Connect with us

Politics

Column: For the second time in days, the Supreme Court helped make another Trump presidency possible

Published

on

Column: For the second time in days, the Supreme Court helped make another Trump presidency possible

The Supreme Court held Monday that a single state such as Colorado can’t prohibit Donald Trump from running for president as an insurrectionist under the 14th Amendment. It was the second time in less than a week that the court provided a crucial boost to the former president’s campaign to return to the White House.

The court’s strong inclination to restore Trump to the ballot was clear from the oral argument in the case last month, and indeed the justices reversed the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously. The “per curiam,” or “by the court,” opinion further emphasized that the court was speaking with a single voice.

But the justices were far from united on the rationale for reversal. There was a clear 5-4 split with two concurrences, one by the liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — and the other by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The narrow, right-wing majority within the unanimous decision held that congressional legislation is needed to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits elected officials who engage in insurrection from holding office again. This clearly restricts the amendment’s force going forward.

All four of the concurring justices parted from requiring a federal law to enforce Section 3. For them, it was sufficient that the Colorado decision would impose an inconsistent and intolerable patchwork in which a major presidential candidate appeared on the ballot in some states but not in others. As the court wrote, “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.”

Advertisement

The opinion signed by the three Democratic-appointed justices, though styled as a concurrence, was fairly sharp in its differences with the majority. Most pointedly, they quoted Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s dissent in Bush vs. Gore, the 2000 opinion that remains a bête noire for liberals: “What it does today, the Court should have left undone.”

Barrett similarly felt that her five fellow conservatives had overreached. But she sounded a conciliatory note, writing that “this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.”

So although the court was able to come together as to the result, surely a priority for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., its political divisions were evident just beneath the surface. It was no kumbaya moment.

In cases of this magnitude and political stakes, the court is better off when it’s unanimous or nearly so. Kagan and Jackson, who seemed to be leaning toward reversal at oral argument, and even Sotomayor, whose inclination was less clear, thereby stepped up in the service of the court’s institutional interest. Notwithstanding their fundamental differences with the majority, their concurrences permitted the court to conclude with a feel-good paragraph noting that “All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.” They were good soldiers and team players, which may engender goodwill with Roberts going forward.

Of course, with the rock-ribbed conservatives to the chief justice’s right, there may be scant prospect of similar goodwill. The court’s right has been in lockstep on ideologically divisive matters, and there’s no reason to expect that to change.

Advertisement

Indeed, after last week’s decision to review the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ rejection of Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for Jan. 6, today’s decisive ruling is a second substantial victory for the president who appointed three of the justices.

Some observers speculated that the justices would view the two Trump cases, on immunity and the 14th Amendment, as a pair that they would split. Ruling for Trump on the Colorado case and against him on the Jan. 6 prosecution would communicate a sort of neutrality.

It’s difficult to see it that way now, though. Not that the court will hold that Trump is immune from the charges growing out of his perfidious attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 eleciton. The best he can hope for is a remand to the trial court and eventual loss on the merits of his immunity claim.

But the court last week gave Trump the invaluable gift of time, suspending the proceedings in Judge Tanya Chutkan’s U.S. District Court for at least several months, leaving serious doubt as to whether the case can be tried before the election.

If the polls are to be believed, a criminal conviction would likely persuade a significant number of voters to abandon Trump. That means the court’s decision to enter the fray and delay the case — when it could have let the D.C. Circuit’s thorough, bipartisan opinion stand — is probably the most important assist it could have given to Trump’s campaign.

Advertisement

Moreover, while the court acted with some dispatch in the immunity case, it was nowhere near as quick as in other exigent cases. That includes the one it decided Monday, rushing to clarify the electoral landscape just in time for Colorado and other states to vote on Super Tuesday.

There’s plenty of room for debate as to why the court acted as it did in each case. But there’s no doubt about the impact. Should the country awaken on Nov. 6 to the horrifying prospect of a second Trump presidency, history will record that the Supreme Court played a critical role.

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast. @harrylitman

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

F.A.A. Temporarily Halts Launches of Musk’s Starship After Explosion

Published

on

F.A.A. Temporarily Halts Launches of Musk’s Starship After Explosion

The urgent radio calls by the air traffic controllers at the Federal Aviation Administration office in Puerto Rico started to go out on Thursday evening as a SpaceX test flight exploded and debris began to rain toward the Caribbean.

Flights near Puerto Rico needed to avoid passing through the area — or risk being hit by falling chunks of the Starship, the newest and biggest of Elon Musk’s rockets.

“Space vehicle mishap,” an air traffic controller said over the F.A.A. radio system, as onlookers on islands below and even in some planes flying nearby saw bright streaks of light as parts of the spacecraft tumbled toward the ocean.

Added a second air traffic controller: “We have reports of debris outside of the protected areas so we’re currently going to have to hold you in this airspace.”

The mishap — the Starship spacecraft blew up as it was still climbing into space — led the F.A.A. on Friday to suspend any additional liftoffs by SpaceX’s Starship, the largest and most powerful rocket ever built.

Advertisement

The incident raises new questions about both the safety of the rapidly increasing number of commercial space launches, or at least the air traffic disruption being caused by them.

It also is the latest incident highlighting the conflicts that Elon Musk’s new role in the Trump administration will bring. He will have the remit to recommend changes, and potentially budget cuts, to government agencies including the F.A.A. That tension could hamper investigations like the one announced on Friday.

Mr. Musk, who is preparing to travel to Washington to participate in Mr. Trump’s inauguration, expressed confidence even as of Thursday night that SpaceX would resolve questions about the explosion quickly and restart test flights.

“Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month,” Mr. Musk wrote on his social media site, X.

