The movie “Civil War” and the Supreme Court hearing on presidential immunity have much in common. The former only is disappointing entertainment; the latter puts our country at stake
A postscript to this column: Retired Judge Thomas Wexler, writing in an April 29 letter to,the editor of the Minneapolis StarTribune, succinctly summarized the Supreme Court’s first priority: “The wise course of action for the Supreme Court is to decide only the facts of the case before it. It would be unwise for the court to attempt to state a broader immunity rule. What the court should do is simply to state that there is no immunity for the allegations of the case before it. The allegations and clear evidence of Trump's conduct shows intent to obstruct constitutional election process and state election procedures. There should be no need for a remand to the trial court to decide immunity claims in this case.”
As always, on-point commentary and while I haven't seen the movie - and don't plan to - I did listen to the Supreme Court hearing during a long drive and I agree completely with your analysis. The questions and comments from most conservative wing of the court - Justices Thomas and Alito - made it sound like they were in a bull session at a bar musing about the theory of presidential immunity - something I assume people who aspire to the Supreme Court do - while the mid-conservatives (as I think of them), Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch did acknowledge an actual case in front of them but seemed more fixated on the dangers of too little immunity versus too much. The "moderate" conservatives - at least for this case - Justice Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts recognized the case but seemed inclined to think the right solution is to send the case back to the trial court to parse out public versus private acts as way to draw the immunity line. Justice Barrett did a nice job, in fact, of leading and then trapping Mr. Sauer, Trump's lawyer, in an extended exchange in which she paraphrased the indictment to make the attorney admit most of the charges fell on the "private" side of the line and - presumably - not covered by immunity.
Two take-aways for me were: no way is the trial happening before the election and second, surely a bad sign of the state of our union is when people feel like they have to listen to court hearings because the stakes are that high. And yet that's where they are.
One note of hope, from my perspective at least. My long drive was in service to a losing effort at the poker table with some high school buddies. Of the six people at the table, only one seemed to be flirting with Mr. Trump and even he wouldn't admit to it. The staff at the fancy venue we played at? While I didn't survey them, their body language seemed pretty speak pretty eloquently to me.
Bad news? This played out in ruby-red Missouri so my informal focus group is worth even less than bupkus. Makes me feel a little better about the money I left with my buddies though.
Yes, even though Trump’s attorney cleared the path for a pre-election trial on some criminal election interference charges, I am not optimistic that it will happen. It seems too many of the Supremes are intent on slow-walking the case.
On a marginally-related note, I was listening to the hearing while doing yard work. I was reminded that on some important points, Uri Berliner, the NPR editor who resigned over his differences with the organization’s journalistic future, missed a critical issue. Yes, NPR has lost the trust of some of its audience. But maybe just as importantly, NPR seems to have lost trust IN its audience. Providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of important events, the long format one-on-one interview programs (e.g., what Midday on MPR amused to do) and other “wonky” programming are essential to a well-informed public. There still are many in the audience who want that kind of news service, even as NPR moves more and more to entertainment radio.
"The cost of procrastinating and vacillating on the key question risks further loss of the public’s faith and trust in the integrity of elections and of the people and institutions we the people have empowered." Unfortunately, "we the people" don't get a say in which SC justices are gifted their jobs.
A postscript to this column: Retired Judge Thomas Wexler, writing in an April 29 letter to,the editor of the Minneapolis StarTribune, succinctly summarized the Supreme Court’s first priority: “The wise course of action for the Supreme Court is to decide only the facts of the case before it. It would be unwise for the court to attempt to state a broader immunity rule. What the court should do is simply to state that there is no immunity for the allegations of the case before it. The allegations and clear evidence of Trump's conduct shows intent to obstruct constitutional election process and state election procedures. There should be no need for a remand to the trial court to decide immunity claims in this case.”
As always, on-point commentary and while I haven't seen the movie - and don't plan to - I did listen to the Supreme Court hearing during a long drive and I agree completely with your analysis. The questions and comments from most conservative wing of the court - Justices Thomas and Alito - made it sound like they were in a bull session at a bar musing about the theory of presidential immunity - something I assume people who aspire to the Supreme Court do - while the mid-conservatives (as I think of them), Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch did acknowledge an actual case in front of them but seemed more fixated on the dangers of too little immunity versus too much. The "moderate" conservatives - at least for this case - Justice Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts recognized the case but seemed inclined to think the right solution is to send the case back to the trial court to parse out public versus private acts as way to draw the immunity line. Justice Barrett did a nice job, in fact, of leading and then trapping Mr. Sauer, Trump's lawyer, in an extended exchange in which she paraphrased the indictment to make the attorney admit most of the charges fell on the "private" side of the line and - presumably - not covered by immunity.
Two take-aways for me were: no way is the trial happening before the election and second, surely a bad sign of the state of our union is when people feel like they have to listen to court hearings because the stakes are that high. And yet that's where they are.
One note of hope, from my perspective at least. My long drive was in service to a losing effort at the poker table with some high school buddies. Of the six people at the table, only one seemed to be flirting with Mr. Trump and even he wouldn't admit to it. The staff at the fancy venue we played at? While I didn't survey them, their body language seemed pretty speak pretty eloquently to me.
Bad news? This played out in ruby-red Missouri so my informal focus group is worth even less than bupkus. Makes me feel a little better about the money I left with my buddies though.
Yes, even though Trump’s attorney cleared the path for a pre-election trial on some criminal election interference charges, I am not optimistic that it will happen. It seems too many of the Supremes are intent on slow-walking the case.
On a marginally-related note, I was listening to the hearing while doing yard work. I was reminded that on some important points, Uri Berliner, the NPR editor who resigned over his differences with the organization’s journalistic future, missed a critical issue. Yes, NPR has lost the trust of some of its audience. But maybe just as importantly, NPR seems to have lost trust IN its audience. Providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of important events, the long format one-on-one interview programs (e.g., what Midday on MPR amused to do) and other “wonky” programming are essential to a well-informed public. There still are many in the audience who want that kind of news service, even as NPR moves more and more to entertainment radio.
"The cost of procrastinating and vacillating on the key question risks further loss of the public’s faith and trust in the integrity of elections and of the people and institutions we the people have empowered." Unfortunately, "we the people" don't get a say in which SC justices are gifted their jobs.
I agree. Trust in our core institutions may be THE question on this year’s ballot
This week’s SC antics are beyond belief. Between that and Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, we are doomed.