We need to tank tesla now. The europeans and canadians get it. We still have hateful trumpers who will get it pretty quickly because of the cuts. We need to make it so painful that he realizes he needs to pay attention to his businesses. And get the f*** out of our country's business
Trump doesn’t want to do business he just wants to to stay out of jail and or avoid hanging upside down from a lamp post across the street from Mar a Lago.
He wants to stay out of jail, for sure, but I think he also wants to do as much harm as he possibly can to those who are vulnerable and to those who won't allow him to completely destroy the Rule of Law. He's out for revenge against anyone who dares to call him out for the rampant daily destruction he is incurring on our government.
Same for any cabinet member who is a lawyer. For sure, Secretary of State Rubio seemed gleeful as he re-tweeted El Salvador's leader, proving Rubio approves of Trump ignoring the courts. Democrats must demand his resignation. If he is a lawyer, the bar of Florida must immediately begin disbarrment procedures.
I don't think he ever paracticed. I would think that Braman is deepely offended by the infomercial Trump; did for Tesla. I don't know whether Rubio's wife is still on his payroll. But when Braman says jump, Rubio ask how high.
Down here in Baghdad By the Sea Cuban American MAGATs are having an epiphany. Shazzam, Musk DOGE labels them DEI and enemies of the state!
Meanwhile Rick Scott sent me a letter in essence calling out Trump as a liar re Putin.
The easiest way to beat Trump in this atmosphere is Feathers of Hope. We don't control Congress but we're only a couple of votes away from shared government. Check out the Republicans who may be helpful.
What will SCOTUS do when the inevitable contempt happens? The Marshal service will probably be no help, as Bondi will probably have them stand down. They can appoint other enforcement, but what do you think will happen?
I think it’s already gone too far to bring back rule of law. We are faced with overthrow of a dictatorship before we will ever hope to self govern again.
I still say it has to be a citizens arrest for violating the oath to uphold the constitution or a massive group of fired federal judges suing for illegal firings as a civil case and do a citizens arrest
Citizens can't arrest Trump. How would they get within a mile of him? I believe Roberts is going to lay down the law limiting POTUS a bit more clearly. I think the Trump will give him many opportunities to do so.
Whether 47 "got the hint" and ignored it or really didn't think the hint was meant for him, the end results are the same. With 47's mental pathologies, I subscribe to the latter option.
If Roberts’ statement was a “forceful pushback” I’d like to see what you consider to be weak sauce. Because decorum means nothing to these boors. Power means everything. Roberts declines to address that at his peril—and ours.
Remember, the Roberts court created this monster by giving him immunity. Never forget that. He will go down in infamy. And he has the audacity to question why the public has opinions about the court unfavorable ones at best..
Exactly. Trump made the statement inferring that Roberts wasn't talking about him just because he didn't name him out loud. It's a game. He's making veiled threats to all judges (even SCOTUS) when he singles one out.
We need a petition for the Supreme Court to overturn its own ruling that gave Trump a blank check. I think only then will he start to think before he speaks otherwise he may face the consequences. Their ruling was taken so far that Trump views himself invincible.
From my readings, the Supreme Court can overturn their own rulings without a lower court's involvement. Does that mean they can do it without a Petition?
Well, you know, John Roberts didn’t SAY Trumps name, so he doesn’t think he was talking to him. Never in my life did I ever think person with so little understanding of government, and the law could be President
While what Roberts said is true, it’s both unremarkable and toothless. If he felt compelled to rebuke Trump, Roberts should have added if Congress removed a judge based merely on disagreement instead of the constitutionally mandated finding of high crimes or misdemeanors, then the aggrieved judge could appeal that removal to the district court. Now while most assume there is no judicial review of an impeachment and removal, there never has been one based on anything other than high crimes or misdemeanors. Roberts should have made absolutely clear that if Congress abandons that standard, the courts will not accept that result which would nullify the constitutional standard. Too bad Roberts’ missed the opportunity to say something really useful.
