I'm sure I will not be the only one to say this: So far we only know that the Supreme Court believes in *Republican* Presidents having Unitary Executive Power. We shall see how deeply they believe that (hopefully) in 2029
This isn't really true, though. This court has been making consistent decisions chipping at Humphrey's Executor since Trump 1.0 and they didn't stop during Biden.
That’s partially the point. They know decent people like Biden or Obama won’t do such dastardly things, hence it is a power exclusively reserved for MAGA. If they thought for one second that this power would be wielded with equal force by the Democratic Party, they would never rule in such a manner.
I thought Biden's student loan cancellation plan was considered the gold standard in "executive overreach" that the right lost their minds over. I didn't agree with that initiative, either, but it certainly fit the mold of several Trump actions.
Yep, Biden v. Nebraska. Frankly, I didn't fundamentally disagree with their ruling that Major Questions applied that required congressional action. It's the lack of consistency and bald-faced partisanship that's appalling.
They also granted him, for all intents and purposes, blanket immunity. Don't try to tell me they're not "in the bag" for trump. These so called "conservative" justices are some of the slimiest and corrupt justices in our lifetimes. Roberts, the so called Chief justice has the spine of an amoeba, Alito and Thomas are for sale to the highest bidder, and the trump appointees, well they were handpicked by the Federalist Society who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them. They should just be honest with themselves and change their name to the Fascist Society. I believe they handpick certain cases to go against trump to "keep up appearances".
This court is 6-3 in favor of the Unitary Executive Theory. So they will continue to chip away at the executor over time. The 6 who are all in are republican appointed judges. 4 by Trump, 2 by Bush. John Roberts is in love with UET. You do the math on who they hope will take advantage of UET.
Exactly my thought. The moment a Democratic President tries to use the rules and laws that favored Trump (thanks, SCOTUS!), Republicans will sue, eventually bring it to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS will rule the Democratic President's actions illegal/unconstitutional. All of this assumes the current Roberts Six are still on the court, of course. By why won't they be?
Who should we believe are the "originalits" that the fascist majority at SCOTUS are channeling for judicial guidance? Certainly, no one who was at the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia. It must be some British Royalists who loved King George, lost the war of independence and fled to England or British Canada.
Thats why we need to define the length of service of Supreme Court Justices. At the time the Supreme Court was founded or developed it was a life time office. However the Justices were older, seasoned judges and life spans were shorter. Some of Trump's far right religious justices could be on the bench for 30 more years.
Expand the court and remove the for life terms. There should also be a minimum age and years of experience.
There should also be a very strict Code of Conduct which should be overseen by an independent entity. We know we can't trust the SCOTUS to police themselves.
Some where I read commentary that most of this Supreme Courts decisions favor the Republicans policies. Amazing that this party is so aligned with the Constitution that the Supreme Court claims to uphold, yet to keep getting elected, Republicans resort to voter suppression and gerrymandering. The claim that the Supreme Court is both neutral and has knowledge of the thinking of the founders gets more and more stupid.
The next Democratic president will have both a writ of royal immunity and the powers of a king. At that point I presume the Court will start backpedaling like an NFL cornerback.
I would hope it doesn't manifest itself as an embrace of coarseness but rather a willingness to play hardball politically i.e. Lyndon Johnson type politics.
Not "hopefully." We will MAKE SURE there is a Democratic president on 1/20/29. Not voting (like the appalling 35% that squandered their privilege in '24) is no longer an option. The traitors are determined to make voting harder, and that WILL only increase our resolve to weed them out, starting with the crucial midterms.
The assumption that greater voter turnout will result in the Dems winning seems not to coincide with prior elections. Who turns out and what their specific interests are is the key. Its all in the message that is presented.
I agree with Tupper -- the Supremes will do everything they can to restrict a Dem President. They are the most disgustedly partisan Supreme Court we have ever seen -- they overturn long established law and precedent for a questionable political theory -- the unitary executive. They say states are sovereign, then overturn state law as Unconstitutional. They just did it to Hawaii's gun law.
The Supreme Court has apparently decided that professional expertise gained over years, or even decades, in a specialized field is no longer an essential part of a functional government. So much for “merit”. We truly are going to descend to the levels of Soviet Russia, where cronyism takes the place of education and experience. We’ve already witnessed how adept this president has been at choosing his cabinet. We are a ship of fools, sailing directly at our demise. I’m so disgusted and disheartened.
Much of that incompetence, cronyism, and inattentive leadership culminated in Chernobyl. Some analysts posit the handling of the Chernobyl disaster, notably the amount of public disinformation and "don't believe your own eyes and measuring devices" was the final event providing the end of the union and the cold war, opening version 2 of Russian filled vacuum kleptocracy.
