answer: Many legal experts have already debunked the concept of self-pardon. But Trump probably won’t care. He would simply order the Justice Department to drop the case. (That would still leave the case in state court, but it would likely be put on hold for the rest of his term.) As May’s case continues, the media focused on possible abuses of power. It is almost impossible to guess. That being said, you’re right. President Trump is running on his astonishing claim that he can never be held responsible.
Readers ask: Do you have “four-time indicted former president” as a keyboard shortcut? Then brava.
answer: I don’t, but I should! Thank you for noticing that I use that formula consistently. Voters should not forget that the almost certain Republican candidate has been charged with multiple serious felonies.
reader asks: The Supreme Court struck out the first half of the Second Amendment, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Do you think they simply edited the copy with a black mechanical pencil and cut out unnecessary parts as if some right-wing moth attacked the Constitution?
answer: Maybe they just added something:But either way, the right-wing ideologues win.”
Readers ask: Could Special Counsel Jack Smith petition the Supreme Court to allow him to proceed with preparations for Trump’s trial while the justices consider the immunity issue?
answer: The same court that took nearly two weeks to grant reconsideration of the immunity issue; last A place to find peace. Mr. Smith, unfortunately, The matter may have been abandoned when the case was first put on hold.
Readers ask: The Supreme Court just granted President Trump permission to postpone his desired January 6, 2021 trial date until after the election. Does the Supreme Court have any semblance of legitimacy left?
answer: His and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s failure to disclose information, given Justice Clarence Thomas’ refusal to dismiss a case involving a riot in which his wife appears to have participated. The court stubbornly refused to enact a code of ethics (Thomas is therefore in charge of the rebellion case). that the majority watered down decades of precedent; And despite several justices appearing in public in highly partisan ways, the answer is no. If President Biden is re-elected with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, he will have to pursue serious court reform. The court, which functions like a partisan legislature, should be treated as one, with term limits and strict ethics rules.
Readers ask: Hello Jennifer. Thank you for considering my question. I don’t blame you if you refuse to answer. We know that if President Trump runs and loses, he will yell that he was lied to. Given that his minions include many who threaten civil war, how likely do you think violence will occur and how do you think the government will respond to it? It scares me.
answer: You have raised an important question. Any American should be nervous. President Trump began making new “fraud” claims, lying that Democrats were registering illegal immigrants. If he loses, we should expect a rebroadcast on January 6th. (This is the biggest reason why Republicans should exclude him from the primary.) Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is intended to prevent insurrectionists from appearing on the ballot again and seeking re-election.However The Supreme Court left Trump on the ballot. voters There are good reasons to exclude him from consideration. They watched as he spread the “Big Lie” and led a rebellion. Law enforcement must be prepared to defend election results.
Readers ask: Don’t Republican women realize that Trump is a rapist? Passing out like a cheerleader is baffling to me.
answer: Some people trapped in right-wing media remain ignorant. Others, steeped in misinformation, claim the trial was “rigged.” And, surprisingly, some people are so cynical and blind to moral distinctions that they argue:Well, Biden is still bad” You may be able to reach out to people who don’t actually know anything about the verdict. Echoing Judge Louis A. Kaplan’s ruling that President Trump’s actions can be described as “rape,” Mr. Biden and his allies must remind voters that: A civil court found that he raped the woman and lied about it, and separately found that he fraudulently inflated his assets..
Most of this week’s reader questions were about the Supreme Court’s ruling on January 6, before the election, that made a trial and verdict unlikely. This concern is at the heart of the matter. Do we abide by the principle that no one is above the law?
Please note two points. First, a New York jury will soon hear and reach a verdict on this major election fraud case.President Trump is suspected of falsifying Business records for concealing other crimes in order to obtain public office by deception. If convicted, he could be imprisoned (subject to appeal). Second, ultimately voters must protect democracy. Only if he decisively loses the national election will President Trump be unable to return to power.playing cards after that They will have to face the full force of the criminal justice system.
Finally, the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to abide by the provisions of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (and thus leave Trump on the ballot) contains two red flags for Trump. First, the court could only have refused to go against the Colorado Supreme Court, the Maine Secretary of State, or the Jan. 6 House choice. The committee found that Trump incited the insurrection. There are limits–oh! –As to how far this court will go in defending Trump. Second, Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the “liberal” justices in holding that the majority went too far in requiring Congress to take action to invoke disqualification.it suggests that she might We are less inclined to side with them in cases of impunity.
The Wall Street Journal said, “For all the uncertainties surrounding Donald Trump’s Georgia election interference lawsuit, one thing is clear: Fani Willis’ case was damaged.” Several legal experts have said that. An “expert” with no apparent expertise in ethics or Georgia law… Quoted. The premise is pure speculation. How was it damaged? (The article acknowledged that she was unlikely to be fired.) Citing “Republican” outrage, the report ignored the outrage among women, particularly women of color.
The article further posits that “ethics scandals…slowed momentum” and “may have hurt her ability to obtain guilty pleas from the remaining defendants.” Nonsense. If the motion to dismiss is denied, the trial schedule will proceed. Her “credibility” will not be an issue in court. The jury will consider the facts.
If this were an opinion piece, I’d be suspicious. I was surprised to see it posted in the “News” section.
Texas Republicans argue that the state can pursue its own immigration plans and defy federal directives. More radical MAGA activists argue that Texas should “secession.” At least three lawsuits are pending at various federal court levels asserting Texas’ authority to govern immigration policy.
In one case, Judge David A. Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas blocked SB 4, a state law that created Texas’ own “immigrant entry and reentry crime” and, among other things, authorized state police to make arrests. . For non-citizens, state prosecutors bring charges in state court, and state judges order deportation. Under the law, the Fed “has no role or control over Texas’ plans.”
Ezra defeated SB 4 based on the supremacy clause:
By carefully defining Congress’s exclusive duties to wage war and control immigration, the framers intended to give states unilateral power to tip the balance whenever they disagreed with federal immigration policy. That is not a plausible interpretation. In the language of legal architecture, the framers didn’t hide an elephant in a mouse hole…
Texas is unlikely to succeed based on merit. That argument is based on a narrow and untenable interpretation of Arizona and the many immigration preemption cases that preceded it. SB 4 violates federal law by intruding on dominant federal interests, such as deporting noncitizens, among other things, and by not allowing pending asylum consideration or suspension of decisions. Meanwhile, Texas’ “actual invasion” defense advocates a novel interpretation of “invasion” that has never been affirmed by any federal court (and, in fact, has been unanimously rejected by three circuit courts). claims. Texas is unlikely to succeed on merit.
Any reaffirmation of the supremacy of federal law would be welcome — a judge watered down the Texas Republican Party’s plausible argument that it was facing an “invasion,” or that Texas would wage a “war on immigrants.” The same goes for the claim that the person is committing an act. Texas plans to appeal.
We will have an online chat next week, so please join us. Submit your question. Questions submitted after March 13th will be sent to the next mailbag newsletter on March 20th.