SCOTUS still has a conservative majority, and Roberts has no problem with dissolving civil rights, so this rebuke IS extraordinary. But we’ll see whether he stands up further.
Could not agree more! 47 has publicly denied that Roberts' comment was directed at him. His emotional pathologies prevent him from hearing or accepting any blame, only credit.
Unfortunately, the issue here, similar to the case with Presidential impeachments, is that the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not clear-cut (basically whatever the applicable majorities in Congress want it to be). Per the Library of Congress: “…The conduct meriting impeachment and removal for federal judges has ranged from intoxication on the bench, to abandoning the office and joining the Confederacy, to various types of corruption. Congress has also impeached and removed federal judges for perjury and income tax evasion…” (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-2-1-3/ALDE_00000686/%5B'impeachment'%5D)
When you say "the issue here" -- here being the issue of whether Trump is engaged in violations of the law or Constitution? If he is, those crimes and violations are defined by the Constitution and/or by statutes (unlike "high crimes and misdemeanors" in impeachment proceedings).
No, I’m more so responding to Richard’s notion that the courts could somehow invalidate Congress’ removal of a judge if such removal was only due to disagreement and not for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Because the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is largely subjective and up to the whims of Congress, they can ostensibly fit pretty much anything they’d like into that box, further weakening any sort of (already questionable) case or basis for such judicial review.
Ah I missed that -- thanks for clarifying. I agree with you. But I also think a judge could potentially go to court to ask for relief and the court MIGHT step in -- though I think any court would be very hesitant to interfere with congressional "whims" -- but they might see if Congress did in fact apply its own standard.
Roberts has to be very careful what he says publicly. I also agree with Brian Koziara that it isn't certain a court could step in if Congress impeached on a whim.
I disagree. I think the statement was very strong -- for the very reason that it did not go further. Trump got the message -- and promptly both ignored it and flouted it by demanding the Court stop all the injunctions against him! That sets the stage for a confrontation between the two (SCOTUS and POTUS). SCOTUS will win and POTUS will try to ignore and flout it again. There are ways to ignore court orders. See this: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--how-to-get-away-with-violating-court-orders.
John Roberts helped create Frankenstein, who is now stalking the judiciary with his Citizens United decision, and in Trump v. The United States, where he was given immunity for "official acts." Now, thanks to this, our democracy hangs by a thread, or is it a noose?
Trump is ruling by fiat; ignoring the Constitution and the responsibilities of the other branches of government. Therefore, his acts have been illegal and cannot be construed as official.
That raises an important question: can illegal acts be "official" (or can they be "core constitutional presidential acts")? Or does the illegality of an act automatically make it "not official"?
". . . the other John Roberts is the statesman-justice who understands deeply the Court’s indispensable role as the ultimate guarantor of the separation of powers and the rule of law." I think you forgot to hold up your SARCASM card. Roberts helped create, empower, and enable Trump. Now he's merely flapping his hands and pretending to do something. If Roberts were truly what you suggest he is, he would have stepped up much earlier and not permitted things to go this far.
I really don’t think 47 understands the comment from Robert’s was directed at him. Consider 47’s response: “He [Roberts] didn’t mention me.” Nope, went right over 47’s head, rebounded on the wall, missed him again and flew off into space.
I do not think Putin suffers from the same emotional pathologies as 47 does so has a different authoritarian approach. That said, the results are the same. Putin IS an authoritarian dictator while 47 is a wannabe authoritarian dictator.
Harry, what do you say to Richard Friedman’s comment above that Robert’s’ comment is ‘toothless’. Timothy Teter’s comment that ‘we need a petition for the Supreme Court to overturn its own ruling
that gave Trump a blank check’, and Aunty Entropy’s statement that like Putin Trump doesn’t care if you see him as long as he can strong-arm you?
These are powerful rebuttals to your thesis and deserve responses. If it doesn’t already exist perhaps you can launch an interlocutor my page where you dialogue with some of the most incisive responses your work has elicited…?
hhh -- it is not toothless. It is very even-handed and nonpartisan, as it had to be coming from the Chief Justice. But it was a very powerful statement telling Trump to stop the nonsense, which of course Trump promptly flouted. And yes, Trump doesn't care. That is why SCOTUS is going to have to put him in his place, back behind the Article II line.