Taking your point about professional expertise, one might note that the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, argued for slow organic change and believed in the accumulated wisdom of institutions. The Supreme Court is not conservative. It's a reactionary arm of what has become a reactionary know-nothing political movement. Federalist Society and adjacent intellectual thought is fig leaf justification.
"Many Trump foes have come to view this Court as a doormat for the president. This is dramatically overtorqued: The Court hasn’t been afraid to cross Trump on some of his biggest priorities, from the 2020 election to his signature “Liberation Day” tariffs to his mass deportation regime. Just yesterday, in a separate case, SCOTUS dealt Trump a major loss on the issue of mail-in ballots, ruling that he could not prevent states from accepting ballots postmarked by election day where that practice is consistent with their laws."
I don't really agree with this and I think JVL's take yesterday, that SCOTUS will hand Trump an occasional tactical setback while reliably giving him strategic victories, is more accurate. Maybe that's not a doormat, but it's something close to one. Over and over again we've seen cases move up the chain of lower courts that repeatedly rule against the Administration, because obviously the Administration is in the wrong, only to see the one court that has the final decision overturn all of those lower courts in the Administration's/Trump's favor. And we've repeatedly seen this court drag its feet on cases when it's to the Administration's benefit while expediting cases when it's in their benefit. They dragged their feet on the tariffs when it was an obvious call; they've dragged their feet on birthright citizenship when it is an obvious call; they dragged their feet on immunity so live cases could not proceed and Americans could not determine whether one of the two candidates in 2024 had committed serious felonies; and they moved the case on ballot access in Colorado at light speed because there were filing deadlines that Trump needed to meet. It's all a big project of enabling a Republican authoritarian push.
100%, JVL was on the money with his piece. I understand Andrew's POV but I think he is underratting the wins Trump was just handed on immigration in the TPS case, and the forced exception that was still a narrow 5-4 on the Fed case. The fact that the court did its basic function on some blatantly unconstitutional issues like tarrifs does not mean they aren't clearly favorable to Trump, they have ruled for him overwhelmingly on the shadow docket compared to Biden. Even when they rule against Trump, they do it so narrowly, they didn't say anything about the alternative tarrifs he is trying to use or whether he had to return the money. Yet, we can let him dismantle the department of education wholesale without issue, but Joe Biden's limited student loan forgiveness was a clear violation to them. The whole court has become more and more transparently uninterested in facts, justice, or the constitution they are supposed to protect.
Plus they use the shadow docket all the time to declare from on high with no explanation for their decisions. Which is pretty authoritarian in it's own right.
“Liberation Day” tariffs to his mass deportation regime. Just yesterday, in a separate case, SCOTUS dealt Trump a major loss on the issue of mail-in ballots, ruling that he could not prevent states from accepting ballots postmarked by election day where that practice is consistent with their laws."
Excellent analysis Don, and let’s face it, the liberation tariffs was a small setback—the tariffs are illegal but they left the door open for other ways Trump can attack the issue: rather than retreat after the Court ruling, the administration has pivoted to other legal authorities — Section 232, Section 122, Section 301 — to keep tariffs in place, and those are themselves being challenged in court.
As for the mail-in ballots? Well it only affects the blue states—red states that agree with the policies can stop the mail-in counting as per Trump’s demand (all 25 States will follow his rules).
Not to mention, these states are also handing over voter rolls—so technically, they can illegally target democrats in certain districts, making sure their ballots never arrive in time, even if they are mailed in on the day received—the sorting machines can do amazing work! 😎
Andrew: "But after he leaves office, his laws will be all he can count on remaining. Yes, the Supreme Court has made it easier for Trump to remake the government in his image for now. But they’ve done just as much to make it easier for the next Democratic president to blot out that image once he’s gone."
Except the Unitary Executive Theory is only applicable to Republican presidents. Once President Ocasio-Cortez takes the oath of office, SCOTUS will do their best to check her power.
Remember: the six "conservatives" justices are no different than systems engineers.
I'd bet the whole chip stack you will not suddenly see the conservative SCOTUS discover a love for Humphrey's Executor under President AOC. In fact I'd go deeply into debt borrowing more money to wager on this.
The same SCOTUS that gave Trump carte blanche in 2024 with their immunity ruling? The same SCOTUS that ignored the plain text of the 14th Amendment in 2024?
The conservatives on the court won't turn to Humphrey's, but invent a whole new reason from some law or tradition from 1600s why AOC can't take some presidential action.
We are all going full JVL on Andrew. I will say though I do appreciate his non-hyperbolic takes. Him being completely apoplectic about the Jan 6th slush fund actually surprised me based on his normal comportment.
SCOTUS may not try to reinstate Humphrey but it will find another way to block D presidential power. The major questions doctrine is a useful tool for such an effort. This SCOTUS Is not consistent. Just look at the Slaughter and Cook cases dropping on the same day.
