Connect with us

Politics

Barrett sought middle ground in Trump immunity case. This time Roberts said no

Published

on

Barrett sought middle ground in Trump immunity case. This time Roberts said no

The Supreme Court ended its term divided into partisan blocs, with the Republican appointees ruling in favor of former President Trump’s claim of immunity while the three Democratic appointees voiced a bitter dissent.

It’s exactly the result many critics of the court might have expected, with politics driving the law. It’s also what Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has tried hard to avoid — at least most of the time.

For much of this year, Roberts and the justices succeeded in defusing partisan splits with narrow or procedural rulings.

By a 9-0 vote, they threw out a Texas lawsuit seeking to block millions of American women from obtaining abortion pills. They denied gun rights to people who are under a domestic violence restraining order in a 8-1 decision.

Advertisement

But the chief justice did not seek to bridge the partisan divide in the case of Trump vs. United States. He passed up the chance for a narrow consensus ruling offered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett that could have won over the court’s liberals.

A former Notre Dame law professor, Barrett saw no need for a broad ruling on presidential immunity in Trump’s case.

“Properly conceived, the president’s constitutional protection from prosecution is narrow,” she wrote in a concurring opinion. “The Constitution does not insulate presidents from criminal liability for official acts.”

Yes, the president cannot be prosecuted for the exercise of his “core” constitutional powers, she said, agreeing with the conservative majority on that point.

But she said the indictment before the court focused on Trump’s effort to overturn his election defeat by, for example, encouraging Republican state legislators to create false slates of electors claiming that Trump, not Biden, won in their state.

Advertisement

This is “private conduct,” Barrett said. “The president has no authority over state legislatures,” and the Constitution offers Trump “no protection from prosecution of acts taken in a private capacity.”

That was just the kind of middle-ground position that Roberts usually seeks. Instead, he dismissed it.

The court must uphold “enduring principles” involving the “separation of powers and the future of our Republic. … We cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies,” he said, referring to the case before the court.

It wasn’t the first time Barrett split with Roberts this year in a high-profile case involving Trump. One week ago, Barrett disagreed with Roberts and said she would have upheld the obstruction charges against the Trump supporters who broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. She said Roberts did “textual backflips” to ignore what the law said.

Why did Roberts and the four conservatives on his right insist on a broad ruling on presidential immunity?

Advertisement

Unlike Barrett, all five have worked in Washington in Republican administrations and are attuned to how politics drives most investigations that involve presidents and their administrations.

Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh worked as White House lawyers for Republican presidents.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was in high school when his mother, Anne Gorsuch, was forced to resign as President Reagan’s administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. House Democrats had voted to hold her in contempt for refusing to turn over documents at the behest of the White House involving hazardous waste dumps.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. came to the court after tough confirmation hearings in which they clashed with then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). More recently, they have been steady targets of Democrats for their undisclosed vacation trips paid for by billionaires. They were the most likely to vote for Trump’s broad claim of immunity.

Many Republicans, not just Trump’s supporters, saw the prosecutions of the former president through a political lens. Never before, they said, had a former president from one party been indicted for crimes by the administration of the party that replaced him.

Advertisement

Moreover, the Trump case took shape in the last year as the former president prepared to run against the Democratic president who ousted him.

In November 2022, Trump announced he would seek the presidency again. Biden said he too would run. Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, then appointed Jack Smith, a hard-charging prosecutor, as a special counsel to pursue the investigation of Trump’s actions following the 2020 election.

Last August, Smith indicted Trump for conspiring to overturn his election loss, and he sought a fast-track jury trial for early this year. He also indicted Trump in Florida for mishandling secret and highly classified documents.

Meanwhile in New York, Manhattan Dist.Atty. Alvin Bragg, an elected Democrat, indicted Trump on 34 felony counts for false bookkeeping entries intended to hide payments to a porn star. New York’s state attorney general, Letitia James, a Democrat, sought and won a $355-million civil penalty against Trump for allegedly inflating his assets. In Georgia, Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis, an elected Democrat, indicted Trump and 18 others on state racketeering charges involving the 2020 election.

