25 Comments
User's avatar
Lillian Holsworth's avatar

Absolutely brilliant article. Very informative & much appreciated.

Expand full comment
Thomas Thompson's avatar

The insurrection act was meant to suppress an armed, violent uprising that harms both people and government property and attempts to overthrow the government. In other words, 1-6-21!

Expand full comment
David Stirling's avatar

It's so important to have legal experts like Harry Litman provide thorough review and reporting for the many non-lawyers needing explanation and analysis. Thank you Harry.

Expand full comment
Mary Henson's avatar

I pray that people like you, Marc, Joyce, etc. are all preparing for the day when SCOTUS bows down to Trump allowing him to invoke the insurrection act. We will need every brilliant legal mind in the resistance working together to stop it from getting out of control.

Expand full comment
Deanna Laquian's avatar

Outstanding analysis. Always succinct and interestingly written. Thank you.

Expand full comment
christopher wilson's avatar

Thank you harry, it’s a lot for a non legal person like me to comprehend.

Expand full comment
Daniel Quackenbush's avatar

The word "discretion" is often another way of saying the law is a suggestion, not a command,thus making the law a useless object.

Expand full comment
Marina Oshana's avatar

Great piece, Harry, even if it spells out some worrisome scenarios. Hope SCOTUS upholds the 3rd branch of government.

Expand full comment
SPW's avatar

Well written Harry. You and Joyce keep things straight for my brain during all this. My only question remains, what will be left of our Constitution after 47 and his Court get through with it?

Expand full comment
Lisa Maier's avatar

I believe we citizens should call for Christi Nomes removal from office. Call your elected officials, here is a way to get their phone numbers: https://5calls.org/issue/kristi-noem-dhs-resignation/

Expand full comment
SLMontgo's avatar

Why did it go on so long? Fear? Aren't we the nation that was told we have nothing to fear but fear itself? So that's what we've been brought down to. Fear of this puny creature whom everyone knows is hell-bent on our national destruction for a reward even he cannot describe. But We, the People, don't fear that fat bastard, that poisoned, poisonous creature. No, it's the electeds who fear him because of his alleged base of pardoned criminals who can end their political careers the moment they stop debasing themselves for Trump's pleasure. And they should be frightened, at least the elected Democrats among them. A member of Trump's goon squad followed Trump's mob boss orders. The RMAGA, in the likes of Senator Mike Lee of Utah, takes joy in the murder of Democrats and gloats disgustingly. I don't fear fear as much as I fear the fact that a state elected Mike Lee to be one of its senators. And Utah is not the only craven state to do so. The decent people of Utah must recall Mike Lee as penance.

Expand full comment
Kevin R. McNamara's avatar

Count, too, on Jack Goldsmith to defend the government's proposition.

Expand full comment
RickRickRick's avatar

It all comes down to presidential elections. If Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016, none of this would be an issue. She would have replaced Scalia with Garland and then would have had two more nominations later. We would not have had three Federalist Society justices.

The "progressive" knuckleheads who voted for Jill Stein in 2016, or even for Trump because they thought Clinton was a "warmonger" are directly responsible for this calamity. So alongside the handful of MAGA voters who have bravely stepped forward to say they were wrong, I'd like to see a couple of those Obama-to-Stein voters to also acknowledge their sins.

Expand full comment
Susan Linehan's avatar

I've thought about the wording. Whose civil rights are being violated by a protest? But the second paragraph is nastier: Section 253 (2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

I take the position that if you are opposing or obstructing the ILLEGAL execution of the laws you are not impeding the course of justice. Surely a court wouldn't find that this Act allows a president to use the Political Question Doctrine to decide whether someone is acting legally or not? (No warrant? No ID? etc) If THAT is a political question, why bother with courts at all?

Expand full comment
Delia Wozniak's avatar

The Republican not-so-Supreme Court will bless this tyranny of wealth, which they indeed enabled - IF they think they can get away with it!

WE MUST PREEMPTIVELY DEMAND MORE FTOM

THEM!

Do NOT wait for their decisions to come down!

Numerous legal experts MUST FRAME THESE CASES AS BASIC, FOUNDATIONAL CASES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!

Period!

Don’t wait! Don’t allow these black-robed vultures, perched on the high rail of justice, to shred our CONSTITUTION!

These hypocrites will pick at the bones of what’s left of our public wealth and feed it to their white, wealthy overlords!

Expand full comment
Delia Wozniak's avatar

This sounds like another case of “ipse dixit”! The judge is contesting whether there is a rebellion as a matter of fact or there’s a rebellion because Trump says so, “ipse dixit!”

Expand full comment