They'll just dream up another rationale to stop a Democratic President from firing agency boards and employees like Trump did. My word, Alito has shown a willingness to reach back into the bowels of history to come up with rationales for rulings. I'm sure he can find another medieval thinker to quote to explain why AOC couldn't possibly use the same powers the SCOTUS gave Trump.
I can see Alito's argument now, Alito: "She can't use those powers because...SHE'S A WITCH!!!". The man quoted opinions of a guy who believed in witches and witch trials.
Andrew, assuming the same ideological SCOTUS makeup if a Dem gets elected, I would take that bet. They’ll find some kind of one/time loophole akin to the Federal Reserve carveout.
“90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed,”
GOd, I hate this f*cking country. Let' just keep dumping more power into the petty tyrants that are our sh*tty presidents. All of them, awful human beings. We just keep giving them more and more power. Reaching into our personal lives... This country sucks, and the people who vote in it suck too.
“But they’ve done just as much to make it easier for the next Democratic president to blot out that image once he’s gone.”
That’s a big “IF” as whether we’ll have a democracy come November—it’s Game of Throne rules: You win or you die!
These people including Johnson have said the quiet part out loud; if democrats take the house there will be investigations and impeachments for most of his cabinet, family and cronies.
Now that Trump is the Unitary Executive—it’s hard to grasp what is technically legal, and what is not! And given how Trump’s crimes may be hard to prove with his presidential immunity—it could take years to work its way through a very sympathetic SCOTUS; which has been in twisting itself in judicial knots just to rule in his favor: Originalism and its sister ideology—textualism are a joke. IMHO…:)
This feels right to me. I will be very happily surprised if we have anything resembling free and fair elections in November. I do not believe that the orange idiot is playing 4D chess but I think someones behind the scenes is. Really hate how much like a conspiracy theory this sounds. It's gut feeling. I see the stumbling abd bumbling. I feel like it's meant to keep our hopes alive and our guard down just enough to allow them to pull off their nefarious plan.
Andrew, I would expect anyone distressed over repeated authoritarian actions by this White House to be rather torqued by the High Court’s whole-cloth creation of presidential criminal immunity where there once was none; as well as the bribery fest unleashed by the earlier Citizens United ruling. This is a Supreme Court majority clearly eager to usher in a White, Christian Nationalist, Putin-esque oligarchy. Am I torqued? Absolutely. And the fact that a future power-mad Democratic president will have the same carte blanche as Trump is of no comfort whatsoever.
"Whether the Court’s theory of the unitary executive is faithful to the Constitution or not, it’s plain that it sets this president up to do even more damage in the immediate term—and it’s hard to fault too much those who feel that the Supreme Court should look down from the horizon a bit to put up a little more hashtag #resistance to the would-be authoritarian we’ve got right this minute."
Perhaps the Supremes might want to ponder that, to Trump, the ideal government employee is Bill Pulte.
This isn't just going to cost Trump his legacy. The every 4 or 8 year whipsaws of personnel and regulations is going to cost us all dearl, because there will be no clarity or contiuity in regulation.
But, in the end, big business and oligarchy wins, because nobody is going to want to work for the government if they'll be fired after the next election and all they have to do is wait the offending president out.
Remember all that complaining about activist judges? The history of the Roberts court has been not just interpreting laws and the constitution, but re-writing it when it serves their ideological purposes, or perhaps more accurately, the ideological purpose of the half dozen Texas oligarchs who dictate the court’s decisions.
Expanding on Tupper and Trashscientist's comments, I have a serious question: is it possible for We the People- a person or agency-- to challenge the constitutionality of this Unified Executive Theory? It is not a law, we've certainly never voted on it. Best I can tell it was a fantasy cooked up by a bunch of right-wing operatives in back rooms, and John Roberts became an eager acolyte early in his career. This right-wing fantasy is well on the road to undermining democracy as we have known it. Are we faced with no choice but to accept that a simple majority of 9 unelected people have the power to upend the system because of some fantasy theory they concocted out of thin air?
The Federal Trade Commission was created with a very clear mandate, including that it was to be independent, and Commissioners could only be fired for specific causes. The FTC was established by Congress and signed into LAW by Woodrow Wilson in 1914. In the 1930s, FDR tried to fire FTC Commissioner William Humphrey. Humphrey fought his termination and it wound its way up to the Supreme Court who ruled that the law was very clear that the agency was created to be independent, therefore it was not within the president's purview to fire a commissioner without cause.
How can we ever have confidence that there is any such thing as settled law? Yesterday we watched as a 102 year old legally established federal agency, whose independence was tried and upheld by the Supreme Court 91 years ago, was blown up without any rational legal argument other than this "unitary executive theory". According to everything we have been taught our entire lives, this "theory" flies directly in the face of our founders' intent when they created a government with checks and balances.
Again I ask, do we really have no choice but to accept that a simple majority of 9 unelected people have that power?
