If the votes of the three liberal justices were predictable, those of the two conservative members of the court who voted with them on Thursday — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — were more surprising.
The chief justice was the author of not only the immunity decision but also of majority opinions in two other victories for Mr. Trump last term, one casting doubt on some of the federal charges against him and the other allowing him to seek another term despite
a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office.
His vote on Thursday was of a piece with the old Chief Justice Roberts....
Mr. Trump, for his part, has been a longtime critic of the chief justice. After the Affordable Care Act ruling, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter that “I guess @JusticeRoberts wanted to be a part of Georgetown society more than anyone knew,” citing a fake handle. During his first presidential campaign, Mr. Trump called the chief justice “an absolute disaster.”...
“I’m not happy with the Supreme Court,” he said on Jan. 6, 2021, during his speech near the White House. “They love to rule against me.”...
And Trump loves to win. He fights for every win — fight, fight, fight — even when the arguments are weak. But he's better off losing some of the time. It shows that the Supreme Court acts independently of him and undercuts those who'd like to say the Court is in his pocket. So this is one of his losses. He can handle losses. He's quite good at doing that. It leveraged his re-election.
ADDED: The Court's order is very short: "The application for stay... is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of 'unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing...."
Posts
85 comments:
Let the hardcore never Trump and TDS crowd play out their hand (now). Find out who they all are. Wait for this conviction to be vacated on appeal. Track down everyone who employed lawfare, and make examples of them.
Standard power playbook. If you strike a king you must kill him.
and the other allowing him to seek another term despite
a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office.
As I recall the court was quite clear there was no establishment of the meaning of insurrectionist or the establishment that Trump is one. To continue to make the argument undermines the credibility of Liptak et al who continue to use the term. You tried now you should stop…
Has Liptak ever used the word "rebuke" to describe the many smackdowns the Supreme Court has dealt Biden's illegal scams, from student loan "forgiveness" to Title 9 "reform." I'm pushing all my chips to the HELL NO position.
So Trump will technically still be a convicted felon on the day he is sworn in? This will please his enemies, first ever and so on. But then he might win on an actual appeal, which this wasn't, and the convictions might be vacated. The impeachment of Nixon wasn't a great idea, the impeachment of Clinton was worse, and then the politics of personal destruction becomes routine.
If I put myself in Roberts' shoes, I can imagine trying to ensure the liberals win some.
What I get out of this is that all the “liberal” judges are close minded and the other judges seem to be open to considering all points of view.
Sadly, the Firesign Theatre never foresaw such assholery. They would have been delighted with the New York State Courts' skulduggery. A couple of albums material in there for certain.
Typical of the New York Times to ignore the merits and focus solely on the politics.
"the other allowing him to seek another term despite
a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office"
"Despite"
"...citing a fake handle."
They sort of threw that in. Whose fake handle? Justice Roberts?
If Justice Roberts has a fake handle, that's news.
“I guess @JusticeRoberts wanted to be a part of Georgetown society more than anyone knew,” citing a fake handle.
That's a stretch. You can tell the media aches to apply the term "fake" in reference to Trump.
Maybe Trump should have said "URL"?
So Trump will technically still be a convicted felon on the day he is sworn in?
- Llyod Robertson 0657
True enough.
When my lefty friends say this, I ask them what felony he has committed. Some know it was misclassifying payments on a tax return (pretty close), some think it had to do with retaining classified documents (not even wrong).
I remind them that our greatest president (the very first one) was absolutely guilty of real, honest armed insurrection against the established government, and that I was fine with that also and would eagerly vote for him given the chance (as I did with T45/47).
It doesn't shut them up. Nothing does, unfortunately. That's ok.
“Second, the burden that sentencing
will impose on the President-Elect's responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court's stated
intent to impose a sentence of "unconditional discharge" after a
brief virtual hearing.”
Awfully trusting of Merchan, I’d say. He has not earned that trust.
SCOTUS can't fix what's wrong in the NY courts without issuing a ruling that's bad law and will plague them in the future as a precedent that makes no sense.
"It shows that the Supreme Court acts independently of him and undercuts those who'd like to say the Court is in his pocket."
Filing this away for future reference.
Upon reflection, it seems inappropriate for SCOTUS to base an opinion on the anticipated sentence. Their opinion should ignore that completely. Cart before the horse and all that.
rhhardin nails the dilemma of reaching down into state courts at this stage of the proceedings.