Democrats and progressive groups cheered the indictments as signs that Trump was finally being held to account in the courts for his misdeeds. They were not prepared for what happened when Trump’s case reached the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

In early December, the special counsel petitioned the justices to take up Trump’s claims immediately. It is of “imperative public importance” the case move promptly toward a trial, he said. Two weeks later, his appeal was turned down without comment.

In February, the U.S. appeals court in Washington said the case may move forward, but the Supreme Court put it on hold and scheduled arguments for the end of April on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

Those arguments and this week’s opinion made clear that Roberts and the conservative justices saw the issue through an entirely different prism than the liberals and Democrats.

“No president has ever faced criminal charges — let alone for his conduct in office,” Roberts said. Responding to the fierce dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, he said she was engaged in “fearmongering” that ignores the “more likely prospect of an executive branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors.” He foresaw “the enfeebling of the presidency” and “a cycle of factional strife.”

Roberts concluded by noting the newly declared immunity for presidents “applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”

Advertisement

Which poses the greater danger to the nation — a president who can break the law knowing he is forever shielded from prosecution or a president under constant threat that they may face prosecution after leaving office by partisan opponents?

Georgetown law professor Irv Gornstein, director of its Supreme Court Institute, said that question explains much about the outcome.

“If you think that tit-for-tat prosecution of ex-presidents poses a greater risk to the presidency and democracy than Trump, you probably think that presumptive immunity for all official acts makes sense,” he said. “But if you think that Trump is the greater threat, as many Americans almost certainly do, you probably think the court cares more about Trump and his reelection prospects than it does about democracy and the rule of law.”

“When a sizable portion of the public has already lost confidence in the court, that is something the court ought to worry about,” he added.

Many critics on the left said the chief justice had made a colossal error of judgment that will overshadow his career.

Advertisement

Quinta Jurecic and Ben Wittes, writing in the Lawfare blog, called it a “decision of surpassing recklessness in dangerous times.”

The “court majority may flatter itself that it’s staying out of politics. But this is a fairy tale the justices are telling themselves — if they are, in fact, telling themselves this pleasant little tale,” the pair said. “In fact, they are handing a powerful immunity to an adjudged felon who may be about to assume the executive power of the United States.”

Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, a top Justice Department attorney under President George W. Bush, said in response that it will not be clear for some time whether the court made the right call. But he said the Democratic lawyers made a mistake by relying on the courts to stop Trump.

“It has been a fantasy for many years now to think that courts and prosecutors can purge the nation of a law-defiant populist demagogue,” he said. “Only politics, not law, can do that.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

What would a President Pritzker do on immigration, border crisis?

Published

on

What would a President Pritzker do on immigration, border crisis?

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

With ongoing speculation about whether President Biden will remain the Democratic 2024 presidential nominee after a disastrous debate performance last week, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker is one of the names being raised as a replacement.

But the ongoing crisis at the southern border remains a top issue for voters across the country, and there are signs of the extent to which Pritzker might take a different approach to the crisis than the current administration.

Advertisement

Illinois has been one of the states hit by the knock-on effects of the immigration crisis, where migrants have moved through the southern border into cities like Chicago by the tens of thousands. 

HOW WOULD A PRESIDENT WHITMER HANDLE IMMIGRATION, BORDER CRISIS? 

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker speaks during the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) meeting at the Hilton Midtown on September 19, 2023, in New York City. (John Nacion/WireImage)

While Pritzker has been broadly supportive of most of President Biden’s efforts at the southern border, he has also been one of a number of Democrats who have been critical of the federal government’s handling of the crisis.

In October, Pritzker sent a letter to Biden stressing that he believes in the right “of every human, especially those facing persecution, to find refuge and live with dignity in this great country of ours.” However, he warned that the crisis is “overwhelming” the states and criticized the federal government.

