Another superb article from Lisa 🤗, albeit scary reading. It is amazing that a country’s Supreme Court actually allows Felon 47 to ruin the democracy of US. And they are an active player in this destruction. 🙈🙈🙈
A question: Does SCOTUS’s immunity ruling apply to previous Presidents?
Wishing all the avid readers a Happy Weekend, 🥰we all need some degree of happiness and calm to face the storms coming from WH.🥰
I call it #FaSCistOTUS because that is what they have supported and enabled. They don't care about the country, democracy or the law. They want their perks for life. Nothing else matters.
I wish you were right Johnny, for then they would be merely venal. But the Six are something far worse, they are far-right ideologues who will give Trump everything he needs to impose his will on the nation.
Read Lawless, by Leah Litman. The R majority SCOTUS runs on "vibes."
"In Lawless, she argues that the Supreme Court is no longer practicing law; it’s running on vibes. By “vibes,” Litman means legal-ish claims that repackage the politics of conservative grievance and dress them up in robes. Major decisions adopt the language and posture of the law, while in fact displaying a commitment to protecting a single minority: the religious conservatives and Republican officials whose views are no longer shared by a majority of the country."
This goes one of two ways from here, depending on what DOJ actually does. The first scenario is that these pressers are all theater, a distraction. The second involves real charges being brought against Obama or Biden (or both). From there, SCOTUS is forced to use their own ruling to verify that both also hold this immunity and quickly dismiss the charges. But, what would the outcome be if they refuse to uphold their own ruling, now precedent? Most likely, they will be dragged by their ankles from their chambers by the People and held to account for not following their own laws. It is only a matter of whether they see this outcome as probable. Given their short-sightedness surrounding the original decision, who knows?
Roberts gives Trump practically everything he wants … in the vain hope that he (Trump) will overlook SCOTUS and, not coincidentally, keep his (Roberts’s) job safe.
What's scary is that trumpy will likely have the DOJ charge Obama & have him arrested. The charges will likely be appealed to SCOTUS probably after their thrown out by a rational Judge. Then SCOTUS will likely give a quick 6-3 or 5-4 ruling stating that immunity does not apply to Obama for some idiotic reason. At that point the orange repugs in Congress will lavishly praise the Court for ithe brilliant & patriotic reasoning of it's opinion.
POWERFUL. And thank you. All of branches of our government democracy or are in the process of falling: Executive, Legislative, Judiciary, along with the Fourth Estate. We are clearly there, in the middle of a fascist takeover.
Regarding the contention that “courts cannot inquire into the president’s motives,” the language of the law (not any contention by any mere judge or judges) is controlling. For good and profound constitutional reasons, Congress is in Article I and SCOTUS is in Article III. Congress is introduced first and judges are introduced last as legal authorities in our Constitution. The people (in our Constitution) and Congress (e.g., with federal criminal statutes and rules of evidence) actually make the law. Judges merely interpret or construe the law as it was created.
Article I clearly and emphatically delegated to Congress, not judges, the power to make laws. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." To Congress, alone, the People delegated the power "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The power the people delegated to Congress to represent and protect us clearly includes the power to make law governing the powers delegated to the president or judges.
Federal law (Federal Rule of Evidence 401) controls (not any contention by mere judges) the "Test for Relevant Evidence." That rule was proposed by judges and approved by SCOTUS and Congress. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072(a), 2074(a). Moreover, a particular federal statute precludes SCOTUS justices' pretense that they can create a rule giving the president some kind of testimonial privilege regarding his motive(s): “Any” purported “rule” (or ruling) “creating, abolishing, or modifying” any “evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.” 28 U.S.C. § 2074(b).
As even virtually every first year law student knows, “the substantive law” (not mere unconstitutional contentions by judges) identifies “proof or evidentiary requirements,” including “which facts are material,” i.e., “might affect the outcome” under “governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). As nearly every American knows, Article III and Amendments V and VI established that in criminal cases, juries, not judges, decide factual issues.
Congress (with a prior president) made it a federal crime for ANY person to act “under” mere “color of any” legal authority or “custom” to “willfully” deprive any person “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution” or federal “laws” (18 U.S.C. § 242) or for ANY "two or more persons" to “conspire” with anyone to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” any person “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to” him “by the Constitution” or federal “laws” or because any person “exercised” such “right or privilege” (18 U.S.C. § 241). Under Section 242, motive is simply irrelevant. Knowledge is what matters. Under Section 241, motive matters, and SCOTUS has no power to change that legal principle.