Note that elsewhere in the Times today is another stretch of a story needling Alito for having a brief call with Trump. They won't let it die.
It shows that SCOTUS is not entirely in Trump's pocket.
A little troubled, though, that four justices bought into the argument that "a felony conviction would still have intolerable side-effects, including distracting him as he prepares to take office in just over a week’s time."
Trump has a reputation of not paying his lawyers. I think he'd be justified in denying payment to the fool who scraped the barrel with that one.
Also, a little disappointed that the adjudication appears not to contain "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
On the face of it good news. Alternatively it’s the court making it look like they are not conflicted by handing Trump (P01135809) a tolerable loss, buying them some air cover to give him a bigger win later on when it matters more.
Good luck making that argument, Trump payed her off weeks before the election, and his own lawyer testified to the intent.
Partisan or not, he was convicted by a jury of his peers.
I guess that's why Trump spent most of his life and the majority of his business efforts in NYC? Because it's so awful? Touch some grass my man, maybe you could go for a nice ice cream in central park!
The silver lining: the appeals cannot begin until sentencing is passed. This will move up the clock for the clearing of his name.
If African-Americans had constituted 35% of the population, would Dredd Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson have had been given any credence? Would the judiciary have destroyed it's own edifice? Are we walking that line today?
The pushback from the more conservative members of the Court is "more surprising" only if you, like Liptak, view every single thing through the prism of Black/White politics (I'm not taking race) where Democrat-favoring is Double Plus Good and Republican-favoring is manure you scrape off your shoe. Sometimes things are not clear cut. How refreshing that SC justices can see shades of gray.
Roberts chooses which opinions to write to dumb down the opinion as much as possible while maintaining the majority. We need more Alitos and Thomases and fewer Roberts and Kavanaughs.
Yesterday -- Jimmy Carter was put to rest, a honorable man with impeccable decency. 11 days from now a felon with impeccable indecency, will take the helm of this country. Lost for words.
"spared from being sentenced" Sentenced for what again? Has Althouse decoded the mystery?
"those of the two conservative members ... were more surprising". Roberts, conservative? Surprising, why?
Lesson for Trump: no more SCOTUS squishes.
From the post:
"And Trump loves to win. He fights for every win — fight, fight, fight — even when the arguments are weak. But he's better off losing some of the time. It shows that the Supreme Court acts independently of him and undercuts those who'd like to say the Court is in his pocket. So this is one of his losses. He can handle losses. He's quite good at doing that. It leveraged his re-election. "
But has he won, or is there something coming down the pike intended to derail his progress?
Get some popcorn. We'll be treated to Merchan's case weaving through the appellate process. Someday an appellate court will squash this BS and Trump once again will count coup on lawfare....
1. This will not hurt Trump’s standing on the world stage. The rest of the world is unfortunately accustomed to politicized court systems.
2. Now we are one.
This may be an "own goal" for the Libs.
The bogus trial and "conviction" failed in its purpose, which was to prevent Trump from being elected.
The public will now be invited to review and consider what actually happened, what a travesty this really was, and how hollow the NY Judicial system is.
With Trump having the power and authority of the presidency, perhaps a few of the less forthright legal commentators (i.e., those who lack the guts of a Jonathan Turley) and/or those previously blinded by their nevertrump bias) will be emboldened to call the proceedings out for the sham and abomination they were--just as politicians and "leaders" are suddenly kissing Trump's ring.
And maybe take another look at the "civil fraud" fiasco as well.
The wheels of justice turn slowly...
A consolation prize is a small prize given to someone who has taken part in a competition, but who has not won. It's a gesture made to comfort them as they struggle with loss and disappointment, which can be especially difficult if the loser compromised their own values and integrity in the process and everyone knows. In such cases, the white ribbon can seem to be a further humiliation.
"... To continue to make the argument undermines the credibility of Liptak et al who continue to use the term..."
Is Liptak making this argument or just summarizing the cases Roberts has participated in. Here's the relevant text in the article:
"The chief justice was the author of not only the immunity decision but also of majority opinions in two other victories for Mr. Trump last term, one casting doubt on some of the federal charges against him and the other allowing him to seek another term despite a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office."