Advertisement

“Unfortunately, the welcome and aid Illinois has been providing to these asylum seekers has not been matched with support by the federal government. Most critically, the federal government’s lack of intervention and coordination at the border has created an untenable situation for Illinois,” he said.

“There is much more that can and must be done on a federal level to address a national humanitarian crisis that is currently being shouldered by state and local governments without support,” he said.

Specifically, he requested a number of actions, such as the waiving of fees for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and “significant” increases in logistical coordination, including the federal government taking over coordination of routing buses of migrants across the country.

DO THESE POTENTIAL BIDEN REPLACEMENTS HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BEAT TRUMP?

migrants processed at the border

Migrants are processed by the U.S. Border Patrol near the Jacumba Hot Springs after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on June 13, 2024, near San Diego, California.  (Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images)

Pritzker also called for a “federal coordinator and task force” to be based at the border and solely to be dedicated to migrant resettlement. In addition, he called (as Biden’s administration has done) for more funding to states, local governments and non-governmental organizations and the expediting of work permits.

Advertisement

He also called on Biden to approve requests from Illinois to allow waivers for Medicaid and housing vouchers for migrants.

In January, he, along with a number of other governors, wrote to Biden calling again for more federal action while backing the administration’s supplemental funding request to Congress. It also backed claims by the administration that the immigration system is broken and in need of reform.

“Without serious reform informed by evidence-based solutions, the challenges facing states and localities will only grow,” the letter said.

Pritzker was also supportive of the Biden administration’s move last year to redesignate Venezuela for TPS, meaning that hundreds of thousands more were protected from deportation and given work permits.

ILLINOIS GOVERNOR SAYS DEMOCRATIC VOTERS ARE ‘THROWING AWAY’ THEIR VOTES BY SUPPORTING ANYONE BUT BIDEN

Advertisement

“Reducing wait times for employment approvals and expanding protection status for those coming from Venezuela will get people working and on a path to building a better future for themselves and their families,” he said.

Meanwhile, at home, Pritzker has kept that focus on funding by approving significant amounts of funding to help the state deal with the number of migrants it is seeing.

As he was pushing Biden for more funding last year, he also announced that the state was investing $160 million to address the crisis, including money for shelter and wraparound services.

This year, Pritzker announced another $160 million for assistance, while taking another shot at inaction from Congress.

 

Advertisement

“With thousands of asylum seekers continuing to come to Chicago in desperate need of support and with Congress continuing to refuse to act—it is clear the state, county and city will have to do more to keep people safe,” he said.

Get the latest updates on the ongoing border crisis from the Fox News Digital immigration hub.

Continue Reading

Politics

Kamala Harris: Vice president on front lines of political crisis

Published

on

Kamala Harris: Vice president on front lines of political crisis

Kamala Harris, photographed in Los Angeles on Nov. 21.

Vice President Kamala Harris is suddenly at the center of a maelstrom in the 2024 presidential election.

After President Biden’s poor debate performance in late June, a growing number of Democrats are calling on him to drop out of the race for the good of their party and the nation.

Our Revolution, a liberal political action committee, fundraised Wednesday off a post-debate poll of more than 17,000 of its members that said roughly two-thirds wanted Biden replaced at the top of the Democratic ticket.

Advertisement

And prominent donors, including in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, have begun publicly expressing their concern about Biden as the nominee. His interview Friday night with ABC — an attempt to right his campaign — drew tepid reviews, and the number of Congress members calling for Biden to bow out grew to five Saturday.

L.A. Influential logo

Discover the changemakers who are shaping every cultural corner of Los Angeles. This week we bring you the final installment of the L.A. Influential series: The Establishment. They are the bosses, elected officials and A-list names calling the shots from the seats of power.

Biden, 81, has pledged to remain in the race, but if he were to step aside, Harris — the nation’s first female, South Asian and Black vice president — would almost certainly be elevated to lead the campaign against former President Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.

As San Francisco district attorney, California attorney general and U.S. senator, Harris, 59, had never lost a race when she announced her 2020 presidential bid. She was long viewed as a rising star in the Democratic Party. Beyond representing generational and racial change, her prosecutorial skills shone during incisive, surgical questioning during Senate hearings.

