What follows is an opinion piece originally submitted to VtDigger. They've published pretty much everything else I've given them, but for some reason they seem to have declined this. SInce they've published a lot of John McClaughry's climate denialist rantings, I doubt that anything's too far "off the rails" for them, so why they felt this wasn't up to snuff is a mystery to me. I think it was worth saying:
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court suspended the American experiment with democracy. Before, it was an oligarchy with democratic forms and aspirations; now, it is a constitutional monarchy. On that date, the Court declared the president to be absolutely immune from prosecution for crimes committed in the course of performing "core" presidential functions and entitled to "at least" a presumption of immunity regarding acts related to his official character but not central to it. If you believe you can explain what the president could be prosecuted for, you are welcome to try.
Previously, the American legal and political system precluded any such immunity. Although certain people might be able to operate as though they were above the law, for example because of wealth or race, it was considered an obvious truism that no such privilege could be recognized in this country. The assertion that we should be ruled by law, not by persons, was a primary reason and motivation for the American Revolution.
But that was then. Now, the president may murder, rape, steal, torture, imprison, obstruct justice, accept bribes, blackmail, defy Congress and the courts, so long as he claims that he did it in connection with an official duty. (Horrifyingly, Trump's lawyer explicitly said as much to the Court.) I was
telling someone the other day that he should vote for Biden, even though he doesn't like him, because of what's at stake in this election. I said, "You are the kind of person who won't fare well in a Trump regime." He laughed. I said, "You won't find it funny when they're attaching the electrodes to your genitals." He laughed again. That was before July 1. I hope it continues to be funny, but it's less funny now.
Regarding the "reasoning" of the decision in Trump v. United States (I'm not making that up, it's the case's real title), it's enough to say, as Joe Pesci famously observed of a prosecutor's argument in the movie My Cousin Vinny, "Everything he just said is bullshit." Roberts' majority opinion conjures immunity out of nothing. There's no mention of presidential immunity in the Constitution, no
implication of it. The decision avoids discussing the Founders' understanding and intent on the subject (which was, in a nutshell, "nobody should be above the law" and "we don't want to be ruled by an unaccountable king.") So much for "originalism" and "textualism." The fundamental contradiction of immunizing an official from criminal liability for acts performed in the course of his core function of "faithfully executing the laws", is not and cannot be resolved. Reading the decision's first few pages, I felt I was being covered in slime.
For you who relish irony, imagine Biden giving Trump the Prigozhin treatment, then sending in the troops to erase Roberts and his "conservative" colleagues, all in the name of his duty to preserve
and defend the Constitution against treason. Whatever else might ensue, under
the Roberts cabal's decision he couldn't be charged with a crime for it.It's amazing how completely the "mainstream media" have underplayed this story. After two hundred plus years of struggle to maintain and expand a system of government based on democratic principles and the idea that no person is above the law, literally overnight the United States is a constitutional monarchy. This is not hyperbole. Justice Sotomayor said the same in her dissenting opinion. You'd think there would be screaming banner headlines ever since. But what do we see in the New York Times, the Guardian, NPR, etc.? Gossip about whether Joe Biden should or will step aside, due to a perceived lack of vigor in the debate performance of the man who is quite competently running the executive branch. Hurricane Beryl - will it do much damage? Etc. These issues are piffle compared to the Roberts Court's theft of presidential accountability and grant of unlimited power in its place.
If allowed to continue, history amply demonstrates that this a state of affairs almost inevitably results in abuse and dictatorship. To name one example, ancient Rome was once a republic; the Roman Senate continued to meet and to act as if it had any authority long after all meaningful power had been ceded to the emperor. One begins to understand how Cicero must have felt, living through the transition.
I have written to my representatives in Congress, and so should you. This is a five alarm crisis, unlike Biden's occasional difficulty with enunciating clearly. Make two demands:
First, remedy the damage. Congress should propose to theStates a constitutional amendment clarifying what was already clear, that nobody, including the president, is above the law.
Second, put this arrogant, corrupt, and rogue Court in its place. Congress should propose an amendment specifying that when the Supreme Court decides a case on constitutional grounds, effectively amending the Constitution, its decision must be affirmatively ratified by the legislative branch before it can be effective.
And finally, vote as if your life or those of your children depended on it. Such may well be the case.
