Thanks to Supreme Court, nation's future now hinges on candidates' morality
In January, Politico published a lengthy article arguing that concerns about Donald Trump being some kind of a dictator in his second term were overblown. The article suggested that Trump would be held in check by a number of factors, including the judiciary. "[T]o move from a proto-dictator to a real one, Trump would need full loyalty from the judiciary," wrote Asli Aydintasbas, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. And to truly control the judiciary, Aydintasbas wrote, Trump would have to control the 800 members of the federal bench. But Trump doesn’t need the absolute obedience of 800 judges. He needs just five justices. And he has six. Following the Supreme Court’s stark expansion of presidential immunity on Monday, it becomes much more difficult to prosecute a former president for any crimes committed in office. That vastly reduces the check on presidential power, leaving just three ways that the actions of anyone in the White House might be controlled One possible circuit-breaker still lies in the Senate. However, as two recent examples have made clear, obtaining the 67 necessary votes for convicting an impeached president is nearly impossible, no matter how well-documented the crime. Republicans refused to hold Trump responsible even in the wake of an assault on the U.S. Capitol, and it seems even less likely that they would do so in the future. Another means of checking presidential power comes through the actions of individuals in government. For example, Mark Esper, Trump’s former secretary of Defense, refused to bring in troops and shoot protesters in the streets as Trump had asked during the unrest after George Floyd’s murder, in 2020. Donald Trump’s former Sec. Def. Mark Esper: “[Trump] was suggesting that...we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.” Q: “The commander-in-chief was suggesting that the U.S. military shoot protesters?” Esper: “Yes, in the streets of our nation’s capital.” pic.twitter.com/KZSQXGYS1v— David Leavitt ????????????♂️???? (@David_Leavitt) July 2, 2024 Esper is just one of the more dramatic examples of officials who stood up to Trump and were removed from their positions for daring to get in his way. Because Trump went into Election Day 2016 expecting to lose, his first cabinet largely consisted of well-known Republican politicians and business leaders, few of whom had much personal allegiance to him. But Trump didn’t hesitate to dismiss anyone who disagreed with him, setting a possible record for staff turnover. Trump was also frustrated by lower-level officials. That was particularly true in his efforts to remove environmental, safety, and labor standards where Trump ran into what his followers considered “a federal workforce that was ideologically opposed to the Trump agenda and worked at every turn to sabotage it,” in the words of MarketWatch. None of this will be even a road bump if Trump takes office again. Project 2025 has been expressly designed by the far-right Heritage Foundation to deal with issues like this by providing Trump with a ready-made cabinet of MAGA faithful and by filling the federal ranks with an army of yes-men. If Trump gets another chance to fire on protesters, there will be no Esper to stop him. If he wants a rule gone, it will be. That leaves only one thing to check the power of the president. And that’s the president. The only thing—the only thing—standing between the United States and an authoritarian dictatorship is the character of the person in the Oval Office. The moral character of the president was always an issue. Now it may be the only issue that really matters. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow pointed out, what the Supreme Court did on Monday was a “death-squad ruling.” YouTube Video “This is a ruling that says as long as you can construe if as an official or quasi-official act, you can do absolutely anything,” Maddow said. “Absolutely anything. And never be held accountable, not only while you are president, but forever.” Trump has already told us what he intends to do: gain retribution over those whom he believes have wronged him, jail his opponents, and conduct mass deportations. And, as Maddow notes, no one on the left or right is saying, “Wow, how scary. What is Joe Biden going to do with this power?” Because everyone understands that, even with all the limits taken away, Biden is not a threat to the nation. Republicans can scream about Biden being a dictator all day and know that no secret police will turn up at their door because Biden is fundamentally a good, moral, and empathetic person who respects both the institutions of our nation and his fellow citizens. Following the immunity ruling, the moral character of the person at the helm of the nation is almost infinitely more important. Dictatorship is no longer an issue of "can they?" but of "will they?" The court has laid out its permissions. Every president will have to resist that invitation to lawlessness th
JoriPress
In January, Politico published a lengthy article arguing that concerns about Donald Trump being some kind of a dictator in his second term were overblown. The article suggested that Trump would be held in check by a number of factors, including the judiciary.