The immunity decision did not give him a total blank check. It decided that he is absolutely immune for "core" (constitutionally enumerated) official acts -- and "presumptively immune" for other official acts (not immune for nonofficial acts) but it failed to define those further (and indeed it shouldn't have defined them until there was/is a strong factual underpinning, as in a full case or controversy before them on full briefing). The part about presidential communications with the DOJ being immune was IMO dicta and was Roberts' biggest mistake. I believe Roberts now hopes for a chance to "clarify" (limit) that decision in upcoming cases and rulings.
Every rational person will read and interpret your comment as it was intended - legal truth. SCOTUS hasn't the enforcement power to put anyone behind any line. 47 fully believes that Roberts' court gave him carte blanche immunity, which is why 47 told him "Thanks, I'll never forget it," as he was leaving his 2-hour long harangue SOTU-like bitch session.
Whether Andrew Jackson actually said it or not after the Worcester v Georgia decision by SCOTUS, the quote attributed to him rings true with 47's attitude, *if* he ever realizes a ruling or dicta is directed at him.
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
I think enforcement comes in a variety of ways -- not necessarily by the court demanding its ruling be followed. With Trump, enforcement will have to be by actual force, I think. He will never stop of his own accord. The walls have to close in upon him from all sides -- or something like that. It isn't that T believes the court gave him carte blanche; it is that he thought he could take advantage of the leeway given and stretch it. He enjoys making and seeing things (and people) break.
While I disagree with your assertion that he actually knows he is a pathological liar who shamelessly flouts the law, I concede that only a show •and• demonstration of force by some authority not absolutely loyal to him is necessary to bring him down. Even then, he will claim he is the victim of a weaponized, corrupt, political system. Plus, he will always be surrounded by his sycophantic cult followers who would rain down destruction on non- believers.
I am ready to take to the streets to take this mofo FOTUS down.
On what basis? Everything 47 says or does has to be evaluated through the lens of his mental and emotional pathologies. How many times has he said, "I know more than [fill in the blank]," with a straight face. How many times has he claimed a victory (2020 election, debate night?) when he was clearly defeated by a much smarter opponent? Roy Cohn did a superb job of turning 47 into a narcissist that allows him to actually believe his is America's pope, inerrant and infallible.
His only mention of Roberts' statement was *after* Laura Ingraham asked him about it. I write more about 47's reaction here:
Well crafted analysis of a rational person capable of distinguishing good from bad and honesty from truth. How do you propose 47 be ‘forced’ to accept what he clearly does not. Unless SCOTUS has its own cavalry to call upon, i.e. not any agency under 47’s control, what power do they wield other than that of jurisprudence?
Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing him get waterboarded to get what truth he believes out. 🤫
Yeh that’s the hard part, isn’t it (forcing T to do or not do anything)? I think the federal courts are already doing it. That’s why he bitched to SCOTUS to stop them from doing it.
I know other people who feel the same as you — well waterboarding wouldn’t be enough for them; they’d like to see him go the way McKinley did. But getting the truth out of him is a fool’s errand!
Sorry for my tepid response earlier to your latest comment but I was on a date with a recumbent exercise bike and breathing too heavily to be coherent using an iPhone. ;-)
First, thanks for sharing your analysis of 47's behaviors toward the courts. It was insightful.
I will have to school myself on the remark you referred to when he "bitched to SCOTUS".
I believe that your last sentence drives both our points home regardless of our disagreement on the why. Whether he is clinically unable to accept a truth due to his mental pathologies or refuses to admit what he knows is true, is beside the point. Under either scenario, it is indeed a fool's errand to force a self-denigrating truth from him. While I am not an advocate of torture (just to set the record straight) nor any form of violence against a duly elected government official, if he loses his useful idiot status to Putin, the problem may solve itself without our intervention.