There is "a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office," and the case was about whether it covered Trump. Liptak doesn't assert that it does. He doesn't say Trump engaged in an insurrection. That's just what someone asserted in a lawsuit that the Court rejected. Liptak doesn't say it was wrongly decided.
Great guy if you overlook his anti-semitism and his desire to suck up to every anti-American dictator and terrorist he could meet with.
Worth reading Gareth Gore's new book on Opus Dei, the Catholic cult group that hyper-controls its coveted elite membership. Supreme Court judges Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Barrett all have Opus Dei connections, as does Bill Barr and The Federalist's Leonard Leo, who prepared vetted lists of SC candidates for Bush and Trump appointments. These folks, though cultural conservatives and Federalist-vetted SC judges, are never Trumpers.
^^ Consequences play out over decades. Carter left many positive legacies and few negative ones. Like Truman, he will be reassessed -- favorably. In contrast, the Reagan and Bush presidencies for all their triumphalism left trains of major negative consequences that continue to unfold to the present day through tax and regulatory encouragement of income inequality and wealth concentration and a unilateralism in foreign and military affairs that led to the disastrous policies of President George W. Bush, Reagan's political inheritor.
The Reagan-inspired idea that "government is the problem" is one of the most toxic legacies ever and exists on a different planet from "government of the people, for the people." Unfortunately we still are too often in the grip of "government is the problem" thinking when for example health care can only be straightened out by government; the "private sector" profiteering has turned it into the biggest cesspool in the nation's history. Plutocratic greed got its talons into the Washington policymaking apparatus during the Reagan era. When the well-connected can deregulate their way to billions, don't be surprised that Washington becomes the "free market" for this type of rent purchasing.
Carter's biggest shortcoming may have been his energy policies, based on incorrect assessments of domestic scarcity, particularly natural gas. His Synfuels project was a poster child for bad industrial policy. Energy markets are awesomely powerful. Reagan's deregulatory efforts in energy created lasting goodwill with average Americans for whom home heating and vehicle fuel purchases are their largest variable living expenses.
One enduring lesson is that high inflation and gas lines at the pump will unhorse a president, particularly a Democratic one, at the next general election. One should not let both phenomena into the same election cycle. Better to let inflation run than have voters stewing in gas lines.
Carter's observation of Ted Kennedy is astute. He embodied enough of what Americans don't like about the sense of entitlement prevalent in Washington D.C. to have been the Alf Landon of modern Democratic presidential candidates if he had ever got the nomination. The "dream shall never die" was a delusion of the Kennedy myth making establishment -- but hey, on a good day with a following breeze ... But probably never against Reagan. The Democratic establishment in Washington to this day has a Kennedy-esque aura to it that is mistrusted by many average people across the country. As Hillary Clinton has shown, political legatees lack the fundamental personal accomplishment to close the deal, at least in the Democratic party. There has to be an echo of authenticity in the campaign hoopla. And Ted Kenney had some pretty dark sides, too.
One should remember that Jimmy Carter got the job in 1976 because he was from far outside Washington D.C. That was a strength that also turned out to be a weakness when it came to successfully playing the Washington game, the ultimate test to win reelection.
NY democrats can shove their lawfare right up their corroded keisters.
Excellent points.
Eat a bag of dicks
Those were the days, my friend!
Kinda telling that even when Trump loses, those suffering from long-TDS have to formulate a narrative that is all about how this impacts Trump, and not that the Court looked at the law and the facts and came to a reasonable decision based on both, and will do the same in the future.
(Also telling that hardly anybody asks why the three liberals reflexively vote as a bloc, over and over again, regardless of the case presented to them.)
While the liberal justices are judging in gay delight, others are more curcumspect in watching the witch hunt progress with withering viability as evident throughout history where consensus is a toy abused for childish release.
“In reality, it’s the reputation and legitimacy of the justice system, not of Trump, that will suffer. And rightly so.”
—— Glenn Reynolds
The rotting... flambeed apple.
r u sure only now it is?? clearly Marbury was so ago
C'mon. What Liptak says when he uses the term "despite" is "even though Trump is an insurrectionist, Roberts bailed him out."
He could just as easily have written: "...finding that State officials could not keep him off the ballot by labelling him an "insurrectionist."
A little nuance goes a long way. Lets not pretend.
Kak: “ A vulgar term for feces or rubbish. Synonyms include excrement, stool, muck, nonsense, malarkey, and garbage.”