This SCOTUS does not think Congress should have any power over the president. Isn’t that what they have been telling us? Their goal is to strip Congress of its authority over law making when it comes to the unitary executive. Everything I have read says they put out the flimsiest fantastical arguments to make their case repeatedly. How do we check the highest court in the land when they are also the final arbitrator of the law? If I thought a Dem could ever be president again I would say it’ll become a case of President AOC saying, go ahead SCOTUS, make me, just try and enforce that.
Tracey, I didn't look at it through that lens- that they are clearly sabotaging congress' Article 1 authorities; but since I initially read your comment, I've read HCR'S letter, and she states the same thing. So now I have all kinds of other questions, which I don't normally spew into the public arena until I've had a chance to research and reflect, but my anger is compelling me to make an exception!
When Roberts had his confirmation hearing, did he disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he intended to make decisions under this theory of the Unitary Executive? If he had, would anyone have voted to confirm him?
I refuse to accept that We the People have no defense against a Supreme Court majority who is applying a fantasy "theory"-- a theory which very clearly violates every principle expressed by the founders to ensure that we have Co-equal branches of government, separation of powers and enforceable checks and balances-- to their decisions, when it suits them. How is it that they have the authority to override Congress in determining which independent agencies are worthy of independence? How is it possible that they alone have the power to decide that the Federal Reserve should remain independent while other agencies which are arguably equally important in terms of protecting the rights of citizens, are not worthy of their independence and should be subject to the whim of a tyrant?
Kate Shaw discusses this in an op-ed nyt piece this morning 6/30. I don’t have the knowledge but it seems like the gop congress could DO something… This is a mess & he’s been enabled so we have a war & henchmen alongside donald, at the helm. It’s not irrational to imagine unending chaos & a November to remember.
Regarding expanded executive power, I'm curious to know what people think of the next President, should that person be a Democrat (though, really, a Republican should be equally interested in this tactic), testing the limits of presidential power by arresting the former President on the grounds of [fill in whatever reason you want, which would almost certainly be more legally defensible than 90% of what Trump has done], holding him for a while in an undisclosed location, and then releasing him with a warning that "the investigation into the former President's corrupt and illegal actions while in office continues and further action by the Justice Department will be forthcoming." Is it too much? Where would we be now if Joe Biden/Merrick Garland had done that in early 2021? Would we be recovering from (or still in the midst of) civil war or would we be enjoying the view of a political landscape that no longer includes the Orange Menace? BTW, regarding what to charge him with, I kind of like simple murder for the summary execution of people "accused" of drug trafficking. Sure, it would go up to the Supreme Court to test the limits of its immunity ruling but, in the meantime, hold him without bail at a remote Supermax. Quoth the next President: "I have an Article II, etc."
Any headline that says "Trump's [insert characteristic or latest behaviour] will cost him" is just clickbait. Nothing ever ends up costing him- at least not anything that matters to him.
The Supreme Court is guided by three principles: expanding executive power (unitary executive theory), further entrenching republicans’ power and solidifying oligarchic power. Once you know the destination, legally reverse engineering and rationalizing it to the populace is the easy part.
I'm sure I will not be the only one to say this: So far we only know that the Supreme Court believes in *Republican* Presidents having Unitary Executive Power. We shall see how deeply they believe that (hopefully) in 2029
This isn't really true, though. This court has been making consistent decisions chipping at Humphrey's Executor since Trump 1.0 and they didn't stop during Biden.
Did Biden take advantage of these rulings though? I don't think there was a case where Biden exploited the presidential official acts immunity ruling.
That’s partially the point. They know decent people like Biden or Obama won’t do such dastardly things, hence it is a power exclusively reserved for MAGA. If they thought for one second that this power would be wielded with equal force by the Democratic Party, they would never rule in such a manner.
And it benefitted citizens, not corporations or the Trump family.
I thought Biden's student loan cancellation plan was considered the gold standard in "executive overreach" that the right lost their minds over. I didn't agree with that initiative, either, but it certainly fit the mold of several Trump actions.
Do you mean the executive order that the Supreme Court ruled against?
Well, now we know what to do: create an agency, ram it through Congress, and then have THEM forgive student loans.
Yep, Biden v. Nebraska. Frankly, I didn't fundamentally disagree with their ruling that Major Questions applied that required congressional action. It's the lack of consistency and bald-faced partisanship that's appalling.
But did this happen before the Robert court. In any case the level of evil now is of an order of magnitude worse.
George Conway talked about Humphrey's Executor many times. It's been weakened many times over many cases over many years. This isn't a new thing.
