"It's much worse."

[babylonsister]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/4/29/2237893/--It-s-much-worse


"It's much worse."
Monday, April 29, 2024 at 6:21:25a EDT
Munchausen


Rarely have I thought that a single quote would justify a diary — but after reading Yale historian, Timothy Snyder’s X thread that was posted yesterday — a clear-eyed delineation of the right-wing justices’ placement of dynamite at the door of Democracy, revealing how even the key objection to their inexplicable consideration of “immunity” is blunting what it really means, I felt it was important to place it here.

The link to the thread is here. The unbroken quote is below (the bolding within, mine):

Right-wing justices postulate Trump's "immunity." The objection is that this makes him a king. Not so. It's much worse.

A king can be subject to law. Even George III was subject to law. The American Revolution was justified by the notion that he had overstepped the law.

This discussion of immunity is something else.

The justices are not discussing any constitutional system at all, including a constitutional monarchy.

Justices are instead flirting with the idea that a single person can be outside any constitutional system, outside the rule of law as such. What justices seem to find charismatic is dictatorship, specifically fascist dictatorship. It is making an exception for a person that attracts them.
That is the basis of Nazi legal theory (Carl Schmitt). The law and the constitution are just there so we can find the person, the Leader, the Führer, who breaks them, who makes an exception.

Snyder then noted that he wasn’t making any specific claims that the justices “read Schmitt” — but that their “affinity for fascist law” is “troubling”.

The point here, being: “immunity” isn’t simply making a president (and in this case, an ex-President and all future presidents) a “king” — it’s placing them beyond even that which kings are subject to.
Fascism coming to America would no longer be a mere specter — a barricade or position from which we fight to protect our Democracy from the threat of those would seek fascism here; it will have arrived. We would, from that point on, exist behind enemy lines. And existing there, we may find ourselves, as a people now all-but powerless against tyranny, longing even for the days of kings — who were, beneath their crowns, at least subject to the law.

[malaise]

1. Must Read

Get thee to the greatest page
RFN

[brush]

2. SCOTUS should've never taken up the immunity decision as the circuit court...

had taken its time deliberating come up with what was considered by legal experts as an ironclad ruling that "no man/woman is above the law, therefore there no president, sitting of former, has immunity to commit crimes.

Period.

SCOTUS decided to rule on immunity, their decision should have been 9-0, no immunity. It wasn't so now it appears they will drag their decision out so no trial will he held some three and half years and counting on the J6 insurrectionist-in-chief.

Seems we've gone over to the dark side to dictatorship...with their blessing.

[Chainfire]

3. Not only that, but they are delaying their ruling at least until the sitting president is no longer in office.

It is not the Constitution that they are interpreting and protecting, it is a single Party and a single man. Their actions amount to a coup. The American people should be so outraged that we impeach the fascist bastards before it is too late. What happens will be of our doing, or failure of doing, and we will get what we deserve.

I would like to see our President get down in the mud with them and stack the courts to save the nation.

[Lonestarblue]

6. The frustrating fact is that Republicans have removed impeachment as an option when it is one of their own.

They will not agree to impeach a Republican on the Court for any reason. Their refusal to convict Trump after his January 6 coup attempt is one of the worst partisan refusals to uphold their oath to the Constitution in our history. I truly believe that had a Democratic president committed such an action, Democrats would have voted to convict and remove from any future office. That’s one of the big differences between the parties.

[unblock]

4. who here feels they can't do their job without breaking the law?

what is it about the presidency that these schmucks feel he must break laws to do his job properly?

and how is it that we never felt that way for the previous quarter millenium?

[hadEnuf]

9. There are no vexing questions about this at all. SCOTUS does not think there is a situation where the president must

break the law to do his job properly. They are trying to invent one and make it stick for Trump and the Republican party to acquire absolute power.

These right-wing justices are doing exactly what they were appointed to do. They are only there to bend and twist the Constitution to legitimize the right-wing's actions and codify them into law.

The SCOTUS has been thoroughly corrupted. Looking for impartial decisions from this court is a dangerous fool's game. The only way to end this nightmare of our Democracy actually hanging in the balance is to level the SCOTUS playing field and expand the court.

The right-wing has proven what the want and what they will do to achieve it. It's a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation by expanding the court, but at least it would stop a cluster of extremists from ruling this country straight into fascism.

[unblock]

11. Nailed it.

[chowder66]

5. Every damn newspaper and news program in our country should print what Mr. Snyder is saying.

[Farmer-Rick]

7. Well said

"Justices are instead flirting with the idea that a single person can be outside any constitutional system, outside the rule of law as such. What justices seem to find charismatic is dictatorship, specifically fascist dictatorship."

They would make him a god. Many dictators have declared themselves gods. Dictators can do anything. Would they put him up there with their Jesus? Or would they make him the fourth in what was the Trinity?

[RainCaster]

13. SCOTUS would make TSF above their triune God

They are already worshipping him for breaking every commandment. He will be above all laws, religious and legislative.

[wnylib]

8. Not only did George III violate the law that even kings were/are subject to

but Charles I, king during the Roundheads vs. Cavaliers Civil War, literally lost his head over thinking and acting like he was above the law.

Hoping it never comes to that here.

[lastlib]

10. To paraphrase one of my heroes....

When those who are charged with upholding the law break the law, then there IS no law--just a fight for survival.

--Billy Jack (played by Tom Laughlin)

[Turbineguy]

12. Trump wants immunity because he committed the crime.

Why didn't this come up in 2017 or 2018?

[young_at_heart]

14. Timothy Synder is always a "must read" for me

This piece of his has moved to the top of my list of Synder's essays. His wisdom is extraordinary. I first became aware of him when he was a guest on Rachel's show occasionally. "It's much worse" sends a chill down my spine!!

[58Sunliner]

15. Thanks, I missed this post. Ugh.

[liberalgunwilltravel]

16. Careful what you ask for, SCOTUS

Trump's attorneys are arguing the Biden could officially order the 6 "conservative" Justices on the Supreme Court to be executed with no consequences. OK?

[Justice matters.]

21. They don't care because they KNOW he will not do that.

They KNOW he is faithful to his oath of office, a law-abiding citizen and basically a GOOD person.

[drmeow]

25. The lawyers need to point out

that they have zero guarantee that Trump would not order the same thing. If SCOTUS thinks they are safe, the are STUPID AF.

[Trueblue Texan]

39. I was thinking about this last night...wrestling with insomnia...

So, according to what TSF's team is arguing, the president of the US could order a nuclear hit on an American city that he deems is a sanctuary city for immigrants because they are a threat to the future of the Republic. That's what they are arguing, basically. That would be within the scope of his "official" duties as protecting the nation and could be executed without impunity. Wow.

I struggled to sleep last night and I had the strangest thought that there MUST be more going on here than meets the eye. I am an Atheist--no belief in the supernatural--but it seems to me something supernaturally evil has taken over the minds and hearts of so many on this planet. Some other worldly force must have seized them to put their trust in these maniacs who have the power to inflict their insane values on the rest of us. If I believed in God, I'd say God help us.

[onecaliberal]

17. K&R - MUST READ

[Hekate]

18. KnR

[MustLoveBeagles]

19. K&R

Bookmarking

[BoRaGard]

20. K & R

[CANADIANBEAVER69]

22. where are the liberal leaning Justices?

Why are they staying silent?

[babylonsister]

28. They haven't been silent,

they're in the minority. djt managed to insert a few looney-tune conservative justices who are weighing the court to the right. Then there were a few already there, waiting for their chance to pounce, and this seems to be the pounce, along with abortion ruling.

[CANADIANBEAVER69]

29. I understand the dynamics of the politically leaning Justices

and how they got where they are today. I am wondering more on a vocal basis to the public. I know they are not supposed to speak publicly, but aren't the circumstances a bit dire and in need of blowing things wide open?

[barbtries]

35. they're not!

jeez. if you want to hear the discussion, listen to the argument. they're not going to be out and about talking on the nightly news.

[CANADIANBEAVER69]

36. I have listened to the arguments. I know they won't do nightly news but

could they together make a strong statement of concern at the very least. I know I have read some opinions from the right leaning Justices when they are out to their overlord events. It gets reported on sometimes. Just hoping to see their concern about the fast path to the right that the court seems to be moving to. More so than in any other sittings.

[Martin Eden]

23. IMPEACHMENT would no longer be a remedy, BECAUSE...

The dictator could jail or assassinate leaders in Congress who plan to begin impeachment proceedings and/or likely to vote for impeachment.

These would be legitimate actions by a president who gets to decide what constitutes official duty.

He (or she) could jail or kill any person deemed a threat to the state, including Supreme Court Justices.

Would Alito, Thomas, et al want a Democratic president to wield such powers with immunity?

A strong argument can be made they pose a real threat to our Constitutional repubublic.

[RVN VET71]

42. Would Alito, Thomas, et al want a Democratic president to wield such powers with immunity?

Clearly not. I suggest that the whole debate is a charade. SCOTUS's fascists want merely to delay, delay, delay the progress of Trump's criminal and civil cases until after the election. If they were to hastily decide (6 to 3 or 5 to 4) that president's have this dictatorial total immunity, Biden would be able to use it to his advantage, even to executing extreme justice on the fascists in the Federal government -- include Fat Donnie.

It is likely that Alito, Thomas and the other fascisti on SCOTUS will NOT find in favor of Fat Donnie's ridiculous argument -- but their deliberations will delay the progress of Fat Donnie's many trials until after the November election.

Meanwhile, when Fat Donnie steals that election, our stature as individual citizens will be reduced to that of medieval serfs and at-will employees.

[Martin Eden]

44. Delay, delay, delay ...

Except in cases like the one in Colorado where Donnie would be kept of the ballot based on the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment.

THAT was urgent business for them.

[RVN VET71]

45. Not to mention " full and unquestioned presidential immunity"

Which every decent judge in the land -- excluding, of course, the 6 traitors to democracy in SCOTUS -- felt to be a frivolous and stupid claim made by Fat Donnie and his legal mouthpieces.

Yeah, folks, unless there's a miracle in November, this country is toast, your stature as a voting citizen is toast, rule of law for the
un-monied is toast. The fascists own state legislatures, half of the House of Representatives, nearly half of the Senate. They are backed by most of the nation's billionaires -- and those who aren't on board today will buy their way into Fat Donnie's protection agency as soon as Fat Donnie and his minions are given the reins of power.

[elocs]

24. This conservative Supreme Court had better remember that a dictator has no need of an independent court,

but simply courts that rubber stamp his orders.
It's our choice as to who wins this election. Everybody in the handful of battleground states needs to vote for Biden because if you don't vote for Biden it only helps Trump.
We don't need to just beat Trump (although that is imperative), but he needs to be crushed at the polls and in the Electoral College as well. Completely humiliated.

[BigDemVoter]

26. I find this so depressing.

I just wish we had the votes and the 'oomph' to change the number of justices on the court to 13 from the current 9. . .

[calimary]

30. Man-oh-man have I wanted that for a long time!

Should be 13 justices on the Supreme Court.

Our population has increased substantially. We have 13 Courts of Appeals across America, 12 plus the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington.

Courts of Appeals

There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.

A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.

In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Learn more about the courts of appeals.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure

Seems to me, anyway, that the Supreme Court should reflect that, by expanding to 13 justices, 12 associates and the Chief.

[RVN VET71]

43. 13? I favor 15

Enough to bury the fascist influence on SCOTUS once and for all. Let 'em squawk and whine all they want. It's the best way to clean up the mess made by Fat Donnie and the Turtle Man. And it's playing by the same rules the fascists played in their takeover of SCOTUS.

[pwb]

27. If Joe gets immunity

he could fire all their asses.

[SupportSanity]

31. I've listed below, in great detail, all the things I've seen that Timothy Snyder has been wrong about:

[returnee]

32. Impeach them now. (no text)

[Aristus]

33. Well, if we have to go all Charles I on Diaper Don, we fucking well will.

Wanting to be king, and wanting unchallenged power are both antithetical to the American way of life. And if they have to be checked or prevented with scaffold and axe solutions, so be it.

[Evolve Dammit]

34. Worst court in my lifetime. Clarence NEVER should have been there and there are several others as well. nt

[flying_wahini]

37. Part of me can't even believe we are here and secondly, I'm beginning to hope that we are being pranked by

SCOTUS. Any moment Judge Thomas will jump out and say ‘just kidding, of course he’s not immune!”

[Martin68]

38. It is really hard to believe how far SCOTUS has strayed from the democratic norm.

The conservative majority is trying to remake America in their own image. They truly have a God complex.

[spanone]

40. K&R

[wolfie001]

41. Excuse the expression, but the 800lb gorilla in the room is, Ta-Da:

RELIGION!!!! This is their end around our Constitutional Democracy. It "justifies" all of their outlandish rulings (Alito citing a 17th century witch-burner?!). Any sane person knows there is no way in hell the universe is 6000 years old, but these 6 justices seem to be couching all of their rulings using that fallacy as a basis for their interpretation of the law. Looks like freedom is gonna be in a world of pain if Biden isn't re-elected. Just my take