The legitimacy of the judicial system is in tatters. Nihilists rejoice. All outcomes can now be attributed to raw power. It was always possible to make that claim of course. But the claim used to seem incredible.
He could have even added "falsely" to make the point clear. It's not that difficult, and doesn't violate the NYT stylebook.
Liptak didn’t say it… but did he really have to given the constant NYT’s drumbeat for a substantial length of time?
The only ones who have to prove their Independence, are the 3 Leftists SCOTUS judges. They vote against Trump and/or the conservative on almost every issue. Its impossible to find a case where a Leftwing SCOTUS judge broke ranks and gave the conservatives a 5-4 victory. They vote as a bloc, and they vote their politics on almost every case.
I assume Roberts and ACB think the NY courts will take care of this travesty. This is a terrible prescedent (Sic). The President is the one important Federal officer elected by the entire country. We can't have one state or city judge hampering him or preventing him from taking office. That's one obcure man cancelling out the wishes of 70 million people.
Not only that, under our crazy system, the only one who can stop the crazy state judges are the Federal Judges. We, the other 330 million Americans, are just bystanders.
If the votes of the three liberal justices were predictable, those of the two conservative members of the court who voted with them on Thursday — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — were more surprising.
There are no "ifs" about the liberal votes being predictable, but were the Roberts and Barrett votes surprising? What the court would do was 50-50, and if the coin flip went against Trump, Roberts would vote that way and take another justice with him. After the 6-3 court gives something to Republicans, Roberts takes something else (usually much less important) away to appease critics.
Much of the discussion here seems to have failed to note that Trump said he was fine with this decision. The Times as Ann quotes here has to go back to something Trump said earlier. Did they even deal with his statement today that he is okay with the Court's decision? Well, here is something I posted elsewhere, but it applies here:
":Trump's response to this is perfect. What it shows is that in the idiotic cat-and-mouse game Merchan and all his Democratic masters of war have been playing, they have utterly failed to notice that it is Trump who is the cat. "Know your enemy" is a good rule of battle. They, the left, have never really known their enemy. They believe their own stupid hype about him so totally, that he upends them at every turn. May it continue."
He doesn't characterize the ruling correctly at all. Every Presidental candidate since the ratification the 14th has done so 'despite a constitution provision barring insurrectionists from holding office' making the phrase meaningless without context. Liptak's wording implies Trump was an insurrectionist but Roberts' decision allowed him to run anyway. The Court never answered the question of insurrection, only ruling that a State couldn't unilaterally enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
“Don’t mind the maggots!”
I love how the Left, including the commenters here at Althouse, always operate as big robot army. The elite puts out the script, in this case attack the SCOTUS and the Republican judges, and all the followers go out and squawk out the party line. I'd be embarassed to just recite a script, but most non-elite leftists have no brains and no shame. They do however, have a mouth and a keyboard.
"Trump has a reputation of not paying his lawyers" progressives (known liars) repeat endlessly without proof. Even that hideous dork Cohen got paid.
And at least one fewer Barret.
Once more Chris B phrases it exactly so. Strunk and White would have advised Liptak to remove that clause entirely.
The dissenters are full of prune juice and canal water. This is a minor bump in the road and Trump will not be distracted by it instead it will make him stronger. That's the way it's gone all along every time the libs knock him down he gets up and he's even more powerful. Just think how our enemies will feel when he threatens them knowing he's a convicted felon.
Clearing his name, you have to be kidding. If he wins on appeal it will change nobody's attitude towards the man.
I think it was more the later than the former. IIRC the ruling was specifically that a State couldn't unilaterally enforce Section 3 of the 14th without Congressional action as specified in section 5.
TY Mike. I think boatbuilder came up with the best formulation but I didn't see it before I posted.
Isn't it Trump, through his lawyers, who scripted this one?
written as i watch my gains of the last year evaporate on the market
Trump said he was fine with this decision.
Right! All the Supreme Court opinion is saying is that we're going through the ordinary appeal process on this one, no need to immediately jump to the Supreme Court. "I read it, and I thought it was a fair decision, actually," Trump said.
Trump on the high road!
And the left, as usual, is obsessed with appearances and fake shit. They want his mug shot, and they don't care if he's committed any crimes. They want to call him "felon," and they don't give a shit if it's true. They know this lawfare shit was overruled by the American people in November. Our vote made a mockery out of these criminal trials.