They also granted him, for all intents and purposes, blanket immunity. Don't try to tell me they're not "in the bag" for trump. These so called "conservative" justices are some of the slimiest and corrupt justices in our lifetimes. Roberts, the so called Chief justice has the spine of an amoeba, Alito and Thomas are for sale to the highest bidder, and the trump appointees, well they were handpicked by the Federalist Society who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them. They should just be honest with themselves and change their name to the Fascist Society. I believe they handpick certain cases to go against trump to "keep up appearances".
This court is 6-3 in favor of the Unitary Executive Theory. So they will continue to chip away at the executor over time. The 6 who are all in are republican appointed judges. 4 by Trump, 2 by Bush. John Roberts is in love with UET. You do the math on who they hope will take advantage of UET.
Exactly my thought. The moment a Democratic President tries to use the rules and laws that favored Trump (thanks, SCOTUS!), Republicans will sue, eventually bring it to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS will rule the Democratic President's actions illegal/unconstitutional. All of this assumes the current Roberts Six are still on the court, of course. By why won't they be?
Who should we believe are the "originalits" that the fascist majority at SCOTUS are channeling for judicial guidance? Certainly, no one who was at the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia. It must be some British Royalists who loved King George, lost the war of independence and fled to England or British Canada.
The federalist society would have been firmly behind king george .
There will be younger versions of Clarence and Sammy by that point, but only the names will change -same partisan rulings.
Thats why we need to define the length of service of Supreme Court Justices. At the time the Supreme Court was founded or developed it was a life time office. However the Justices were older, seasoned judges and life spans were shorter. Some of Trump's far right religious justices could be on the bench for 30 more years.
Expand the court and remove the for life terms. There should also be a minimum age and years of experience.
There should also be a very strict Code of Conduct which should be overseen by an independent entity. We know we can't trust the SCOTUS to police themselves.
Actually, Congress can. Congress is the one that gives the Supreme Court money.
We'll also see just how much "immunity" the Court grants to any Democratic Presidential actions.
Some where I read commentary that most of this Supreme Courts decisions favor the Republicans policies. Amazing that this party is so aligned with the Constitution that the Supreme Court claims to uphold, yet to keep getting elected, Republicans resort to voter suppression and gerrymandering. The claim that the Supreme Court is both neutral and has knowledge of the thinking of the founders gets more and more stupid.
The next Democratic president will have both a writ of royal immunity and the powers of a king. At that point I presume the Court will start backpedaling like an NFL cornerback.
Exactly !
Luckily for them they wont have to address it as the Dems would hate to go low . The battered wife syndrome as a political strategy.
That was yesterday. We won't be nominating a squish in '29. We're pissed. Ask Janet Mills about it. I doubt that would change even if Platner loses.
Yes. I think Democrats are done with "when they go low, we go high".
I would hope it doesn't manifest itself as an embrace of coarseness but rather a willingness to play hardball politically i.e. Lyndon Johnson type politics.
That's what I'm thinking, too.
It's like the old song by Alice Cooper: "No More Mr. Nice Guy."
Rules , norms , dither , dither , Oh we can't do anything .
Not "hopefully." We will MAKE SURE there is a Democratic president on 1/20/29. Not voting (like the appalling 35% that squandered their privilege in '24) is no longer an option. The traitors are determined to make voting harder, and that WILL only increase our resolve to weed them out, starting with the crucial midterms.
The assumption that greater voter turnout will result in the Dems winning seems not to coincide with prior elections. Who turns out and what their specific interests are is the key. Its all in the message that is presented.
I agree with Tupper -- the Supremes will do everything they can to restrict a Dem President. They are the most disgustedly partisan Supreme Court we have ever seen -- they overturn long established law and precedent for a questionable political theory -- the unitary executive. They say states are sovereign, then overturn state law as Unconstitutional. They just did it to Hawaii's gun law.
More rope to hang a bad job of presidenting.
The Supreme Court has apparently decided that professional expertise gained over years, or even decades, in a specialized field is no longer an essential part of a functional government. So much for “merit”. We truly are going to descend to the levels of Soviet Russia, where cronyism takes the place of education and experience. We’ve already witnessed how adept this president has been at choosing his cabinet. We are a ship of fools, sailing directly at our demise. I’m so disgusted and disheartened.
The party that screams about communist are the ones embracing the Soviet Union's policies and method of government.
Irony is dead.
Truly !
Much of that incompetence, cronyism, and inattentive leadership culminated in Chernobyl. Some analysts posit the handling of the Chernobyl disaster, notably the amount of public disinformation and "don't believe your own eyes and measuring devices" was the final event providing the end of the union and the cold war, opening version 2 of Russian filled vacuum kleptocracy.
And yet we lost a million people to Covid and a president asked us to inject disinfectant, and here we are.
Taking your point about professional expertise, one might note that the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, argued for slow organic change and believed in the accumulated wisdom of institutions. The Supreme Court is not conservative. It's a reactionary arm of what has become a reactionary know-nothing political movement. Federalist Society and adjacent intellectual thought is fig leaf justification.
