The new administration is extreme, but that is not an excuse to say "there's no point." Also: The Trump administration has already started to take action at SCOTUS.
I totally agree. Impeachment/removal by congress is exactly the check and balance envisioned by the framers against a President who goes off the rails like this. SCOTUS can, if they choose, be the backstop but with a lot of damage done in the meantime.
Congress could put an end to it immediately and it's so disheartening that this critical check and balance is broken.
Should Biden have been impeached for his EO declaring that the ERA is the law of the land despite the rulings that say it wasn't properly ratified? Isn't that technically a violation of the constitution as well?
I mean I agree in spirit but trying to operationalize this into a rule that doesn't turn minor disputes about interpretation into impeachable issues is hard.
I agree, I got ahead of myself. In this term, as far as I know Trump hasn't done anything that rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor based on historical standards. I fully expect he will, and full expect the congress to do nothing, which is where my head was at when talking about impeachment being broken. But, we're not there yet.
What makes me mad, mad enough to have gotten ahead of myself in the comment before is that if impeachment were a credible threat, congress would have some leverage to tell him to cool it. But when a President knows congress most likely won't impeach him almost no matter what he does, they've got no ability to moderate his actions at all in the day-to-day functioning of the government.
I appreciate your reconsideration, that's an all too rare trait.
But to quibble a bit, I do think impeachment is a real threat it's just the line is far beyond what you or I think it should be. If he sent seal team 6 after jack smith I think he'd be impeached and I think he knows it too -- and realizes that SCOTUS is likely to be alot more skeptical of claims to criminal immunity for impeached conduct. But maybe that's what you meant?
I believe strongly that judgement on important matters should be based on evidence, objectivity, and reasoning. Nobody can be free of bias but I try to always keep an open mind to the possibility that I've judged something wrong, and give it a fresh look.
Regarding your follow-up point - I think it's a good one. Let's take a deeper dive.
I agree that right now today, there is a line (seal team 6 is a good theoretical example). My concern is that -
a) that line is much further out than historically it has been, which is alarming to me given the overall circumstances.
b) From watching him for the last 8 years, I think Trump is a master at staying just below the impeachment threat line while simultaneously working to shift the Overton window, and he's figured out that as the Overton window shifts, the line moves further out.
All of this works out to, in my opinion, that he can do a tremendous amount of damage, which wouldn't have been possible if the impeachment threat line were at historical levels.
This is beyond the scope of the comments we originally exchanged, but playing this out, my prediction is that the courts and ultimately SCOTUS will rule against many of the EOs, and Trump will test the water and try ignoring a court ruling. He'll start with something small, and if the GOP voters don't massively turn on him, he'll get bolder and ignore more significant court orders because he knows the GOP congressmen and senators are simply a weathervane of the voters, they basically don't take principled stands to any significant degree.
This will be the final test. The main protection the constitution has against a President who ignores SCOTUS rulings is impeachment and if congress fails then, the power of the courts to check the President, in addition to congress, will be broken.
Again just a prediction on this last part. The future of course isn't certain.
Color me cynical - but I think the immunity decision underscores the ambivalence of SCOTUS toward Trump’s grab for power. Concededly the decision deals with criminal immunity; however, it is a legal fiction that gives insight into what this cast of characters will support on behalf of their federalist society overlords.
After this first week of this new administration, there is cause for alarm, Chris, I'm speaking specifically about FEMA and the devastating Fires still raging in California. For a president to put conditions on aid,no matter where you live,is unspeakable.Your five points listed here are, for sure,a way forward, Thank You, for being so damn smart, and will reStack ASAP 💯👍
It’s not just in the US where limiting aid will kill people. Infectious diseases don’t care about borders and the stop on foreign assistance aid "”stops work battling a deadly Marburg outbreak in Tanzania and a wide outbreak of a mpox variant killing children in west Africa before it spreads further," "stops monitoring of bird flu in 49 countries, a disease which already killed an American on home soil," "stops critical work to eradicate polio," and even "stops >$1B in corporate drug donations and coordination eradicating tropical diseases like river blindness, elephantiasis, and others on the verge of elimination in whole regions."” https://www.rawstory.com/trump-serious-damage-world-expert/
With a few choice exceptions, Democrats seem willing to depend on saviors. First, the Black Ladies; now, the courts. The question mark is SCOTUS. I have my doubts—they care about people as much as the rich elite does … which is to say, not at all.