Barring that, as I said earlier, I am ready to take to the streets to shut down this rogue government and 47's dismantling of our constitutional norms. I do not disagree in principle that things in Washington need to change, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water by using a bludgeon where a scalpel is needed.
Smart lizard king, no "weak" emotion allowed, such as empathy. Rage is okay and useful, more expressed than felt. He knows he was obviously defeated in 2020 but acknowledging loss is bad strategically if he can insist and rage and threaten and manipulate enough to keep or regain power. Other humans are disposable. If somebody dies drinking bleach,maybe he was incorrect but never "wrong," and it's their problem. He refuses to appear weak or "wrong" even when sick with Covid and can hold external truth at bay by insisting on contradiction that satisfies internal wish. Repetition and doubling down will shape reality; attaching threats makes others so afraid they carry out his will. Force it down others' throats, use threats to make reality and himself "right." There is no "truth," only alternative facts.
I just watched your live video chat about this it was easy for me to learn some things in a short period of time it's good to tell people of your credentials. The best part of my day was listening to Robert starting to wake up I need to show him some support so he keeps up the good work
Good for Roberts. Finally. It's been painful to witness how, over the past 8 years, the Supreme Court has appeared to the uninitiated to be the enforcement arm of the Republican National Committee. I hope they hew back to the prior 200 years of judicial precedence and decorum.
Yes, as Litman points out here, Tom, it is unprecedented b/c no justice has ever come out like this before. And yes it is a very mild statement but you can be sure Trump heard it -- and understood it. He heard it and he quickly responded with more demands that the Court do his bidding and stop all these injunctions, which I'm sure sat well with Roberts, didn't it?
Roberts is now on notice, if he didn't get it before, that Trump will abuse his power as much as he can get away with. I hope that Roberts does not twice make the mistake he did in the immunity decision of trying to give Trump a little bit of rope on which to hang his demands. I hope Roberts now knows that he really has to put his foot down and draw some bright lines beyond which Trump may not step (to mix my metaphors).
I think that beyond a court actually enforcing its rulings (yes there are ways but they won't likely stop Trump), the blowback from Trump violating SCOTUS would be HUGE. I mean possibly civil war. This is not likely to go down well with the American public -- as already now, even Republicans are starting to complain.
Thanks for your comments. Yes, Roberts’ statement was unprecedented, but “unprecedented” is inadequate to describe what Trump is doing. He will continue his stall tactics using one excuse or another to appear he is exercising his options right up until his term ends.
We need to tank tesla now. The europeans and canadians get it. We still have hateful trumpers who will get it pretty quickly because of the cuts. We need to make it so painful that he realizes he needs to pay attention to his businesses. And get the f*** out of our country's business
Trump doesn’t want to do business he just wants to to stay out of jail and or avoid hanging upside down from a lamp post across the street from Mar a Lago.
Get tf out of our country
He wants to stay out of jail, for sure, but I think he also wants to do as much harm as he possibly can to those who are vulnerable and to those who won't allow him to completely destroy the Rule of Law. He's out for revenge against anyone who dares to call him out for the rampant daily destruction he is incurring on our government.
True story
They got the hint. They don’t care.
Every member of Congress who is a lawyer needs to be asked whether they accept the rule of law.
Here are the House members. https://clerk.house.gov/documents/Lawyers.pdf
Same for any cabinet member who is a lawyer. For sure, Secretary of State Rubio seemed gleeful as he re-tweeted El Salvador's leader, proving Rubio approves of Trump ignoring the courts. Democrats must demand his resignation. If he is a lawyer, the bar of Florida must immediately begin disbarrment procedures.
Rubio reports to:
1. Norman Braman.
2. CANF
3. Trump
I don't think he ever paracticed. I would think that Braman is deepely offended by the infomercial Trump; did for Tesla. I don't know whether Rubio's wife is still on his payroll. But when Braman says jump, Rubio ask how high.
Down here in Baghdad By the Sea Cuban American MAGATs are having an epiphany. Shazzam, Musk DOGE labels them DEI and enemies of the state!