You're right maga is anything but conservative , radical is the correct term .
Amen, sister.
Well we have six Catholic members on SCOTUS, and I'd hazard a guess that more than one belongs to Opus Dei.
More important is that these justices all come out of the Federalist Society, which isn't a friend to any form of democracy.
"Many Trump foes have come to view this Court as a doormat for the president. This is dramatically overtorqued: The Court hasn’t been afraid to cross Trump on some of his biggest priorities, from the 2020 election to his signature “Liberation Day” tariffs to his mass deportation regime. Just yesterday, in a separate case, SCOTUS dealt Trump a major loss on the issue of mail-in ballots, ruling that he could not prevent states from accepting ballots postmarked by election day where that practice is consistent with their laws."
I don't really agree with this and I think JVL's take yesterday, that SCOTUS will hand Trump an occasional tactical setback while reliably giving him strategic victories, is more accurate. Maybe that's not a doormat, but it's something close to one. Over and over again we've seen cases move up the chain of lower courts that repeatedly rule against the Administration, because obviously the Administration is in the wrong, only to see the one court that has the final decision overturn all of those lower courts in the Administration's/Trump's favor. And we've repeatedly seen this court drag its feet on cases when it's to the Administration's benefit while expediting cases when it's in their benefit. They dragged their feet on the tariffs when it was an obvious call; they've dragged their feet on birthright citizenship when it is an obvious call; they dragged their feet on immunity so live cases could not proceed and Americans could not determine whether one of the two candidates in 2024 had committed serious felonies; and they moved the case on ballot access in Colorado at light speed because there were filing deadlines that Trump needed to meet. It's all a big project of enabling a Republican authoritarian push.
100%, JVL was on the money with his piece. I understand Andrew's POV but I think he is underratting the wins Trump was just handed on immigration in the TPS case, and the forced exception that was still a narrow 5-4 on the Fed case. The fact that the court did its basic function on some blatantly unconstitutional issues like tarrifs does not mean they aren't clearly favorable to Trump, they have ruled for him overwhelmingly on the shadow docket compared to Biden. Even when they rule against Trump, they do it so narrowly, they didn't say anything about the alternative tarrifs he is trying to use or whether he had to return the money. Yet, we can let him dismantle the department of education wholesale without issue, but Joe Biden's limited student loan forgiveness was a clear violation to them. The whole court has become more and more transparently uninterested in facts, justice, or the constitution they are supposed to protect.
Plus they use the shadow docket all the time to declare from on high with no explanation for their decisions. Which is pretty authoritarian in it's own right.
“Liberation Day” tariffs to his mass deportation regime. Just yesterday, in a separate case, SCOTUS dealt Trump a major loss on the issue of mail-in ballots, ruling that he could not prevent states from accepting ballots postmarked by election day where that practice is consistent with their laws."
Excellent analysis Don, and let’s face it, the liberation tariffs was a small setback—the tariffs are illegal but they left the door open for other ways Trump can attack the issue: rather than retreat after the Court ruling, the administration has pivoted to other legal authorities — Section 232, Section 122, Section 301 — to keep tariffs in place, and those are themselves being challenged in court.
As for the mail-in ballots? Well it only affects the blue states—red states that agree with the policies can stop the mail-in counting as per Trump’s demand (all 25 States will follow his rules).
Not to mention, these states are also handing over voter rolls—so technically, they can illegally target democrats in certain districts, making sure their ballots never arrive in time, even if they are mailed in on the day received—the sorting machines can do amazing work! 😎
Thank you for pointing out the importance of the way they slow-walk or speed-walk a decision.
Clearly Andrew did not read JVL’s triad before writing this piece.
Andrew: "But after he leaves office, his laws will be all he can count on remaining. Yes, the Supreme Court has made it easier for Trump to remake the government in his image for now. But they’ve done just as much to make it easier for the next Democratic president to blot out that image once he’s gone."
Except the Unitary Executive Theory is only applicable to Republican presidents. Once President Ocasio-Cortez takes the oath of office, SCOTUS will do their best to check her power.
Remember: the six "conservatives" justices are no different than systems engineers.
I'd bet the whole chip stack you will not suddenly see the conservative SCOTUS discover a love for Humphrey's Executor under President AOC. In fact I'd go deeply into debt borrowing more money to wager on this.
The same SCOTUS that gave Trump carte blanche in 2024 with their immunity ruling? The same SCOTUS that ignored the plain text of the 14th Amendment in 2024?
The conservatives on the court won't turn to Humphrey's, but invent a whole new reason from some law or tradition from 1600s why AOC can't take some presidential action.
A reason such as: Since women were not eligible to vote at the Founding, they are not now and never have been eligible to be president.
They will rule the Republican is president because the Founders felt women shouldn’t be a president.
"Because SHE'S A WITCH!, BURN HER!!!"