I don’t disagree with you that the opposition should not be so full of doom and gloom that we fail to act on all fronts to resist the fascist takeover of our democracy now in full swing. Fighting these cases in court is one important front in the battle to save our Constitution and way of life. But assuming for the sake of argument that the best-case scenario occurs and the Supreme Court rules against Trump on, say, the birthright citizenship EO and says the administration must issue citizenship documents to children born on American soil to undocumented parents, how will such an order be enforced if Trump simply rejects the opinion and defies SCOTUS? Do we really expect Trump, who believes he is divinely appointed and has absolute power (he said so in his inaugural address) to do as every President since 1803 and just take the L from the Supremes? When he defies the Court and the loyalists he’s installed in the executive branch agencies ignore the Court, what then? The desire to avoid this scenario, alone, may provide sufficient deterrent to the Supreme Court to rule against him in any of these cases, in which case all the litigation over Trump’s blatantly illegal and unconstitutional acts is just kabuki theatre. The Court may already be effectively neutered.
On Friday the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court order putting a preliminary injunction on an Iowa anti-immigration law. The law creates a new state crime of "illegal reentry," and was modeled on a Texas law.
The DOJ sued, saying Iowa's law violates the Supremacy Clause in various ways. A federal judge in Iowa agreed, and so did the Eighth Circuit.
My question: if the Trump DOJ decides it doesn't want to challenge Iowa's law, does that mean the preliminary injunction will be lifted? Or can the injunction stay in place because intervenors will want to continue to challenge Iowa's law?
Excellent summary of the immunity decision applicability to among others OIG premature termination by executive overreach. The dems are in disarray, and the courts are open, at this moment, for business. Fear is the first step towards obey in advance. You are a role model for intellectual courage in the face of authoritarian excrement eliminated in the name of justice.
In the beginning of a major resistance movement, the how to path seems undefined, but, it is not. When no is no, the rhetoric should stop. United we stand. Resist in every corner of your life everyday everywhere. Trump and his dopes will soon be the proverbial slow boiled frogs.
Seems that a number of law suits could be filed, many with the intent of delaying any actions that the trump administration wants to impose on US citizens. In other words, learn from the trump-tactic of delay, delay, delay.
One wonders whether this go-along-to-get-along posture by Democrats is just a ruse: We , thanks to our donors, can outlast another four years of Trump, so let him dig his own grave. If so, cynical and self-serving … indeed serving anyone but the public. Lie down now, soon to be trampled asunder.
Yes, and not only with respect to legal challenges. Ultimately, the judiciary can't stand against the people so it's important to persuade the public as well that whatever they like about Trump his disregard for the law is unacceptable.
By pardoning Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio, Donald Trump has provided aid and comfort to a person who has been convicted of sedition against the United States of America. Lawyers, does this not make him guilty of treason? I sm being told this is Constitutional law. If it is, he needs to be arrested NOW and We the People need to demand it. Loudly and repeatedly. This state of affairs cannot continue.
The former DOJ attorneys who filed papers in cases that the current executive office is doing a 180 ought to step into the fray by seeking permission of the court to continue to assert their original positions as amicus curiae.
There is a reason we always want, and I mean always want, nonprofit intervenors in any case of significance, especially environmentally and related to civil rights: the cases are one election away from being tossed if we only depend on the government.
But I wonder how many of the 'good' DOJ lawyers will stay around to be subject to ridicule, ala Coughenour?
He should be impeached for issuing an EO that violates the constitution which he swore to uphold earlier that same day.
I totally agree. Impeachment/removal by congress is exactly the check and balance envisioned by the framers against a President who goes off the rails like this. SCOTUS can, if they choose, be the backstop but with a lot of damage done in the meantime.
Congress could put an end to it immediately and it's so disheartening that this critical check and balance is broken.
We can call the mass firing of the inspectors general Trump’s Friday Night Massacre.
