"It [i.e., Trump's "bear hug" posting about Alito on Truth Social] was a marvelous distillation of the corrupt conservative-supermajority Supreme Court that Trump helped to create and which he sees as his ultimate salvation against the four – count ’em, FOUR – ongoing criminal prosecutions he faces."
"[Greg Abbott's nullification of a jury's convication of Daniel Perry for murder] was a gross injustice in a former Confederate state that reeked of the bad old days of Southern jury nullification, a modern update on the impunity with which white men lynched Emmett Till and then laughed at justice."
So, it turns out that the series Law & Order has a #Toronto version of the show: Law & Order Toronto. I'm weirdly excited that a big series like that actually names Toronto in the title - and that the action takes place here. Maybe it's been running a while, but I heard about it today on the news because Toronto's mayor, Olivia Chow, has a cameo in tomorrow (Thursday) night's episode. And the episode blurb is something about #hockey.
The nachos are ready and the machine is set to record. #LawAndOrder#TV
The MAGA extremists who oppose aid to Ukraine expressed anger over the measure’s passage, but outside of that group, there was bipartisan relief and mutual congratulations. …
MAGAs are Trump loyalists, counting on his return to power, and Trump is visibly diminished."
"For the last week, he has been sitting in a courtroom with no choice but to do as he is told by the judge while potential jurors have expressed their dislike of him to his face. This is novel for him, and it is clearly taking a toll.
Trump’s financial troubles have not gone away, either."
"The Court’s conservative majority is clearly playing games. If hurrying helps Trump, they move with alacrity: They decided the Colorado ballot case in 25 days. If dawdling helps Trump, they slow down: The presidential-immunity case (a crackpot theory they should not have even taken up) won’t be heard until late April."
"The three justices on the court appointed by him, along with the other three Republican justices in his thrall, will not be the ones who uphold the law in the Constitution which so clearly disqualifies him from holding a federal office. They’re scared of offending Trump and his violent followers."
"The most important lesson from Monday’s disqualification ruling is that the Supreme Court is broken beyond repair. The reactionary majority made that fact abundantly clear by unilaterally amending the Constitution to remove the Insurrection Clause from the 14th Amendment.
Those sworn to protect the Constitution are dismantling it."
"This decision feels like it’s more about practicality than partisanship; it is the Court doing exactly what the conservatives so frequently say they must not do, supplanting the intent of the Founders, or in this case, the post-Civil War drafters of the 14th Amendment, with their own judgment about what the law should be."
"As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic, their behavior highlights the 'fraud of originalism.' These are jurists who are ostensibly committed to discerning the original meaning of what the Framers intended when they wrote, debated, and passed the Reconstruction Amendments."
"The majority had no reason to nullify the insurrection clause other than an obvious desire to ensure that no other federal candidates are nixed from the ballot because of their participation in Jan. 6. An optimist might say that by doing so, the majority was just trying to inject stability into the upcoming election."
"Conservative judge J. Michael Luttig wrote that 'in the course of unnecessarily deciding all of these questions when they were not even presented by the case, the five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification," (continued in /2)
"The court’s decision is terrible news, to be sure, but it gives Democrats an opportunity to clarify a few crucial points, and they should seize it.
First, Democrats should stress that voters need to know before the election whether Trump committed crimes—and this is due to them as a matter of right."
"Second, Trump is seeking these delays to end all prosecutions of himself if he regains the White House—to corruptly place himself above the law by pardoning himself or having his handpicked lickspittle attorney general do it. Democrats must say clearly that if the court helps delay the trial until after the election, it will be enabling him to do that."
"It was evident to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that none of the founders contemplated a man like Donald Trump or a political party comprised of his imitators. It’s right there in the Preamble they wrote to the Constitution:"
"they set forth to 'form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' What happened across the street from the Supreme Court at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was the opposite of the stated purpose of the Constitution."
"The question for the justices is, do they have the honesty and integrity and courage to ensure that their court and the Capitol across the street remain in the neighborhood of democracy, or will they allow their neighborhood to be swallowed up by the moral vacuum of Donald Trump’s ambition to become not a president but a dictator? The Supreme Court can stop him, but will they?"
What happened on Jan. 6 was - I have no words for that I can adequately convey how alarming it was and how destructive it was and how un-American it was. And every single person who rioted at the Capitol and who invaded the Capitol was part of an insurrection, end stop. You might not have thought that was what you were doing going in, but that is what it was — US district Judge Ana C. Reyes #quotes#quote#Jan6th#Insurrection#Insurrectionist#Prosecuted#Convicted#Prison#MAGA#law#LawAndOrder#Trump
"The Supreme Court put on an institutional display that showed how little the justices actually know about elections and indeed federalism, which is shocking to have to say, but there you have it."
"The justices will probably wave their hands toward Congress to 'do something' to make the Disqualification Clause enforceable, but in reality they are setting up a potentially cataclysmic and unworkable test for the constitutional framework in the calm (lol) period between Election Day 2024 and Inauguration Day 2025."
My footnote: anyone who expected more has not been paying attention to who the Supremes are now.
Robert Reich discusses the likely outcome of the Colorado case before the Supreme Court, and then he concludes,
"Let me add my disappointment — outrage would be a better term — that Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from this case, given the abundant conflicts of interest he has in the issue."