Meanwhile Rick Scott sent me a letter in essence calling out Trump as a liar re Putin.
The easiest way to beat Trump in this atmosphere is Feathers of Hope. We don't control Congress but we're only a couple of votes away from shared government. Check out the Republicans who may be helpful.
https://jerryweiss.substack.com/
Media should cover it. Interview Jerry Weiss.
I believe that the worm will eventually turn in Congress but I think the turning will start at SCOTUS (coming soon).
They’d lie.
Only need a few. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5204263-senate-republicans-elon-musk-social-security/
What will SCOTUS do when the inevitable contempt happens? The Marshal service will probably be no help, as Bondi will probably have them stand down. They can appoint other enforcement, but what do you think will happen?
I think it’s already gone too far to bring back rule of law. We are faced with overthrow of a dictatorship before we will ever hope to self govern again.
Nothing as usual!
I still say it has to be a citizens arrest for violating the oath to uphold the constitution or a massive group of fired federal judges suing for illegal firings as a civil case and do a citizens arrest
Citizens can't arrest Trump. How would they get within a mile of him? I believe Roberts is going to lay down the law limiting POTUS a bit more clearly. I think the Trump will give him many opportunities to do so.
Whether 47 "got the hint" and ignored it or really didn't think the hint was meant for him, the end results are the same. With 47's mental pathologies, I subscribe to the latter option.
If Roberts’ statement was a “forceful pushback” I’d like to see what you consider to be weak sauce. Because decorum means nothing to these boors. Power means everything. Roberts declines to address that at his peril—and ours.
Roberts has always been subtle in his signaling. I agree with Harry, it was a warning, and likely from a majority on the court.
I so hope you are right.
Warnings are all Trump ever gets. They are of no concern.
I hope there is more to follow. Next time they need to call him out by name. He's hiding behind their reticence to name him specifically.
I'm sad to say it's all showmanship 😤
Remember, the Roberts court created this monster by giving him immunity. Never forget that. He will go down in infamy. And he has the audacity to question why the public has opinions about the court unfavorable ones at best..
Exactly. Trump made the statement inferring that Roberts wasn't talking about him just because he didn't name him out loud. It's a game. He's making veiled threats to all judges (even SCOTUS) when he singles one out.
Don’t forget that chummy pat on the shoulder & show of force “we won’t forget what you did for us”.
It was forceful BECAUSE it was mild. It drew a line in the sand. Trump immediately crossed that line. And now there will be a showdown.
The longest tantrum from America’s oldest child.
We need a petition for the Supreme Court to overturn its own ruling that gave Trump a blank check. I think only then will he start to think before he speaks otherwise he may face the consequences. Their ruling was taken so far that Trump views himself invincible.
From my readings, the Supreme Court can overturn their own rulings without a lower court's involvement. Does that mean they can do it without a Petition?
I think Roberts' immunity decision merely laid out categories and now he will have to "clarify" and limit those.
Thanks for your comments
Is it too late for that to be useful since 47 controls all the powers of enforcing the laws?
Well, you know, John Roberts didn’t SAY Trumps name, so he doesn’t think he was talking to him. Never in my life did I ever think person with so little understanding of government, and the law could be President
Trump got the message, which is why he retorted with a demand that SCOTUS stop all the injunctions against him. He is throwing down the gauntlet.
While what Roberts said is true, it’s both unremarkable and toothless. If he felt compelled to rebuke Trump, Roberts should have added if Congress removed a judge based merely on disagreement instead of the constitutionally mandated finding of high crimes or misdemeanors, then the aggrieved judge could appeal that removal to the district court. Now while most assume there is no judicial review of an impeachment and removal, there never has been one based on anything other than high crimes or misdemeanors. Roberts should have made absolutely clear that if Congress abandons that standard, the courts will not accept that result which would nullify the constitutional standard. Too bad Roberts’ missed the opportunity to say something really useful.
SCOTUS still has a conservative majority, and Roberts has no problem with dissolving civil rights, so this rebuke IS extraordinary. But we’ll see whether he stands up further.
