\n<\/p>\n
Readers, I keep needing to leave notes like this, which is embarrassing. I promised a long Water Cooler today, but I misunderestimated the time it would take to finish a post on the splendors and miseries of Biden\u2019s debate performance and the subsequent reactions to it. So today will be almost entirely politics, and maybe a little Covid (except for the nine charts, none of which are good news), and tomorrow\u2019s best laid plan is for mostly Covid, which I can finish up before I hit the road. \u2013lambert<\/p>\n
Common Loon, Brown Bear Lake-middle, Kitimat-Stikine, British Columbia, Canada. \u201c2 loons that I paddled right by. They were just swimming around in the middle of the lake. No sign of a nest, but I didn\u2019t look. After I passed they started calling.\u201d<\/p>\n
(1) New Covid charts<\/a>. Readers, I\u2019m not happy about any of this, especially before<\/em> the holiday weekend. Stay safe out there!<\/p>\n \u201cSo many of the social reactions that strike us as psychological are in fact a rational management of symbolic capital.\u201d \u2013Pierre Bourdieu, Classification Struggles<\/p>\n Larry Tribe seems not to grasp the concept of context. He writes:<\/p>\n Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 69 that former presidents would be \u201cliable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.\u201d But what did he know? He was just a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten spot in the\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Laurence Tribe \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6 \u2696\ufe0f (@tribelaw) July 2, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Here is the full quote from Federalist 69<\/a>:<\/p>\n The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and . <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s the \u201cafterwards\u201d part that\u2019s key. At least for official functions, you can\u2019t get at the \u201cordinary course of law\u201d (i.e., criminal charges) without going through impeachment first. <\/p>\n Lambert here: I don\u2019t think much of the Court\u2019s latest in Trump v. United States: \u201cAbsolute immunity\u201d means absolute; to that extent liberals yammering about Kings are correct (although I suppose one could argue that we now have an elective monarch, rather than a heriditary one). But you can\u2019t have \u201cabsolute\u201d anything<\/em> in a system of checks and balances; as Madison wrote in Federalist 51<\/a>: \u201cAmbition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.\u201d But if the constitional rights of the \u201cplace\u201d (i.e., official position) are \u201cabsolute,\u201d then there is nothing to counteract the ambitions of the man, and so the majority in Trump v. United States has produced an absurd, system-destroying result. OTOH, it\u2019s hard to see how lawfare, systematically pursued, could produce any other<\/em> result, given that any Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich, and anybody can be found guilt of violating some<\/em> law, given a level of effort. So if you want \u201cenergy in the executive,\u201d you can\u2019t sap that branch with contrived and tendentious lawsuits, and so there has to be a rule to sort them. Now there is a rule (\u201cbe careful what you wish for\u201d). Once again Trump, as is his little way, has found a limit case in the system, and broken through it by pursuing the case to its logical conclusion. I would speculate the remedy for the butchery in Trump v. United States is Constitutional: If a President wants to break a law as part of a core executive function, Congress can over-ride by a majority vote, which the President could veto, and the veto could be over-ridden by a two-thirds majority. Perhaps readers can provide a better fix. Commentary:<\/p>\n This is “the only fix?” Even the Framers understood that wishing “men were angels”\u2014i.e., not susceptible to abusing power given to them\u2014is to wish for there to be no need for government at all. We’ve reverted to pre-constitutional thinking here. https:\/\/t.co\/jAeqAg6C5h<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 corey robin (@CoreyRobin) July 2, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center><\/p>\n That bad government is the result of \u201cthe bad people\u201d in office is absolutely Third World thinking. I don\u2019t recall ever<\/em> listening to Maddow; but whoever is, should stop.<\/p>\n FAFO:<\/p>\n Presidents enjoyed functional immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” between 1789 and 2023. Now, the Supreme Court has codified that immunity. This is largely thanks to the Special Counsel purporting to criminalize a massive array of “official” actions undertaken\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Michael Tracey (@mtracey) July 1, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center><\/p>\n Why not (1):<\/p>\n something singularly brash & dictatorial like this will not faze T***p if he is re-elected; yet, a Democrat would never do it. it’s the old paradox of liberals creating the environment for the extinction of liberalism as in plant evolution a primary species creates the\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/Yh5i0FBqW2<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) July 2, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center> Here is one handy diagram about how Trump v. United States could affect Trump\u2019s current cases:<\/p>\n There’s a lot of misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the presidential immunity #January6th<\/a> case.<\/p>\n We created this infographic @just_security<\/a> to explain: <\/p>\n \u2013 the pathways open to Jack Smith \u2014 Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) July 1, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center><\/p>\n The effect of Trump v. United States on Smith\u2019s prosecution in Chutkan\u2019s court:<\/p>\n The case now gets remanded back to the District Court, where Judge Chutkan is in charge. She’s been ordered to engage in proceedings to determine whether Trump’s actions were “official acts” of the office of the President, or “unofficial acts” of a candidate or citizen.<\/p>\n \u2014 Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) July 1, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center><\/p>\n Trump v. United States should not affect the Georgia case:<\/p>\n This is the money quote for the whole Trump v. United States case. Justice Barrett has it exactly right \u2014 and shows why the Court (and maybe the Special Counsel) is making this way too hard. The sole question should be whether acts relating to running for president are core\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/PLD933l6W0<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Lessig \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6 (@lessig) July 1, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center><\/p>\n If in fact a President\u2019s running for President is<\/em> a core official function, than indeed l\u2019etat c\u2019est moi<\/em>. So, something to watch.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 2024<\/p>\n Less than a half a year to go!<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\u2013 the scope of immunity from prosecution for all future presidents pic.twitter.com\/XlFOwLldp8<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n