"[T]o move from a proto-dictator to a real one, Trump would need full loyalty from the judiciary," wrote Asli Aydintasbas, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. And to truly control the judiciary, Aydintasbas wrote, Trump would have to control the 800 members of the federal bench.
But Trump doesn’t need the absolute obedience of 800 judges. He needs just five justices. And he has six.
Following the Supreme Court’s stark expansion of presidential immunity on Monday, it becomes much more difficult to prosecute a former president for any crimes committed in office. That vastly reduces the check on presidential power, leaving just three ways that the actions of anyone in the White House might be controlled
One possible circuit-breaker still lies in the Senate. However, as two recent examples have made clear, obtaining the 67 necessary votes for convicting an impeached president is nearly impossible, no matter how well-documented the crime. Republicans refused to hold Trump responsible even in the wake of an assault on the U.S. Capitol, and it seems even less likely that they would do so in the future.
Another means of checking presidential power comes through the actions of individuals in government. For example, Mark Esper, Trump’s former secretary of Defense, refused to bring in troops and shoot protesters in the streets as Trump had asked during the unrest after George Floyd’s murder, in 2020.
Esper is just one of the more dramatic examples of officials who stood up to Trump and were removed from their positions for daring to get in his way. Because Trump went into Election Day 2016 expecting to lose, his first cabinet largely consisted of well-known Republican politicians and business leaders, few of whom had much personal allegiance to him. But Trump didn’t hesitate to dismiss anyone who disagreed with him, setting a possible record for staff turnover.
Trump was also frustrated by lower-level officials. That was particularly true in his efforts to remove environmental, safety, and labor standards where Trump ran into what his followers considered “a federal workforce that was ideologically opposed to the Trump agenda and worked at every turn to sabotage it,” in the words of MarketWatch.
None of this will be even a road bump if Trump takes office again. Project 2025 has been expressly designed by the far-right Heritage Foundation to deal with issues like this by providing Trump with a ready-made cabinet of MAGA faithful and by filling the federal ranks with an army of yes-men.
If Trump gets another chance to fire on protesters, there will be no Esper to stop him. If he wants a rule gone, it will be.
That leaves only one thing to check the power of the president. And that’s the president.
The only thing—the only thing—standing between the United States and an authoritarian dictatorship is the character of the person in the Oval Office. The moral character of the president was always an issue. Now it may be the only issue that really matters.
As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow pointed out, what the Supreme Court did on Monday was a “death-squad ruling.”
“This is a ruling that says as long as you can construe if as an official or quasi-official act, you can do absolutely anything,” Maddow said. “Absolutely anything. And never be held accountable, not only while you are president, but forever.”
Trump has already told us what he intends to do: gain retribution over those whom he believes have wronged him, jail his opponents, and conduct mass deportations.
And, as Maddow notes, no one on the left or right is saying, “Wow, how scary. What is Joe Biden going to do with this power?”
Because everyone understands that, even with all the limits taken away, Biden is not a threat to the nation. Republicans can scream about Biden being a dictator all day and know that no secret police will turn up at their door because Biden is fundamentally a good, moral, and empathetic person who respects both the institutions of our nation and his fellow citizens.
Following the immunity ruling, the moral character of the person at the helm of the nation is almost infinitely more important.
Dictatorship is no longer an issue of "can they?" but of "will they?" The court has laid out its permissions. Every president will have to resist that invitation to lawlessness that now sits on a consequence-free silver platter, right in the middle of the Resolute Desk, every single day.
Donald Trump can’t face that test for a minute. He’s not even going to try.