Should Biden have been impeached for his EO declaring that the ERA is the law of the land despite the rulings that say it wasn't properly ratified? Isn't that technically a violation of the constitution as well?
I mean I agree in spirit but trying to operationalize this into a rule that doesn't turn minor disputes about interpretation into impeachable issues is hard.
I agree, I got ahead of myself. In this term, as far as I know Trump hasn't done anything that rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor based on historical standards. I fully expect he will, and full expect the congress to do nothing, which is where my head was at when talking about impeachment being broken. But, we're not there yet.
What makes me mad, mad enough to have gotten ahead of myself in the comment before is that if impeachment were a credible threat, congress would have some leverage to tell him to cool it. But when a President knows congress most likely won't impeach him almost no matter what he does, they've got no ability to moderate his actions at all in the day-to-day functioning of the government.
A
I appreciate your reconsideration, that's an all too rare trait.
But to quibble a bit, I do think impeachment is a real threat it's just the line is far beyond what you or I think it should be. If he sent seal team 6 after jack smith I think he'd be impeached and I think he knows it too -- and realizes that SCOTUS is likely to be alot more skeptical of claims to criminal immunity for impeached conduct. But maybe that's what you meant?
Thanks for the discussion!
I believe strongly that judgement on important matters should be based on evidence, objectivity, and reasoning. Nobody can be free of bias but I try to always keep an open mind to the possibility that I've judged something wrong, and give it a fresh look.
Regarding your follow-up point - I think it's a good one. Let's take a deeper dive.
I agree that right now today, there is a line (seal team 6 is a good theoretical example). My concern is that -
a) that line is much further out than historically it has been, which is alarming to me given the overall circumstances.
b) From watching him for the last 8 years, I think Trump is a master at staying just below the impeachment threat line while simultaneously working to shift the Overton window, and he's figured out that as the Overton window shifts, the line moves further out.
All of this works out to, in my opinion, that he can do a tremendous amount of damage, which wouldn't have been possible if the impeachment threat line were at historical levels.
This is beyond the scope of the comments we originally exchanged, but playing this out, my prediction is that the courts and ultimately SCOTUS will rule against many of the EOs, and Trump will test the water and try ignoring a court ruling. He'll start with something small, and if the GOP voters don't massively turn on him, he'll get bolder and ignore more significant court orders because he knows the GOP congressmen and senators are simply a weathervane of the voters, they basically don't take principled stands to any significant degree.
This will be the final test. The main protection the constitution has against a President who ignores SCOTUS rulings is impeachment and if congress fails then, the power of the courts to check the President, in addition to congress, will be broken.
Again just a prediction on this last part. The future of course isn't certain.
Issuing unconstitutional EO’s consistently should be impeachable.
💯!!!
Color me cynical - but I think the immunity decision underscores the ambivalence of SCOTUS toward Trump’s grab for power. Concededly the decision deals with criminal immunity; however, it is a legal fiction that gives insight into what this cast of characters will support on behalf of their federalist society overlords.
Thank you for this thorough analysis.
The entire concept of the unitary executive is flagrantly unconstitutional.
After this first week of this new administration, there is cause for alarm, Chris, I'm speaking specifically about FEMA and the devastating Fires still raging in California. For a president to put conditions on aid,no matter where you live,is unspeakable.Your five points listed here are, for sure,a way forward, Thank You, for being so damn smart, and will reStack ASAP 💯👍
It’s not just in the US where limiting aid will kill people. Infectious diseases don’t care about borders and the stop on foreign assistance aid "”stops work battling a deadly Marburg outbreak in Tanzania and a wide outbreak of a mpox variant killing children in west Africa before it spreads further," "stops monitoring of bird flu in 49 countries, a disease which already killed an American on home soil," "stops critical work to eradicate polio," and even "stops >$1B in corporate drug donations and coordination eradicating tropical diseases like river blindness, elephantiasis, and others on the verge of elimination in whole regions."” https://www.rawstory.com/trump-serious-damage-world-expert/
Conditions on any area when we all pay taxes. I’m beginning to think that is the only way to hit this government.
Is there no one to rid us of this monster??!
Are you thinking in a Henry II Thomas Becket sense?
