’t want to read or hear their intellectual or legal or political commentary anymore. Their judgement should never be taken seriously in polite society. Let their spago reservation be cancelled.
Wearing the masks outside because of "solidarity with people who have COVID" is a crock of shit. They're cowards, plain and simple. The Bulwark calls out the MAGA right for its stupidity. It should be good enough to call out the antisemitic left for its stupidity as well.
I have now listened to multiple analysis on todays SCOTUS arguments about Trump's immunity.To say Jack Smith didn't have a good day is an understatement.After the appeals court wrote a very sound rejection of Trump's argument for total immunity,I accepted the CW of pundent legals that the SCOTUS would accept it as being the final word.Then they accepted listening to arguments.Then I thought that it would be 8-1 or 7-2 against.Now it is quite possible that they will rule that there are some "parameters" that the president could have some immunity.(and for future presidents).A question I have is could this possibly be and end to documents case also? There are some Bulwark readers out there who have been in the legal profession so I like to him from them. As JVL would say every once in a while;"Sarah,talk me down from the ledge".
It's not up on The Bulwark yet (I'm watching on YouTube), but I'm halfway thru George Explains it All... and you should watch it. Now let me say I don't buy George's take - which I think goes beyond optimism to denialism; but my heartrate went down a little just to hear someone explain a very different perspective.
I think George Conway is right. I listened to the oral arguments and listened to a lot of commentary, including Kim Wehle twice. I can't imagine where MJS got his take on the oral arguments. It's like he was listening to a different case. The ONLY benefit Trump is getting from this SCOTUS excursion is delay. When the ruling comes, it will reject Trump's claim of "total immunity", which is the only kind of immunity that could possibly save him in this case.
Trust me, I get it. It was nice to hear Sarah say something to the effect of, "Everyone's panicking!" b/c I thought, "So I'm not overreacting and I'm not alone in my reaction." On the other hand, it's scary that even legal experts seem to be pretty freaked out.
I haven't listened yet.But From what I heard from the analysis of the arguments, it appears quite likely that the SCOTUS will grant some small kind of immunity and send it back to the lower court to decide.
If SCOTUS can't understand that J6 was an insurrection trying to impede an official proceeding, let them have an armed angry mob join them during oral arguments and then wait for people to come to their aid.
Well this is a depressing one. The Supreme Court is tap dancing around pretending that what happened on 1/6 really didn't happen and that this complete immunity claim is an abstract and elusive question that needs further exploration because they just don't have enough facts to make up their minds.
Not a big Mark Joseph Stern fan, but his report on the oral argument was good. I AM a big Dave Weigel fan, and it was great to hear all he had to say, especially the clarification on the masks in the demonstrations. I hope that you'll bring him back in the future.
So incredibly depressing and anxiety producing. Very thankful for the Bulwark community, knowing there are so many good people here who are also deeply concerned. Feel like I'm watching our democracy disintegrate before my eyes.
I just want to say, whether in regards to people wearing masks, or other actions taken in protest to government or other institutional actions, our opinions may change February 2025.
Here's a race to watch - Janelle Stelson has a shot at picking off MAGA thug Scott Perry in PA10 (my district). She was a well-known well-liked TV anchor.
my old father always said that if you are looking for justice[he said justice is a ass], you will not find it in the courts...the courts are there mainly to keep the peace, and perhaps protect those that can afford it....if you want "justice" then you will have to make it yourself....these courts in america are just overtly political...i cant see them convicting trump ....ever...and that difference might just keep him in the running for the election ,for its already on record that if he gets convicted on just one case, perhaps some of the republicans might turn away :(
Some of the justices commented on the relative lack of importance of the current cases against Trump in the grand scheme of things, emphasizing instead the risk that future justice departments could go rogue and pester future ex-Presidents. Why not deal with that unprecedented scenario if it comes to pass, rather than assume it will and, in the meantime, allow a deeply dangerous treachery that actually occurred go unpunished.
The appeals court wrote a very strong opinion. I suspect SCOTUS was provoked by that opinion and feels compelled to deal with it now, before it can become more influential.
Sounds about right. C. Justice Roberts made a comment or two suggesting his dismay with the Ct of Appeals opinion. I'm guessing at a remand that will lead to a mid-2025 trial date, if and only if . . . .
Heyyyy. What's the mailbag email address? I can't find it. Merci beaucoup!
I never get to hear the tunes you tease for some reason.
I'm waiting for the animals. There is a house in New Orleans
You have to give it to Trump. He has been the most influential politician in our history. He has, somehow, corrupted the legislator, the presidency and now the judiciary so thoroughly that we are discussing “is a president immune from murdering his competitor? Yes, yes he is.” Truly amazing.
I think conservative inc, not the never trumpers, who told us “it can’t be that bad” need to sit down and shut up. They won’t, but my god, is their judgment completely and utterly useless. I don’t want to read or hear their intellectual or legal or political commentary anymore. Their judgement should never be taken seriously in polite society. Let their spago reservation be cancelled.
Wearing the masks outside because of "solidarity with people who have COVID" is a crock of shit. They're cowards, plain and simple. The Bulwark calls out the MAGA right for its stupidity. It should be good enough to call out the antisemitic left for its stupidity as well.
