Goals that the right cannot achieve through the ballot box

Joan McCarter of Daily Kos wrote:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard Donald Trump’s immunity claim in his federal criminal trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election Thursday, and the conservative majority is likely going to give Donald Trump what he wants: a delay of the trial until after the election. If Trump wins again, the conservatives have essentially signaled that they would be open to blanket immunity for him against any future criminal charges. The fact that Supreme Court justices are suggesting that the president is above the law proves why the court must be reformed. Four of the justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch—even went so far as to suggest that special counsel Jack Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional, and they reinforced Trump’s argument that the president is immune.

Reform of the Supremes should be a top priority of the next Congress. In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times who looked into a disturbing question asked by Alito in the oral arguments of the presidential immunity case:

“Now,” Alito continued, “if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” The implication of Alito’s question is that presidential immunity for all official acts may be a necessary concession to the possibility of a politically motivated investigation and prosecution: Presidents need to be above the law to raise the odds that they follow the law and leave office without incident. If this sounds backward, that’s because it is.

Dartagnan of the Kos community wrote that conservative judges are issuing rulings to take away rights, not expand them. The opinions are lengthy and complex, which nearly all citizens will never read or understand if they did. But they have real consequences.

This transformation is deliberate. It’s the desired byproduct of a concerted, far-reaching strategy by the political right to achieve unfair and unpopular goals, spanning social, cultural, and economic sectors—goals that the right cannot achieve through the ballot box. Operating through the institutional mechanism of lifetime appointments which cannot be reversed, this political bastardization of the judiciary—most particularly at the federal level—by a virulent and reactionary “movement conservatism” is approaching its apotheosis. It now openly ignores its own precedents in favor of exalting paeans to “originalism”—and most recently, “history” and “tradition.” These amount to opportunistic exercises in cherry-picking, designed to achieve the results conservatives want, rather than what the law and modern society plainly demand. ... It’s a strategy mostly created to serve the country’s ultra-rich, who have carefully planned for decades to achieve their goals of cementing into law a continuous spigot of multi-generational wealth... But none of this is occurring for the good of the American public. Rather, it’s intended to serve the needs and desires of a tiny minority at the expense of the rest of the country.

For an example of how bizarre some of these opinions can get to pull out the desired outcome Emily Bazelon of the NYT says to look at Alito’s decision to end abortion rights in the Dobbs case. Lower courts are taking their cue from the Supremes to pursue the conservative agenda. They’re also using “history and tradition” to justify their desired outcomes. Another component in these opinions is to pretend they aren’t really endorsing the conservative view, that’s just where the evidence takes them.

As [Reva] Siegel [of the Texas Law Review] emphasizes in a forthcoming analysis of this trend, these types of judicial “memory games” are really efforts to hide the fact of their agenda from Americans who lack the expertise to call them out. She notes that the only instances where these historical exercises are used appear to be instances where the court is intent on changing the law from what it actually is to what conservatives want it to be.

Who you elect for the Senate and for president in November matters a great deal. Tom Dreisbach and Carrie Johnson reported on an investigation by NPR into federal judges. The Supremes aren’t the only ones that don’t report luxury trips. Dozens of federal judges don’t either. These trips aren’t just pleasure. They are built around conferences for the judges. And, yeah, they’re at luxurious resorts (such as outside Yellowstone), a few thousand in expenses are paid for, and the speakers at the conferences might include corporate CEOs, which would create a conflict of interest. That these judges are offered and take these trips is bad, though apparently not illegal. Neglecting to report these trips is both bad and illegal. The full article spells it all out in much more detail, including listing some of the judges. The problem isn’t just the judges. Walter Einenkel of Kos discussed a segment from Rachel Maddow’s show. Said Maddow:

There are at least 53 Republican officials and lawyers and activists who are facing felony criminal counts other than Donald Trump himself.

Many are election deniers and some are in court for fake elector schemes. What prompted this segment is a couple of those indicted Republican officials in Arizona were elected to represent the state in the Republican National Committee. They want the criminals in control. There is good news out of Arizona. An Associated Press article posted on Kos reports the state Senate has approved a bill to overturn the state’s 1864 abortion ban. Two Republicans voted with the Democrats. It has already passed the House and will go to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who is expected to sign it. The state’s Supreme Court ruled the 1864 law can be enforced. But it will be a while before the ruling goes into effect. This bill doesn’t go into effect right away either. So the question is which one goes into effect first? And will there be a period in which abortions in Arizona are banned? When the 1864 law is overturned a 2022 law comes into effect that bans abortion after 15 weeks. And then it is on to dueling proposals on the November ballot. Mark Sumner of Kos discussed the state of the National Rifle Association. Back in January its chief executive Wayne LaPierre resigned as he faced a trial for using NRA funds to treat himself. At the trial he was ordered to pay back close to $4.4 million. The leadership has descended into infighting. Their bank accounts are low – they donated $50 million for the 2016 election and only $11 million this year. Membership is down a million, to about 5 million. And gun sales have declined – down 5% in March 2024 compared to March 2023. Yeah, Republicans like to pose for Christmas cards with every member of the family holding a gun. But only 6% of Americans hunt. And while an assault rifle is good for war, it is bad at defense. It’s also expensive. There are other gun lobby groups who would love to be more influential. But they haven’t spent decades connecting politicians and deep-pocket donors. Perhaps we’ve passed Peak Gun? Which means now is the time to push for more gun control legislation. Bill in Portland, Maine, in a Cheers and Jeers column for Kos, listed a few things he has come to know:

Trump locked up the nomination so quickly because the party of personal responsibility and family values prefers the candidate who has committed more crimes, sexually assaulted more women, swindled more vulnerable people, plotted more insurrections, stiffed more clients, and broken more commandments. The red-hatted cult's attempt to smear gay people as "groomers" can't help but backfire. Everybody already knows they're groomers. They've dominated the hair care industry since forever.