But still they go through the charade of convicting him. And then, when his conviction is overturned? They'll say that was political. And if Biden is arrested and all this shit happens to him? It will be the end of the world. And they will forget about all the shit they put Trump through.
Christopher B, are you one of those "Just asking questions" bros that are such a blight on our political discourse, per the press? You know that nothing is more vile than asking questions that the political class doesn't want asked!
I would be happy if he simply used "alleged" the way their stylebook undoubtedly prescribes.
His handle is for him a nostalgic reference to the reign of the man he championed for so many posts on these pages, the corrupt and incompetent Joe Biden. In just a few days the kakistocracy will be done, and Mr Robinette will bravely slink away. But he will keep the Biden fire burning here, no doubt.
...you are inadvertently highlighting the political motivation of redefining words for political purpose, likely by government actors, though we will likely never be allowed to discover...
For jimmy…
“The dust blows forward 'n dust blows back.”
—— Captain Beefheart
Ah yes, Jimmy Carter, the man who created the Taliban with the stroke of a pen in 1979 in order to provoke a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. An honorable man with the blood of 3,000 Americans on his hand, not counting thousands more who died in the consequent wars.
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of the story, the CIA began to assist mujahedeen in the year 1980, that is, after the invasion of the Soviet army against Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the truth that remained secret until today is quite different: it was on July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed his first order on the secret assistance to Kabul’s pro-Soviet regime opponents. That day I wrote a memorandum to the President in which I told him that that assistance would cause the Soviet intervention (…) we did not force the Russian intervention, we just, conscientiously, increased the intervention possibilities.
The left is always big on iconography (e.g., huge posters of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, the use of initials such FDR, JFK, LBJ, and recently Dark Brandon, etc.), and they thereby see everything in the world through similarly shallow iconography. They inadvertently made Trump the most significant US political icon since Abe Lincoln. His mug shot is NOT a negative image. His assassination photo will far outlive the USA in the history books.
I can't wait until New York follows Illinois "The Land of Lincoln" (a Republican) by declaring NY "The Land of Trump."
AMDG nails it completely re: Carter.
Agreed. This whole fiasco is soon likely to be overturned at the appellate level. It has been the flimsiest sham trial in American history. Let it play out.
Iman. A caprophile.
Yeah, Howard. I get the impression he really doesn't care what other people think of him.
Now that he's a 'felon', Trump needs to get him some prison tats. Maybe the old blue tears, one for each SC justice. 4 on the right eye, 5 on the left.
I agree that there was a bias, however, slight, in the text in question. It easily could have been framed in an objective way. As for LLRRich, may he stick to "no words".
Ann Althouse wrote:
"There is "a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding office," and the case was about whether it covered Trump."
The case, Trump v. Anderson, was about whether or not an individual state (Colorado) could decide the question, not about whether or not the insurrection clause covered Trump.
The conviction was a pretty gross violation of Due Process (DO). It was pretty egregious LawFare, and LawFare almost always violates the Notice requirement of DP. Moreover, one of the elements for the charges was Election Fraud. The judge gave the jury three different possible election fraud statutes, none of which he could have been tried for, and didn’t require them to all agree on a single one. Which means that there was no way to determine that the guilty verdict had been unanimous on any single one of them. Then, there was the factual impossibility issue - all of the charges were for actions taken by Trump, or someone else working for his sons, AFTER the election. The only real question is the level at which the conviction is reversed. I don’t see it making it through the first level of appellate review in NY state, unlikely through the 2nd Circuit, and probably impossible through the US Supreme Court. It was just too gross to survive.
Felon wins. Roundheels loses. Carry on, Donald.
He should do it, with removable lookalike tats. He should really do it.
“But he's better off losing some of the time. It shows that the Supreme Court acts independently of him and undercuts those who'd like to say the Court is in his pocket. So this is one of his losses.”
So we stand in the light of day and claim that kabuki theater is a legitimate tool of policy. You would think that this statement, made in public, would destroy its own power, but no. We know we are being fooled and we don’t give a damn.
Let’s arrange a situation that indicates the court is fair! Yes, everyone will then agree with us, and let’s also print public admission to that fact!
Three votes for Democrats, four votes for justice, and two votes for due process. The scenic route to justice wins.
Post a Comment