Advertisement

However, after announcing her White House campaign in 2019, Harris was inconsistent and struggled to articulate what set her apart in a crowded Democratic field — and to motivate donors and early-state voters. Campaign infighting did not help. She suspended her bid before the Iowa caucuses, the first nominating contest in the nation.

Biden resurrected Harris’ political prospects by selecting her to be his running mate, adding a youthful, diverse perspective to the presidential campaign of a white, then-septuagenarian at a time the nation’s demographics were shifting and racial turmoil was at the fore.

Democrats recognize that passing over Harris if Biden were to step back would alienate some Black voters, a decision that would be potentially disastrous in battleground states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania. If he were to throw his support behind Harris, a Los Angeles resident for the last decade, it would represent a new wave of national political power for Southern California, a burst that the region has not seen since the days of the late Presidents Reagan and Nixon.

“Just like Biden has a finite amount of time to prove he can stay on the ticket, she has exactly that same amount of time to prove that she should be the nominee if he steps aside,” said Dan Schnur, a politics professor at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University. “The good news for her is that the way she would prove that she is ready to take the top spot is by saying and doing all the things she would be doing as a running mate anyway.”

For decades, San Francisco dominated Golden State politics, its status cemented by the Bay Area addresses of statewide elected officials and a political machine that produced some of the most prominent national Democrats: former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and California Govs. Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown.

Advertisement

But Harris — the product of Bay Area politics, which she has described as a “bare-knuckled sport” — acknowledged that the state’s power center has shifted.

“Elected leaders in L.A. are rising to prominence in terms of beyond L.A. itself and beyond statewide, and taking on national roles,” she told The Times in an interview in L.A. last fall. “And doing an extraordinary job, by the way.”

‘We are lucky to have a Californian in the White House as vice president simply because we don’t have much else left in Washington at this point.’

— Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, political analyst and podcast co-host

Advertisement

Harris began her migration south while she was dating entertainment attorney Doug Emhoff — she recalls moving in “a couple of sweaters at a time” — and she had permanently relocated to Brentwood by the time they married in 2014.

The couple moved into Emhoff’s multimillion-dollar four-bedroom house (later transferred to a trust using the couple’s initials) on a quiet street of pool-flecked mansions in Kenter Canyon — a neighborhood whose residents have reportedly included model Gisele Bündchen, rap mogul Dr. Dre, Lakers star LeBron James and actress Gwyneth Paltrow.

Once settled, Harris took classes at Brentwood’s SoulCycle and found spots to buy fresh ingredients for her cherished Sunday dinners, such as Huntington Meats near the Grove and the neighborhood farmers market.

The year after Harris moved to L.A., Boxer announced she would retire after her term ended in 2017, creating a chance to launch one of the state’s many rising Democratic figures onto the national stage. Harris seized the opportunity, becoming the second Black woman elected to the upper chamber.

Kamala Harris

Her ambitions for higher office were clear as she stumped across the country for Democrats during the 2018 midterm elections, shortly before she launched her bid for the White House.

Advertisement

“There was a lot being asked of her as she was entering Los Angeles,” said U.S. Sen. Laphonza Butler, a longtime Harris friend who served as an advisor on her 2020 presidential campaign.

Even before Biden’s stumbles, Harris, like other vice presidents, was viewed as a potential heir apparent, given her visibility on the national stage and her party’s support. One of the most prominent and challenging tasks in her portfolio was trying to improve the economic, security and political conditions in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala to stem the number of migrants making a perilous journey to the United States.

Harris’ approval ratings have long been not much better than Biden’s, though her chances against Trump have improved since last month’s debate.

She has already assembled a network of state officials, local party leaders and donors who could coalesce behind a run for the Oval Office. And some polls indicate that she has advantages among younger Americans and voters of color, key Democratic constituencies.