Could not agree more! 47 has publicly denied that Roberts' comment was directed at him. His emotional pathologies prevent him from hearing or accepting any blame, only credit.
Unfortunately, the issue here, similar to the case with Presidential impeachments, is that the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not clear-cut (basically whatever the applicable majorities in Congress want it to be). Per the Library of Congress: “…The conduct meriting impeachment and removal for federal judges has ranged from intoxication on the bench, to abandoning the office and joining the Confederacy, to various types of corruption. Congress has also impeached and removed federal judges for perjury and income tax evasion…” (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-2-1-3/ALDE_00000686/%5B'impeachment'%5D)
For Republicans, “high crimes and misdemeanors” means “me no like.”
When you say "the issue here" -- here being the issue of whether Trump is engaged in violations of the law or Constitution? If he is, those crimes and violations are defined by the Constitution and/or by statutes (unlike "high crimes and misdemeanors" in impeachment proceedings).
No, I’m more so responding to Richard’s notion that the courts could somehow invalidate Congress’ removal of a judge if such removal was only due to disagreement and not for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Because the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is largely subjective and up to the whims of Congress, they can ostensibly fit pretty much anything they’d like into that box, further weakening any sort of (already questionable) case or basis for such judicial review.
Ah I missed that -- thanks for clarifying. I agree with you. But I also think a judge could potentially go to court to ask for relief and the court MIGHT step in -- though I think any court would be very hesitant to interfere with congressional "whims" -- but they might see if Congress did in fact apply its own standard.
Roberts has to be very careful what he says publicly. I also agree with Brian Koziara that it isn't certain a court could step in if Congress impeached on a whim.
I disagree. I think the statement was very strong -- for the very reason that it did not go further. Trump got the message -- and promptly both ignored it and flouted it by demanding the Court stop all the injunctions against him! That sets the stage for a confrontation between the two (SCOTUS and POTUS). SCOTUS will win and POTUS will try to ignore and flout it again. There are ways to ignore court orders. See this: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--how-to-get-away-with-violating-court-orders.
This is what you get when the stupids are in charge.
John Roberts helped create Frankenstein, who is now stalking the judiciary with his Citizens United decision, and in Trump v. The United States, where he was given immunity for "official acts." Now, thanks to this, our democracy hangs by a thread, or is it a noose?
Trump is ruling by fiat; ignoring the Constitution and the responsibilities of the other branches of government. Therefore, his acts have been illegal and cannot be construed as official.
That raises an important question: can illegal acts be "official" (or can they be "core constitutional presidential acts")? Or does the illegality of an act automatically make it "not official"?
I agree and I think he's starting to see that. As Litman says, there are two Robertses. Let's hope the better one prevails.
Good question.
I know where some nooses should hang
Or the guillotine like the one that was made for pence, only a for sure working one
Roberts needs to corral the monster he created.
". . . the other John Roberts is the statesman-justice who understands deeply the Court’s indispensable role as the ultimate guarantor of the separation of powers and the rule of law." I think you forgot to hold up your SARCASM card. Roberts helped create, empower, and enable Trump. Now he's merely flapping his hands and pretending to do something. If Roberts were truly what you suggest he is, he would have stepped up much earlier and not permitted things to go this far.
I disagree. See my other comments here.
I really don’t think 47 understands the comment from Robert’s was directed at him. Consider 47’s response: “He [Roberts] didn’t mention me.” Nope, went right over 47’s head, rebounded on the wall, missed him again and flew off into space.
But what if he understood and didn't care? In Russia Putin et al don't care if you see them as long as they can strong-arm you.
I do not think Putin suffers from the same emotional pathologies as 47 does so has a different authoritarian approach. That said, the results are the same. Putin IS an authoritarian dictator while 47 is a wannabe authoritarian dictator.
Powerful response.
Harry, what do you say to Richard Friedman’s comment above that Robert’s’ comment is ‘toothless’. Timothy Teter’s comment that ‘we need a petition for the Supreme Court to overturn its own ruling
that gave Trump a blank check’, and Aunty Entropy’s statement that like Putin Trump doesn’t care if you see him as long as he can strong-arm you?