To me, the immunity ruling is extremely suspect. Among other things, Roberts says "the investigation and prosecution of crimes is a ‘core constitutional function’ of the president" – and then – that “the reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.” This seems contradictory, as Congress investigates all kinds of events that would later be deemed crimes (intelligence gathering for segregation, voting restrictions, etc.) To me, the President has no 'sole authority.' It's vested by the People or Congress. Without either of them, he has zero authority. It's been a minute since I read the decision, so if anyone has notes, I'd be grateful.
She went to syria and claimed Assad was not committing war crimes by gassing his people, which we all know was true. to wit
Her descriptions of the crisis in Syria read like they were composed in Assad’s personal office, or in Tehran or Moscow – not Washington
Zeihan on July 15 put out a post saying his contacts told him she was removing all the people on the Russia desk and re doing the files by inserting all russian propaganda. then a week later she comes out with this
What goes around may come around. Should the Supreme court should be wary of how Trump may turn on them like he has turned on others? Of course, since they plan to do whatever he wants, perhaps not. Still, the angry masses may decide he is complicit. I would like to see some democrats organize marches insisting on the release of the Epstein files, and not make them Democrat marches, but just marches for the release of the files, and get the word out on Fox News.
Today Jeff Tiedrich reports on podcasters from the Trump supporting Bro-o-sphere turning on Trump over the Epstein files.
Oh, hope our friend Janey in Scotland is waiting for Trump again to share her sign. In place of the C word, what word could she put now that relates to the Epstein files that starts with a P?
Another superb article from Lisa 🤗, albeit scary reading. It is amazing that a country’s Supreme Court actually allows Felon 47 to ruin the democracy of US. And they are an active player in this destruction. 🙈🙈🙈
A question: Does SCOTUS’s immunity ruling apply to previous Presidents?
Wishing all the avid readers a Happy Weekend, 🥰we all need some degree of happiness and calm to face the storms coming from WH.🥰
I call it #FaSCistOTUS because that is what they have supported and enabled. They don't care about the country, democracy or the law. They want their perks for life. Nothing else matters.
I wish you were right Johnny, for then they would be merely venal. But the Six are something far worse, they are far-right ideologues who will give Trump everything he needs to impose his will on the nation.
Read Lawless, by Leah Litman. The R majority SCOTUS runs on "vibes."
"In Lawless, she argues that the Supreme Court is no longer practicing law; it’s running on vibes. By “vibes,” Litman means legal-ish claims that repackage the politics of conservative grievance and dress them up in robes. Major decisions adopt the language and posture of the law, while in fact displaying a commitment to protecting a single minority: the religious conservatives and Republican officials whose views are no longer shared by a majority of the country."
https://civilianreader.com/2025/03/09/quick-review-lawless-by-leah-litman-atria-one-signal/
I agree
This goes one of two ways from here, depending on what DOJ actually does. The first scenario is that these pressers are all theater, a distraction. The second involves real charges being brought against Obama or Biden (or both). From there, SCOTUS is forced to use their own ruling to verify that both also hold this immunity and quickly dismiss the charges. But, what would the outcome be if they refuse to uphold their own ruling, now precedent? Most likely, they will be dragged by their ankles from their chambers by the People and held to account for not following their own laws. It is only a matter of whether they see this outcome as probable. Given their short-sightedness surrounding the original decision, who knows?
Roberts gives Trump practically everything he wants … in the vain hope that he (Trump) will overlook SCOTUS and, not coincidentally, keep his (Roberts’s) job safe.
What's scary is that trumpy will likely have the DOJ charge Obama & have him arrested. The charges will likely be appealed to SCOTUS probably after their thrown out by a rational Judge. Then SCOTUS will likely give a quick 6-3 or 5-4 ruling stating that immunity does not apply to Obama for some idiotic reason. At that point the orange repugs in Congress will lavishly praise the Court for ithe brilliant & patriotic reasoning of it's opinion.
I would be happy to give a gift subscription to Public Notice to John Roberts.
POWERFUL. And thank you. All of branches of our government democracy or are in the process of falling: Executive, Legislative, Judiciary, along with the Fourth Estate. We are clearly there, in the middle of a fascist takeover.