Heading into the election year, Biden’s team tasked her with trying to motivate those voters to support their reelection. She has spent the better part of a year building her profile around issues that disproportionately affect those groups, becoming the administration’s leading voice on abortion protections, gun safety and climate action.

Advertisement

Last fall, she toured college campuses to rally students around the administration’s efforts on abortion access, climate change, voting rights and LGBTQ+ equality. She launched another tour in January to push back on state restrictions of abortion rights and has held a string of recent events on how the administration is tackling gun violence.

Harris has hit the road more as the campaign heats up, playing an important role in shaping the Biden administration’s message to voters the president needs to win back in November. But she’s also positioned to serve as an advocate for California at a time when the state’s political clout in Washington is waning.

“The shift in power, quite frankly, is away from California” because of Pelosi’s retirement and the loss of seniority in the Senate, said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, political analyst and co-host of the podcast “Inside Golden State Politics.” “We are lucky to have a Californian in the White House as vice president simply because we don’t have much else left in Washington at this point.”

‘In the future, when people think of California politics, they’ll increasingly think of Southern California rather than the San Francisco Bay Area.’

— Jack Pitney, political science professor at Claremont McKenna College

Advertisement

Harris has allies, and fellow Angelenos, in the Senate. Alex Padilla was appointed to her seat after she was elected vice president, becoming the first Latino to represent California in the upper chamber. Newsom’s subsequent pick of Butler, who has made L.A. her home base, to replace Feinstein has further tipped the scales toward Southern California.

“In the future, when people think of California politics, they’ll increasingly think of Southern California rather than the San Francisco Bay Area,” said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, who pointed out how “San Francisco Democrat” is no longer Republican shorthand to dismiss more progressive figures.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Chip Roy plans House discussion on 25th Amendment regarding Biden’s mental fitness

Published

on

Chip Roy plans House discussion on 25th Amendment regarding Biden’s mental fitness

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, plans to bring up options under the 25th Amendment in terms of President Biden’s fitness during a meeting with House Republicans on Tuesday.

Roy told Fox News he believes Republicans need to have a position on where they stand regarding Biden’s competence.

Advertisement

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment provides a series of steps for removing a president from office if he or she becomes incapacitated.

But a resolution on the 25th Amendment cannot just be presented to the House floor immediately.

CRITICS PILE ON BIDEN FOLLOWING ABC INTERVIEW, BLAST HIS REFUSAL TO COMMIT TO COGNITIVE TEST: ‘DISQUALIFYING’

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, plans discuss the 25th amendment.  (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

The bill would not be “privileged” and go straight to the front of the legislative line because it deals with the executive branch and not Congress.

Advertisement

Impeachment, on the other hand, could be considered “privileged” because those powers are enumerated in the Constitution as being under the purview of Congress.

PRESIDENT BIDEN FACES THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL WEEKEND OF HIS POLITICAL CAREER

Biden and the first lady

Democratic Party donors in Hollywood are reportedly saying that they will stop donating to the party if Biden isn’t replaced as a presidential candidate. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Any resolution on the 25th Amendment would need to go through committee first, a senior House Republican leadership source told Fox.

Roy’s plan comes a week-and-a-half after House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., spoke about the cabinet weighing in on the 25th Amendment regarding Biden.

Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., was asked by “Fox News Sunday” if Biden was well enough to continue to serve as president and if he would support a move on the 25th Amendment.

Advertisement

Daniels said he did not believe Biden has the capability to serve out the rest of his term, or even run for president.

He also told the host he would support a move on the 25th Amendment.

“I do agree we do have a responsibility to make sure that the occupants of the Oval Office has the mental capabilities to do that job, but that responsibility relies with the Vice President Kamala Harris and with the cabinet,” Daniels said. “What we are seeing is that they have decided to cover up for Joe Biden to protect their radical agenda as opposed to doing what is in the best interest of the American people. If that resolution hits the floor, I would vote for it 100 percent. But at the end of the day, Kamala Harris and the cabinet, they have a responsibility to the American people. They have a constitutional duty to the American people.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending