Nope, not the singing group that propelled Diana Ross to stardom -- we should be so lucky -- but the United States Supreme Court, which as near as I can tell, is going to have a busy docket of Donald Trump and Trump-adjacent cases for 2024.
I know what I have concluded about the man's actions; I know what the January 6 Committee concluded. Now it's the Supreme Court's turn. I'm figuring they'll focus on narrow technicalities, not sweeping principles; this Court has shown itself willing to stand up to the guy a little, but they haven't been overly spineful and Justices Thomas and Alito appear to be in the pocket* of our home-grown right-wing oligarchs. I wouldn't mind that, except those selfsame oligarchs are Team Trump, not Team Institutional Republican-like-my-parents. The rest of 'em, who knows; Chief Justice Roberts doesn't like rocking the boat (not, usually, a terrible quality in a Chief Justice), the Trump appointees have not shown a huge inclination to dance with the guy that brung 'em† and the left-leaning Justices parse the law at least as carefully as any of their peers.
Is the President an Officer of the United States? (Historical debate on the 14th Amendment and Chief Justice Roberts say very different things.) Is whipping up a crowd to go break into the Capitol and send Congress fleeing in an effort to disrupt the tally of Electoral College votes an insurrection? Is there a lawyerly way to weasel out of making the kind of decision that results in credible threats to one's personal safety? We'll find out, in the next exciting episode, same time, same channel! It's just a pity William Dozier isn't around to narrate it. And that it's real life and not a campy farce. Burgess Meredith chewing up the scenery would be a relief.
__________________________
* These two aren't looking great, ethically, and it makes me sad. Maybe we should do the Baskin-Robbins free ice-cream thing with Supreme Court Justices: pay em so lavishly no zillionaire can bid high enough to influence 'em. But there's always some damn thing you can buy a person with....
† Nor should they, or any other Justice, either. It's a lifetime job at excellent pay (despite Justice Thomas's complaints) and they are supposed to be paying attention to what the law says, not what the President who picked them would like. How any Supreme Court Justice can have trouble getting a loan to buy a house (etc.) is a mystery to me; it's not like they're at risk of getting laid off or fired, or left behind when the Court is moved to a right-to-work state to reduce labor costs.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
2 comments:
My guess is they will throw it out as a non-justiciable question--meaning something to be decided by the political branch, ie Congress--unless they find a way to dismiss it for lack of standing.
Jeffrey Smith
I really hope that Trump's SCOTUS appointees go against him, or at recuse themselves from the case. Because we know he'll turn on and attack his picks as being the absolute worst, stupidest people in the world.
Of course, the fact that Trump has turned on, attacked, and denounced pretty much every person he's appointed to office* never seems to lead Cult 45 to the recognition of the pattern that he sucks at making appointments.
*the ones that aren't still kissing his keister.
Post a Comment