Wait...doesn't that same decision apply for OTHER former Presidents?
Like Obama and Biden?
You could assume so. With these 6 they would find a way around it.
Regarding the contention that “courts cannot inquire into the president’s motives,” the language of the law (not any contention by any mere judge or judges) is controlling. For good and profound constitutional reasons, Congress is in Article I and SCOTUS is in Article III. Congress is introduced first and judges are introduced last as legal authorities in our Constitution. The people (in our Constitution) and Congress (e.g., with federal criminal statutes and rules of evidence) actually make the law. Judges merely interpret or construe the law as it was created.
Article I clearly and emphatically delegated to Congress, not judges, the power to make laws. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." To Congress, alone, the People delegated the power "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The power the people delegated to Congress to represent and protect us clearly includes the power to make law governing the powers delegated to the president or judges.
Federal law (Federal Rule of Evidence 401) controls (not any contention by mere judges) the "Test for Relevant Evidence." That rule was proposed by judges and approved by SCOTUS and Congress. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072(a), 2074(a). Moreover, a particular federal statute precludes SCOTUS justices' pretense that they can create a rule giving the president some kind of testimonial privilege regarding his motive(s): “Any” purported “rule” (or ruling) “creating, abolishing, or modifying” any “evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.” 28 U.S.C. § 2074(b).
As even virtually every first year law student knows, “the substantive law” (not mere unconstitutional contentions by judges) identifies “proof or evidentiary requirements,” including “which facts are material,” i.e., “might affect the outcome” under “governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). As nearly every American knows, Article III and Amendments V and VI established that in criminal cases, juries, not judges, decide factual issues.
Congress (with a prior president) made it a federal crime for ANY person to act “under” mere “color of any” legal authority or “custom” to “willfully” deprive any person “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution” or federal “laws” (18 U.S.C. § 242) or for ANY "two or more persons" to “conspire” with anyone to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” any person “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to” him “by the Constitution” or federal “laws” or because any person “exercised” such “right or privilege” (18 U.S.C. § 241). Under Section 242, motive is simply irrelevant. Knowledge is what matters. Under Section 241, motive matters, and SCOTUS has no power to change that legal principle.
To me, the immunity ruling is extremely suspect. Among other things, Roberts says "the investigation and prosecution of crimes is a ‘core constitutional function’ of the president" – and then – that “the reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.” This seems contradictory, as Congress investigates all kinds of events that would later be deemed crimes (intelligence gathering for segregation, voting restrictions, etc.) To me, the President has no 'sole authority.' It's vested by the People or Congress. Without either of them, he has zero authority. It's been a minute since I read the decision, so if anyone has notes, I'd be grateful.
Selena, you asked for related notes. You might find my comments to this piece helpful.
Tulsi grew up in a hindu cult
www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbar...
www.grunge.com/1052164/who-...
Peter Ziehan has said she is a russian asset for years. he is not the only one who thinks so
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/a...
She went to syria and claimed Assad was not committing war crimes by gassing his people, which we all know was true. to wit
Her descriptions of the crisis in Syria read like they were composed in Assad’s personal office, or in Tehran or Moscow – not Washington
Zeihan on July 15 put out a post saying his contacts told him she was removing all the people on the Russia desk and re doing the files by inserting all russian propaganda. then a week later she comes out with this
What goes around may come around. Should the Supreme court should be wary of how Trump may turn on them like he has turned on others? Of course, since they plan to do whatever he wants, perhaps not. Still, the angry masses may decide he is complicit. I would like to see some democrats organize marches insisting on the release of the Epstein files, and not make them Democrat marches, but just marches for the release of the files, and get the word out on Fox News.
Today Jeff Tiedrich reports on podcasters from the Trump supporting Bro-o-sphere turning on Trump over the Epstein files.
https://www.jefftiedrich.com/p/even-podcast-bros-know-it-oh-hes?r=f0qfn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Oh, hope our friend Janey in Scotland is waiting for Trump again to share her sign. In place of the C word, what word could she put now that relates to the Epstein files that starts with a P?
Excellent, excellent piece, thank you. And God help us.
John Roberts and the Fash Five.
I don't want to include Kagan, Sotomayor, and especially Jackson when insulting the rest of the fascist-curious members of SCOTUS.
The subject is totally esoteric, and cannot be resolved on the basis of historicism.
https://x.com/StrongFixion/status/1907120954687582234