I’m thinking just one small blood clot in the right place is all that’s required
With a few choice exceptions, Democrats seem willing to depend on saviors. First, the Black Ladies; now, the courts. The question mark is SCOTUS. I have my doubts—they care about people as much as the rich elite does … which is to say, not at all.
Well, at least he got Hannibal Lectured.
I don’t disagree with you that the opposition should not be so full of doom and gloom that we fail to act on all fronts to resist the fascist takeover of our democracy now in full swing. Fighting these cases in court is one important front in the battle to save our Constitution and way of life. But assuming for the sake of argument that the best-case scenario occurs and the Supreme Court rules against Trump on, say, the birthright citizenship EO and says the administration must issue citizenship documents to children born on American soil to undocumented parents, how will such an order be enforced if Trump simply rejects the opinion and defies SCOTUS? Do we really expect Trump, who believes he is divinely appointed and has absolute power (he said so in his inaugural address) to do as every President since 1803 and just take the L from the Supremes? When he defies the Court and the loyalists he’s installed in the executive branch agencies ignore the Court, what then? The desire to avoid this scenario, alone, may provide sufficient deterrent to the Supreme Court to rule against him in any of these cases, in which case all the litigation over Trump’s blatantly illegal and unconstitutional acts is just kabuki theatre. The Court may already be effectively neutered.
On Friday the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court order putting a preliminary injunction on an Iowa anti-immigration law. The law creates a new state crime of "illegal reentry," and was modeled on a Texas law.
The DOJ sued, saying Iowa's law violates the Supremacy Clause in various ways. A federal judge in Iowa agreed, and so did the Eighth Circuit.
My question: if the Trump DOJ decides it doesn't want to challenge Iowa's law, does that mean the preliminary injunction will be lifted? Or can the injunction stay in place because intervenors will want to continue to challenge Iowa's law?
Chris,
Excellent summary of the immunity decision applicability to among others OIG premature termination by executive overreach. The dems are in disarray, and the courts are open, at this moment, for business. Fear is the first step towards obey in advance. You are a role model for intellectual courage in the face of authoritarian excrement eliminated in the name of justice.
In the beginning of a major resistance movement, the how to path seems undefined, but, it is not. When no is no, the rhetoric should stop. United we stand. Resist in every corner of your life everyday everywhere. Trump and his dopes will soon be the proverbial slow boiled frogs.
Seems that a number of law suits could be filed, many with the intent of delaying any actions that the trump administration wants to impose on US citizens. In other words, learn from the trump-tactic of delay, delay, delay.
One wonders whether this go-along-to-get-along posture by Democrats is just a ruse: We , thanks to our donors, can outlast another four years of Trump, so let him dig his own grave. If so, cynical and self-serving … indeed serving anyone but the public. Lie down now, soon to be trampled asunder.
I don't mind Trump digging his own grave, it's everyone who ends up in the pit under him.
The first female naked body I saw as an adolescent was during a documentary on Auschwitz. That pit.
I agree David. Go-along-to-get-along didn't work with Hitler and I seriously doubt that it will work with the sociopath Felon47.
Yes, and not only with respect to legal challenges. Ultimately, the judiciary can't stand against the people so it's important to persuade the public as well that whatever they like about Trump his disregard for the law is unacceptable.
By pardoning Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio, Donald Trump has provided aid and comfort to a person who has been convicted of sedition against the United States of America. Lawyers, does this not make him guilty of treason? I sm being told this is Constitutional law. If it is, he needs to be arrested NOW and We the People need to demand it. Loudly and repeatedly. This state of affairs cannot continue.
Well, you can;t be guilty of treason without a declared war. Although as Hearst said, you provide pictures, I provide the war.
Please refer to the law which states so. One can be treasonous at any moment, in reality. If this is how the law reads it's deeply inadequate.
The former DOJ attorneys who filed papers in cases that the current executive office is doing a 180 ought to step into the fray by seeking permission of the court to continue to assert their original positions as amicus curiae.
There is a reason we always want, and I mean always want, nonprofit intervenors in any case of significance, especially environmentally and related to civil rights: the cases are one election away from being tossed if we only depend on the government.
But I wonder how many of the 'good' DOJ lawyers will stay around to be subject to ridicule, ala Coughenour?