The main point we should take from evidence presented against Trump and his co-conspirators is something I've been loathe to say: it is time for serious people to think seriously about asking the House to impeach and the Senate to conduct a trial of the SCOTUS justices who openly encouraged presidents to commit the crimes Trump committed…
The main point we should take from evidence presented against Trump and his co-conspirators is something I've been loathe to say: it is time for serious people to think seriously about asking the House to impeach and the Senate to conduct a trial of the SCOTUS justices who openly encouraged presidents to commit the crimes Trump committed. Those justices are accountable to us, the sovereign people, and they should be required to prove that they really believed our Constitution gave them the power that they pretended to have.
Six SCOTUS justices conspired to encourage presidents to viciously and egregiously undermine our Constitution, not only by committing crimes, themselves, but also by corrupting other public servants to help corrupt presidents commit such crimes. That's what they did by (knowingly) misrepresenting that Trump had immunity from prosecution for crimes he committed when he abused his "official" or "core" powers to try to seize power in clear and egregious violation of our Constitution. Their decision can be distilled to this: the only real mistake Trump made was in not relying exclusively on other current government employees to commit his crimes.
Those SCOTUS justices knew that their misconduct and misrepresentations were (and are) undermining the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution to deprive voters of the rights and privileges of our Constitution. Don't take my word for that. Take theirs.
In Ariz. State Legis. v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito issued a dissenting opinion. They emphasized that the majority opinion had emphasized that the “animating principle” (the primary point) of our Constitution was "popular sovereignty" (the sovereignty of the people over all public servants). Then, the dissenters, themselves, emphasized that "the ratification of the Constitution was the ultimate act of popular sovereignty, and the people who ratified" it "did so knowing that it assigned authority to 'the Legislature' as a representative body" (to represent the sovereign people).
Every SCOTUS justice who pretended that they had the power to give Trump immunity knew that Congress (working with the president) enacted criminal laws to protect us (the sovereign people) from public servants who would commit the crimes that Trump committed. A big part of the reason Congress makes conduct criminal is to discourage people from committing such crimes.
The dissenting justices in the Arizona case followed the foregoing with this in their opinion: "This Court has no power to upset such a compromise simply because we now think that it should have been struck differently. As we explained almost a century ago," whatever "method" that "the framers of the Constitution" actually "adopted" is what binds SCOTUS because it “is not the function of courts" to "alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”
Consider also this paragraph from the concurring opinion of Justice Gorsuch in United States v. Vaello-Madero in 2022:
[I]n our Constitution" every part of the federal government (including the presidency and SCOTUS) “deriv[es] its powers directly” from the sovereign people." (quoting Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819). Every part of the federal government (including the presidency and SCOTUS) "is empowered to act only in accord with the terms of the written Constitution the people have approved." (citing Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in 1803). "Empires and duchies in Europe may have subscribed" to the “doctrine" that "the people were made for kings, not kings for the people.” (quoting James Madison in The Federalist No. 45). “Monarchical and despotic governments” may possess the power to act “unrestrained by written constitutions.” "But our Nation’s government" has "no existence" (no power of any part of federal government exists) "except by virtue of the Constitution,” and our representatives in federal government "may not ignore that charter."
Any judge acting “under color of any law” or “custom” to “willfully” deprive voters “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by” any provision of the “Constitution” or federal “laws” commits a crime. 18 U.S.C. 242. The SCOTUS justices who pretended to have the power to authorize Trump to commit crimes with impunity should be required to prove they didn't commit a crime.
And SCOTUS judges sit for life, which is crazy in itself. Most modern societies have retirement age for politicians and High Court Judges. This is only common sense. Very interesting to read your comments, Jack.
The main point we should take from evidence presented against Trump and his co-conspirators is something I've been loathe to say: it is time for serious people to think seriously about asking the House to impeach and the Senate to conduct a trial of the SCOTUS justices who openly encouraged presidents to commit the crimes Trump committed. Those justices are accountable to us, the sovereign people, and they should be required to prove that they really believed our Constitution gave them the power that they pretended to have.
Six SCOTUS justices conspired to encourage presidents to viciously and egregiously undermine our Constitution, not only by committing crimes, themselves, but also by corrupting other public servants to help corrupt presidents commit such crimes. That's what they did by (knowingly) misrepresenting that Trump had immunity from prosecution for crimes he committed when he abused his "official" or "core" powers to try to seize power in clear and egregious violation of our Constitution. Their decision can be distilled to this: the only real mistake Trump made was in not relying exclusively on other current government employees to commit his crimes.
Those SCOTUS justices knew that their misconduct and misrepresentations were (and are) undermining the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution to deprive voters of the rights and privileges of our Constitution. Don't take my word for that. Take theirs.
In Ariz. State Legis. v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito issued a dissenting opinion. They emphasized that the majority opinion had emphasized that the “animating principle” (the primary point) of our Constitution was "popular sovereignty" (the sovereignty of the people over all public servants). Then, the dissenters, themselves, emphasized that "the ratification of the Constitution was the ultimate act of popular sovereignty, and the people who ratified" it "did so knowing that it assigned authority to 'the Legislature' as a representative body" (to represent the sovereign people).
Every SCOTUS justice who pretended that they had the power to give Trump immunity knew that Congress (working with the president) enacted criminal laws to protect us (the sovereign people) from public servants who would commit the crimes that Trump committed. A big part of the reason Congress makes conduct criminal is to discourage people from committing such crimes.
The dissenting justices in the Arizona case followed the foregoing with this in their opinion: "This Court has no power to upset such a compromise simply because we now think that it should have been struck differently. As we explained almost a century ago," whatever "method" that "the framers of the Constitution" actually "adopted" is what binds SCOTUS because it “is not the function of courts" to "alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”
Consider also this paragraph from the concurring opinion of Justice Gorsuch in United States v. Vaello-Madero in 2022:
[I]n our Constitution" every part of the federal government (including the presidency and SCOTUS) “deriv[es] its powers directly” from the sovereign people." (quoting Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819). Every part of the federal government (including the presidency and SCOTUS) "is empowered to act only in accord with the terms of the written Constitution the people have approved." (citing Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in 1803). "Empires and duchies in Europe may have subscribed" to the “doctrine" that "the people were made for kings, not kings for the people.” (quoting James Madison in The Federalist No. 45). “Monarchical and despotic governments” may possess the power to act “unrestrained by written constitutions.” "But our Nation’s government" has "no existence" (no power of any part of federal government exists) "except by virtue of the Constitution,” and our representatives in federal government "may not ignore that charter."
Any judge acting “under color of any law” or “custom” to “willfully” deprive voters “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by” any provision of the “Constitution” or federal “laws” commits a crime. 18 U.S.C. 242. The SCOTUS justices who pretended to have the power to authorize Trump to commit crimes with impunity should be required to prove they didn't commit a crime.
And SCOTUS judges sit for life, which is crazy in itself. Most modern societies have retirement age for politicians and High Court Judges. This is only common sense. Very interesting to read your comments, Jack.
Thank you, Helen. If you might be interested in a better, more complete analysis of this issue, see "SCOTUS Justices' Own Words Prove Extreme Deceit (and Irrelevance) of Trump Immunity Decision (Part I)" at https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/scotus-justices-own-words-prove-extreme?r=30ufvh
And you touched on another issue that we all should care about. If you're interested, check out "Fake Originalists' Frivolous Lies about Judges' Right to Life Tenure" at https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/fake-originalists-frivolous-lies?r=30ufvh