These are powerful rebuttals to your thesis and deserve responses. If it doesn’t already exist perhaps you can launch an interlocutor my page where you dialogue with some of the most incisive responses your work has elicited…?
hhh -- it is not toothless. It is very even-handed and nonpartisan, as it had to be coming from the Chief Justice. But it was a very powerful statement telling Trump to stop the nonsense, which of course Trump promptly flouted. And yes, Trump doesn't care. That is why SCOTUS is going to have to put him in his place, back behind the Article II line.
The immunity decision did not give him a total blank check. It decided that he is absolutely immune for "core" (constitutionally enumerated) official acts -- and "presumptively immune" for other official acts (not immune for nonofficial acts) but it failed to define those further (and indeed it shouldn't have defined them until there was/is a strong factual underpinning, as in a full case or controversy before them on full briefing). The part about presidential communications with the DOJ being immune was IMO dicta and was Roberts' biggest mistake. I believe Roberts now hopes for a chance to "clarify" (limit) that decision in upcoming cases and rulings.
Every rational person will read and interpret your comment as it was intended - legal truth. SCOTUS hasn't the enforcement power to put anyone behind any line. 47 fully believes that Roberts' court gave him carte blanche immunity, which is why 47 told him "Thanks, I'll never forget it," as he was leaving his 2-hour long harangue SOTU-like bitch session.
Whether Andrew Jackson actually said it or not after the Worcester v Georgia decision by SCOTUS, the quote attributed to him rings true with 47's attitude, *if* he ever realizes a ruling or dicta is directed at him.
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
I think enforcement comes in a variety of ways -- not necessarily by the court demanding its ruling be followed. With Trump, enforcement will have to be by actual force, I think. He will never stop of his own accord. The walls have to close in upon him from all sides -- or something like that. It isn't that T believes the court gave him carte blanche; it is that he thought he could take advantage of the leeway given and stretch it. He enjoys making and seeing things (and people) break.
While I disagree with your assertion that he actually knows he is a pathological liar who shamelessly flouts the law, I concede that only a show •and• demonstration of force by some authority not absolutely loyal to him is necessary to bring him down. Even then, he will claim he is the victim of a weaponized, corrupt, political system. Plus, he will always be surrounded by his sycophantic cult followers who would rain down destruction on non- believers.
I am ready to take to the streets to take this mofo FOTUS down.
I think there can be no question whatsoever that Trump knew it was directed at him -- and not only ignored it but thumbed his nose at it.
On what basis? Everything 47 says or does has to be evaluated through the lens of his mental and emotional pathologies. How many times has he said, "I know more than [fill in the blank]," with a straight face. How many times has he claimed a victory (2020 election, debate night?) when he was clearly defeated by a much smarter opponent? Roy Cohn did a superb job of turning 47 into a narcissist that allows him to actually believe his is America's pope, inerrant and infallible.
His only mention of Roberts' statement was *after* Laura Ingraham asked him about it. I write more about 47's reaction here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/wrybanter/p/governance-by-post-and-press-release?r=1wsqoo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Well you can read my opinion/analysis here: https://medium.com/@jennifer.vanbergen/the-courts-are-essential-but-can-they-save-us-5691e208a32f
His lies to the public have nothing to do with his actual awareness.
Well crafted analysis of a rational person capable of distinguishing good from bad and honesty from truth. How do you propose 47 be ‘forced’ to accept what he clearly does not. Unless SCOTUS has its own cavalry to call upon, i.e. not any agency under 47’s control, what power do they wield other than that of jurisprudence?
Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing him get waterboarded to get what truth he believes out. 🤫
Yeh that’s the hard part, isn’t it (forcing T to do or not do anything)? I think the federal courts are already doing it. That’s why he bitched to SCOTUS to stop them from doing it.
I know other people who feel the same as you — well waterboarding wouldn’t be enough for them; they’d like to see him go the way McKinley did. But getting the truth out of him is a fool’s errand!