I have now listened to multiple analysis on todays SCOTUS arguments about Trump's immunity.To say Jack Smith didn't have a good day is an understatement.After the appeals court wrote a very sound rejection of Trump's argument for total immunity,I accepted the CW of pundent legals that the SCOTUS would accept it as being the final word.Then they accepted listening to arguments.Then I thought that it would be 8-1 or 7-2 against.Now it is quite possible that they will rule that there are some "parameters" that the president could have some immunity.(and for future presidents).A question I have is could this possibly be and end to documents case also? There are some Bulwark readers out there who have been in the legal profession so I like to him from them. As JVL would say every once in a while;"Sarah,talk me down from the ledge".
I’m not a lawyer but that case is screwed.
It certainly is moved to after the election or 2025.
It’s kind of the only thing the matters but yeah.
It's not up on The Bulwark yet (I'm watching on YouTube), but I'm halfway thru George Explains it All... and you should watch it. Now let me say I don't buy George's take - which I think goes beyond optimism to denialism; but my heartrate went down a little just to hear someone explain a very different perspective.
I think George Conway is right. I listened to the oral arguments and listened to a lot of commentary, including Kim Wehle twice. I can't imagine where MJS got his take on the oral arguments. It's like he was listening to a different case. The ONLY benefit Trump is getting from this SCOTUS excursion is delay. When the ruling comes, it will reject Trump's claim of "total immunity", which is the only kind of immunity that could possibly save him in this case.
I can't wait. Right now I'm darker than JVL on his best days!(regarding the arguments at SCOTUS)
Trust me, I get it. It was nice to hear Sarah say something to the effect of, "Everyone's panicking!" b/c I thought, "So I'm not overreacting and I'm not alone in my reaction." On the other hand, it's scary that even legal experts seem to be pretty freaked out.
I haven't listened yet.But From what I heard from the analysis of the arguments, it appears quite likely that the SCOTUS will grant some small kind of immunity and send it back to the lower court to decide.
If SCOTUS can't understand that J6 was an insurrection trying to impede an official proceeding, let them have an armed angry mob join them during oral arguments and then wait for people to come to their aid.
Well this is a depressing one. The Supreme Court is tap dancing around pretending that what happened on 1/6 really didn't happen and that this complete immunity claim is an abstract and elusive question that needs further exploration because they just don't have enough facts to make up their minds.
Not a big Mark Joseph Stern fan, but his report on the oral argument was good. I AM a big Dave Weigel fan, and it was great to hear all he had to say, especially the clarification on the masks in the demonstrations. I hope that you'll bring him back in the future.
I love Dave...I miss reading him from when he was on WAPO
Same here. I read Semafor every day to get his takes.
I just wasn't sure if that was a paid thing and I am at my limit of paid subscriptions...
So am I! I had to wait for a sale to subscribe to Quillette! 😄 But I haven't run into a paywall at Semafor yet: https://www.semafor.com/
Thanks AL...
So incredibly depressing and anxiety producing. Very thankful for the Bulwark community, knowing there are so many good people here who are also deeply concerned. Feel like I'm watching our democracy disintegrate before my eyes.
You and I brother.I'm getting pessimistic again.
If Joe Biden loses in November, he should put Alito and the rest to the test.
I just want to say, whether in regards to people wearing masks, or other actions taken in protest to government or other institutional actions, our opinions may change February 2025.
Here's a race to watch - Janelle Stelson has a shot at picking off MAGA thug Scott Perry in PA10 (my district). She was a well-known well-liked TV anchor.
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/10th-congressional-democratic-primary-election-results-20240423.html
Every little bit helps.I see the The House going to Democrats in 2024.
my old father always said that if you are looking for justice[he said justice is a ass], you will not find it in the courts...the courts are there mainly to keep the peace, and perhaps protect those that can afford it....if you want "justice" then you will have to make it yourself....these courts in america are just overtly political...i cant see them convicting trump ....ever...and that difference might just keep him in the running for the election ,for its already on record that if he gets convicted on just one case, perhaps some of the republicans might turn away :(
SCOTUS is certainly political.
Some of the justices commented on the relative lack of importance of the current cases against Trump in the grand scheme of things, emphasizing instead the risk that future justice departments could go rogue and pester future ex-Presidents. Why not deal with that unprecedented scenario if it comes to pass, rather than assume it will and, in the meantime, allow a deeply dangerous treachery that actually occurred go unpunished.
The appeals court wrote a very strong opinion. I suspect SCOTUS was provoked by that opinion and feels compelled to deal with it now, before it can become more influential.
Sounds about right. C. Justice Roberts made a comment or two suggesting his dismay with the Ct of Appeals opinion. I'm guessing at a remand that will lead to a mid-2025 trial date, if and only if . . . .
"Why not deal with that unprecedented scenario if it comes to pass, rather than assume it will"
Motivated reasoning won't allow it.
As I heard on CNN From Shan Woo";Isn't that what trials are for"?
Way to frame it as a loss to for Jack Smith as opposed to the end of the republic. Jeebus.
So a POTUS that ruled like Putin couldn't be prosecuted.