I just said essentially the same thing! 😉
We are all going full JVL on Andrew. I will say though I do appreciate his non-hyperbolic takes. Him being completely apoplectic about the Jan 6th slush fund actually surprised me based on his normal comportment.
Thug fund.
SCOTUS may not try to reinstate Humphrey but it will find another way to block D presidential power. The major questions doctrine is a useful tool for such an effort. This SCOTUS Is not consistent. Just look at the Slaughter and Cook cases dropping on the same day.
You nailed it.
They'll just dream up another rationale to stop a Democratic President from firing agency boards and employees like Trump did. My word, Alito has shown a willingness to reach back into the bowels of history to come up with rationales for rulings. I'm sure he can find another medieval thinker to quote to explain why AOC couldn't possibly use the same powers the SCOTUS gave Trump.
I can see Alito's argument now, Alito: "She can't use those powers because...SHE'S A WITCH!!!". The man quoted opinions of a guy who believed in witches and witch trials.
I love you Andrew, but I do think Thomas and Alito are at least willing to be that blatantly political and undignified.
I think the entire audience will take this bet happily.
Humphrey, no. But did you read JVL’s triad yesterday?
Andrew, assuming the same ideological SCOTUS makeup if a Dem gets elected, I would take that bet. They’ll find some kind of one/time loophole akin to the Federal Reserve carveout.
Except, AOC would never be president, so I doubt you’ll ever see a pay day.
I’m willing to bet you the same as to whether she gets the democratic nomination in 28’—forget the presidency!…:)
“90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed,”
GOd, I hate this f*cking country. Let' just keep dumping more power into the petty tyrants that are our sh*tty presidents. All of them, awful human beings. We just keep giving them more and more power. Reaching into our personal lives... This country sucks, and the people who vote in it suck too.
Amen
Tell us how you really feel. 😃
“But they’ve done just as much to make it easier for the next Democratic president to blot out that image once he’s gone.”
That’s a big “IF” as whether we’ll have a democracy come November—it’s Game of Throne rules: You win or you die!
These people including Johnson have said the quiet part out loud; if democrats take the house there will be investigations and impeachments for most of his cabinet, family and cronies.
Now that Trump is the Unitary Executive—it’s hard to grasp what is technically legal, and what is not! And given how Trump’s crimes may be hard to prove with his presidential immunity—it could take years to work its way through a very sympathetic SCOTUS; which has been in twisting itself in judicial knots just to rule in his favor: Originalism and its sister ideology—textualism are a joke. IMHO…:)
This feels right to me. I will be very happily surprised if we have anything resembling free and fair elections in November. I do not believe that the orange idiot is playing 4D chess but I think someones behind the scenes is. Really hate how much like a conspiracy theory this sounds. It's gut feeling. I see the stumbling abd bumbling. I feel like it's meant to keep our hopes alive and our guard down just enough to allow them to pull off their nefarious plan.
100%👏
Andrew, I would expect anyone distressed over repeated authoritarian actions by this White House to be rather torqued by the High Court’s whole-cloth creation of presidential criminal immunity where there once was none; as well as the bribery fest unleashed by the earlier Citizens United ruling. This is a Supreme Court majority clearly eager to usher in a White, Christian Nationalist, Putin-esque oligarchy. Am I torqued? Absolutely. And the fact that a future power-mad Democratic president will have the same carte blanche as Trump is of no comfort whatsoever.
"Still, the president’s exultation may not last long. He is, of course, too solipsistic to see it, but he isn’t going to be the president forever."
The assumption that things will be as they always have (peaceful transfer of power) is so strong in these two sentences.
We do not "know" that. We aren't dealing with any level of norms any longer.
SCOTUS has damaged this country for decades.
"Whether the Court’s theory of the unitary executive is faithful to the Constitution or not, it’s plain that it sets this president up to do even more damage in the immediate term—and it’s hard to fault too much those who feel that the Supreme Court should look down from the horizon a bit to put up a little more hashtag #resistance to the would-be authoritarian we’ve got right this minute."
Perhaps the Supremes might want to ponder that, to Trump, the ideal government employee is Bill Pulte.
The *conservatives* on the SCOTUS have taken a gander at the Trumpy horizon and generally like what they see.
Do you mean future Alito replacement Bill Pulte?
"Would be" authoritarian?? That left in January 2025! It's full on authoritarian now and they don't care that we know it.
This isn't just going to cost Trump his legacy. The every 4 or 8 year whipsaws of personnel and regulations is going to cost us all dearl, because there will be no clarity or contiuity in regulation.
But, in the end, big business and oligarchy wins, because nobody is going to want to work for the government if they'll be fired after the next election and all they have to do is wait the offending president out.