Sorry for my tepid response earlier to your latest comment but I was on a date with a recumbent exercise bike and breathing too heavily to be coherent using an iPhone. ;-)
First, thanks for sharing your analysis of 47's behaviors toward the courts. It was insightful.
I will have to school myself on the remark you referred to when he "bitched to SCOTUS".
I believe that your last sentence drives both our points home regardless of our disagreement on the why. Whether he is clinically unable to accept a truth due to his mental pathologies or refuses to admit what he knows is true, is beside the point. Under either scenario, it is indeed a fool's errand to force a self-denigrating truth from him. While I am not an advocate of torture (just to set the record straight) nor any form of violence against a duly elected government official, if he loses his useful idiot status to Putin, the problem may solve itself without our intervention.
Barring that, as I said earlier, I am ready to take to the streets to shut down this rogue government and 47's dismantling of our constitutional norms. I do not disagree in principle that things in Washington need to change, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water by using a bludgeon where a scalpel is needed.
Smart lizard king, no "weak" emotion allowed, such as empathy. Rage is okay and useful, more expressed than felt. He knows he was obviously defeated in 2020 but acknowledging loss is bad strategically if he can insist and rage and threaten and manipulate enough to keep or regain power. Other humans are disposable. If somebody dies drinking bleach,maybe he was incorrect but never "wrong," and it's their problem. He refuses to appear weak or "wrong" even when sick with Covid and can hold external truth at bay by insisting on contradiction that satisfies internal wish. Repetition and doubling down will shape reality; attaching threats makes others so afraid they carry out his will. Force it down others' throats, use threats to make reality and himself "right." There is no "truth," only alternative facts.
“Repetition and doubling down will shape reality;”
A page from the Roy Cohn dirty tricks playbook.
Where can we learn more detail about Roy Cohn?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/19/roy-cohn-donald-trump-documentary-228144/
He's represented some of America's sleaziest.
Oops - first draft of artificial unintelligence? 😂
LOLOLOLOL! Touche!
Maybe not everyone had a mother who loved them.
Cohn must have been mentally abused while in-vitro then. Surely he was not the product of natural conception.
Ar
I just watched your live video chat about this it was easy for me to learn some things in a short period of time it's good to tell people of your credentials. The best part of my day was listening to Robert starting to wake up I need to show him some support so he keeps up the good work
Good for Roberts. Finally. It's been painful to witness how, over the past 8 years, the Supreme Court has appeared to the uninitiated to be the enforcement arm of the Republican National Committee. I hope they hew back to the prior 200 years of judicial precedence and decorum.
Does the Judiciary branch have the power to enforce their rulings? If they do will they?
I’m not an odds maker but the chances that Trump/Musk will completely ignore the all the rulings are astronomical.
Everyone keeps saying that Robert’s comment is a watershed moment. Seriously? That’s like hitting Trump with a piece of goose down.
Yes, as Litman points out here, Tom, it is unprecedented b/c no justice has ever come out like this before. And yes it is a very mild statement but you can be sure Trump heard it -- and understood it. He heard it and he quickly responded with more demands that the Court do his bidding and stop all these injunctions, which I'm sure sat well with Roberts, didn't it?
Roberts is now on notice, if he didn't get it before, that Trump will abuse his power as much as he can get away with. I hope that Roberts does not twice make the mistake he did in the immunity decision of trying to give Trump a little bit of rope on which to hang his demands. I hope Roberts now knows that he really has to put his foot down and draw some bright lines beyond which Trump may not step (to mix my metaphors).
I think that beyond a court actually enforcing its rulings (yes there are ways but they won't likely stop Trump), the blowback from Trump violating SCOTUS would be HUGE. I mean possibly civil war. This is not likely to go down well with the American public -- as already now, even Republicans are starting to complain.
Thanks for your comments. Yes, Roberts’ statement was unprecedented, but “unprecedented” is inadequate to describe what Trump is doing. He will continue his stall tactics using one excuse or another to appear he is exercising his options right up until his term ends.
Thanks for this post, Harry. It was needed saying.