A Court Supreme

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Thoughts from one of the leaders of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project:
https://therickwilson.substack.com/p...coming-horrors

Once again Rick Wilson of The Lincoln Project is giving everybody a warning about the Right Wing Supreme Court.

[Stavros]

Thoughts from one of the leaders of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project:
https://therickwilson.substack.com/p...coming-horrors

Strongly worded, but. Surely one thing the Supreme Court does is return to the lower courts the right to distinguish official acts from private ones. I think the response so far has been to panic -why has the sentencing in the 'Hush Money' case been delayed to September, when the events that it concerns took place before Mr Trump was President? Is this not a clear case in which he has no Supreme Court to protect him?

In the case of the Documents, on that the law is clear that a President does not have the right to personally own documents that belong to the people of the US, so the Courts must decide what takes precedence -the existing law, or Trump's claim that the law does not apply to him.

Is this not the time for the Lower Courts to do exactly what the Supreme Court will not do -and where relevant, prosecute Trump with the full force of the law?

[Stavros]

The Telegraph (a Farage obsessed Brexit Pamphlet masquerading as a newspaper) has this sophistry that purports to show how the Supreme Court judgment -which actually ducks out and passes those judgments to lower courts- has strengthened American Democracy, with this priceless observation-

"the Supreme Court has tasked the judiciary with determining which of his actions fall under the scope of official duties and which do not. This critical distinction ensures that presidents cannot misuse their office for personal gain while providing a necessary shield for their legitimate functions."
The Supreme Court has strengthened America (yahoo.com)

Does this mean Trump can be prosecuted for his golfing strategy - play in clubs he owns to reap the financial benefit?

More disturbing, though that depends on what you think of the 'Administrative State' -is Clarence Thomas in effect suggesting that the Agencies of the Federal Govt should be abolished given that he thinks they interfere in American businesses, or 'overreach'-

"The case stems from a fine imposed by OSHA against an Ohio contractor after a worker was injured by a broken catwalk on a worksite.The company then sued President Joe Biden’s administration, claiming that the agency’s ability to set “reasonably necessary or appropriate” safety standards violates congress’ constitutional law-making authority.
An appeals court rejected that argument, and the company appealed up to the Supreme Court.
“The Occupational Safety and Health Act may be the broadest delegation of power to an administrative agency found in the United States Code,” Thomas wrote."
Justice Clarence Thomas wants the Supreme Court to take aim at ‘far-reaching’ workplace safety laws (yahoo.com)

Project 2025 is happening a year early.

[filghy2]

"the Supreme Court has tasked the judiciary with determining which of his actions fall under the scope of official duties and which do not. This critical distinction ensures that presidents cannot misuse their office for personal gain while providing a necessary shield for their legitimate functions."

Except that the decision explicitly says “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” In other words, he can misuse the office for personal gain as long as it's under the guise of an official act.

[Stavros]

Except that the decision explicitly says “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” In other words, he can misuse the office for personal gain as long as it's under the guise of an official act.

That doesn't make sense, not even in legal terms. Motivation is so clearly a factor in decision making I don't see how it cannot be scrutinized. But even that surely cannot enable the President to take actions whose consequences are financial gain- such as playing Golf in clubs that he owns, and charging the Secret Service detail substantially more to use the facilities than normal members are charged. If a President who is a businessman must relinquish control while in office, how can it then be legal for the same President to use his own business to play golf, and in 4 years make more money from Golf than Tiger Wood made in 20?

Again, the motive behind the President hoarding documents that do not belong to him may not be clear- a need, out of vanity to show visitors the files on a policy? The desire to make money selling the contents of files to a foreign government, or if they relate to trade, for example, to a US based business? Motivation is irrelevant here, because an existing law that has not been challenged or made void, still applies to the former President and for violating that law he must present himself in Court.

Not enquiring into January 6th needs no scrutiny of motivation because the record from multiple sources makes it clear that Trump refused to accept the vote, and conspired with others to prevent the certification of the results of the Electoral College on the 6th of January. The existing law that has not been set aside, describes any attempt to prevent Congress from fulfilling its Constitutional duties as Sedition against the United States. Vice President Pence refused Trump's request/demand and in doing so upheld the law, but there is no contest that Trump himself opposed this, indeed, that members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, without a shred of evidence to support their claims, also attempted to prevent the Certification from taking place.

Based on these facts the Supreme Court decision is not based on an interpretation of law, but of politics, which it is not entitled to do. That the Court has passed the actual determination of what is or is not legal to a lower court suggests that Justices knew they could not subvert the laws that they are supposed to maintain, but that they made a Political Decision precisely to protect the career of a man whose politics they approve of.

But if the Supreme Court is to establish itself as a political party, then maybe President Biden should appoint four or five more Justices to make his own political points, though I don't know if this can be done owing to time and Congressional approval.

I also don't know if AOC's attempt to impeach Justices can work if the grounds are them receiving sponsorship in return for judgments that are commerically beneficial to their sponsors, I assume this would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

[filghy2]

Good summary here of all the partisan decisions the SC has made since 2000.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-145796416