Remember all that complaining about activist judges? The history of the Roberts court has been not just interpreting laws and the constitution, but re-writing it when it serves their ideological purposes, or perhaps more accurately, the ideological purpose of the half dozen Texas oligarchs who dictate the court’s decisions.
Expanding on Tupper and Trashscientist's comments, I have a serious question: is it possible for We the People- a person or agency-- to challenge the constitutionality of this Unified Executive Theory? It is not a law, we've certainly never voted on it. Best I can tell it was a fantasy cooked up by a bunch of right-wing operatives in back rooms, and John Roberts became an eager acolyte early in his career. This right-wing fantasy is well on the road to undermining democracy as we have known it. Are we faced with no choice but to accept that a simple majority of 9 unelected people have the power to upend the system because of some fantasy theory they concocted out of thin air?
The Federal Trade Commission was created with a very clear mandate, including that it was to be independent, and Commissioners could only be fired for specific causes. The FTC was established by Congress and signed into LAW by Woodrow Wilson in 1914. In the 1930s, FDR tried to fire FTC Commissioner William Humphrey. Humphrey fought his termination and it wound its way up to the Supreme Court who ruled that the law was very clear that the agency was created to be independent, therefore it was not within the president's purview to fire a commissioner without cause.
How can we ever have confidence that there is any such thing as settled law? Yesterday we watched as a 102 year old legally established federal agency, whose independence was tried and upheld by the Supreme Court 91 years ago, was blown up without any rational legal argument other than this "unitary executive theory". According to everything we have been taught our entire lives, this "theory" flies directly in the face of our founders' intent when they created a government with checks and balances.
Again I ask, do we really have no choice but to accept that a simple majority of 9 unelected people have that power?
This SCOTUS does not think Congress should have any power over the president. Isn’t that what they have been telling us? Their goal is to strip Congress of its authority over law making when it comes to the unitary executive. Everything I have read says they put out the flimsiest fantastical arguments to make their case repeatedly. How do we check the highest court in the land when they are also the final arbitrator of the law? If I thought a Dem could ever be president again I would say it’ll become a case of President AOC saying, go ahead SCOTUS, make me, just try and enforce that.
Tracey, I didn't look at it through that lens- that they are clearly sabotaging congress' Article 1 authorities; but since I initially read your comment, I've read HCR'S letter, and she states the same thing. So now I have all kinds of other questions, which I don't normally spew into the public arena until I've had a chance to research and reflect, but my anger is compelling me to make an exception!
When Roberts had his confirmation hearing, did he disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he intended to make decisions under this theory of the Unitary Executive? If he had, would anyone have voted to confirm him?
I refuse to accept that We the People have no defense against a Supreme Court majority who is applying a fantasy "theory"-- a theory which very clearly violates every principle expressed by the founders to ensure that we have Co-equal branches of government, separation of powers and enforceable checks and balances-- to their decisions, when it suits them. How is it that they have the authority to override Congress in determining which independent agencies are worthy of independence? How is it possible that they alone have the power to decide that the Federal Reserve should remain independent while other agencies which are arguably equally important in terms of protecting the rights of citizens, are not worthy of their independence and should be subject to the whim of a tyrant?
Kate Shaw discusses this in an op-ed nyt piece this morning 6/30. I don’t have the knowledge but it seems like the gop congress could DO something… This is a mess & he’s been enabled so we have a war & henchmen alongside donald, at the helm. It’s not irrational to imagine unending chaos & a November to remember.
Regarding expanded executive power, I'm curious to know what people think of the next President, should that person be a Democrat (though, really, a Republican should be equally interested in this tactic), testing the limits of presidential power by arresting the former President on the grounds of [fill in whatever reason you want, which would almost certainly be more legally defensible than 90% of what Trump has done], holding him for a while in an undisclosed location, and then releasing him with a warning that "the investigation into the former President's corrupt and illegal actions while in office continues and further action by the Justice Department will be forthcoming." Is it too much? Where would we be now if Joe Biden/Merrick Garland had done that in early 2021? Would we be recovering from (or still in the midst of) civil war or would we be enjoying the view of a political landscape that no longer includes the Orange Menace? BTW, regarding what to charge him with, I kind of like simple murder for the summary execution of people "accused" of drug trafficking. Sure, it would go up to the Supreme Court to test the limits of its immunity ruling but, in the meantime, hold him without bail at a remote Supermax. Quoth the next President: "I have an Article II, etc."
Today's Cheap Shot:
WH staffer prompts AI image generator: What would it look like if Trump was still able to post on Truth Social after he died?
Any headline that says "Trump's [insert characteristic or latest behaviour] will cost him" is just clickbait. Nothing ever ends up costing him- at least not anything that matters to him.
The Supreme Court is guided by three principles: expanding executive power (unitary executive theory), further entrenching republicans’ power and solidifying oligarchic power. Once you know the destination, legally reverse engineering and rationalizing it to the populace is the easy part.