Mr. Musk also made fun of the spectacle the explosion created, as the debris fell toward Turks and Caicos Islands. “Success is uncertain, but entertainment is guaranteed!” he wrote atop a video of the fiery debris falling toward earth.

Advertisement

The explosion happened after the Starship’s second stage — which is slated to carry cargo or even astronauts on their way to the moon during future missions — separated from the lower Super Heavy booster, and was flying at about 13,250 miles per hour, 90 miles above the Earth.

The Starship had already fired its own rockets to finish the trip into orbit, according to SpaceX’s ship tracking information, suggesting that at the time it blew up, it weighed somewhat more than 100 tons, which is the Starship’s approximate mass without fuel.

SpaceX and F.A.A. officials on Friday did not respond to questions submitted in writing and in interviews by The New York Times as to whether the explosion and falling debris may have represented a threat to any aircraft or people on the ground. It is unclear how much of the spacecraft might have burned up as it fell.

The agency did say there were no reports of injuries but is investigating reports of property damage on Turks and Caicos. It also said that several aircraft that were asked to hold in an area away from the falling debris ended up having to divert and return to other airports because of low fuel.

SpaceX, in a statement about this seventh Starship test flight, said that early data suggested that a fire had started in the rear section of the spacecraft, resulting in the explosion and the landing of debris in an area that SpaceX and the F.A.A. had already identified as liable to such hazards.

Advertisement

Closer to the South Texas launch site, at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico, all flights were already banned at the time of the launch. Starship was about 10 times higher than the altitude of commercial flights when it exploded, meaning there should have been time to warn any planes in the area to steer clear before any remaining debris approached.

SpaceX will be in charge of the mishap investigation, but it will be overseen by the F.A.A., which could allow it to resume test flights even before the investigation is complete, if SpaceX can document that the accident did not create a safety hazard.

Mr. Musk has previously expressed frustration at how long it takes the agency to approve Starship launch licenses. Now he will be a prominent member of the Trump administration, through his perch as a co-leader of an advisory group called the Department of Government Efficiency, with the power to evaluate federal spending and regulations.

“What this new administration might do is push this review to its conclusion faster,” said Todd Harrison, a former space industry executive at America Enterprise Institute.

He added that he expected some at F.A.A. might want to put new demands on SpaceX related to what time future Starship test flights launch, or broader restrictions on flights along more of the flight path.

Advertisement

Tim Farrar, a satellite industry consultant, said the incident showed the complications the United States is going to face as it ramps up space launches, both for the Pentagon as it builds out space warfighting capacity, and major commercial companies like SpaceX and Amazon that are building constellations with thousands of satellites to create global broadband internet access from orbit.

“How much can you realistically increase the tempo of these launches?” Mr. Farrar said.

There were 145 launches reaching orbit last year from the United States, compared with just 21 five years ago. An extraordinary 133 of those orbital launches were by SpaceX, which is now the world’s dominant space company, according to data collected by Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist who tracks launches globally.

Most of those SpaceX launches were by the Falcon 9 rocket, which is deploying Starlink communications satellites and Pentagon payloads and was not impacted by Friday’s F.A.A. order.

Blue Origin, the launch company created by Jeff Bezos, had its own rocket test on Thursday, reaching orbit for the first time with its spacecraft called New Glenn. But it launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida at 2:03 a.m., in part because there were fewer planes in the air then.

Advertisement

The surge in launch frequency, even before Thursday, has been generating complaints from airlines, including Qantas, the Australian-based carrier, which told reporters this month that it has had to delay several flights between Johannesburg and Sydney at the last minute because of debris from SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.

“While we try to make any changes to our schedule in advance, the timing of recent launches have moved around at late notice which has meant we’ve had to delay some flights just prior to departure,” the Qantas executive said in a statement.

Hannah Walden, an Airlines for America spokeswoman, said the commercial airlines are tracking this issue closely.

“Safety is the top priority for U.S. airlines, and we are committed to ensuring the safety of all flights amidst the growing number of space launches,” she said in a statement. “We continuously collaborate and coordinate with the federal government and commercial space stakeholders to ensure the U.S. airspace remains safe for all users.”

Bill Nelson, the Biden-era National Aeronautics and Space Administration director, praised the test flight. The space agency has more than $4 billion worth of contracts with SpaceX to twice use Starship to land astronauts on the moon.

Advertisement

“Spaceflight is not easy,” he wrote Thursday night on Mr. Musk’s X platform. “It’s anything but routine. That’s why these tests are so important — each one bringing us closer on our path to the Moon and onward to Mars.”

Mark Walker contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump administration planning illegal immigrant arrests throughout US on ‘day one’

Published

on

Trump administration planning illegal immigrant arrests throughout US on ‘day one’

The incoming Trump administration is eyeing immigration arrests of illegal immigrants across the country as soon as day one, as top officials say they are ready to “take the handcuffs off” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration is planning a large-scale raid in Chicago on Tuesday, targeting those with criminal backgrounds in particular.

Incoming border czar Tom Homan was asked by Fox News’ Jesse Watters about the media reports of a “big raid” on Tuesday in Chicago, but Homan said ICE will be working across the country.

DEM SENATOR QUIZZES NOEM ON HOW SHE WILL WORK WITH HOMAN: ‘WHO IS IN CHARGE?’

“There’s going to be a big raid across the country. Chicago is just one of many places. We’ve got 24 field offices across the country. On Tuesday, ICE is finally going to go out and do their job. We’re going to take the handcuffs off ICE and let them go arrest criminal aliens, that’s what’s going to happen,” he said.

Advertisement

“What we’re telling ICE, you’re going to enforce the immigration law without apology. You’re going to concentrate on the worst first, public safety threats first, but no one is off the table. If they’re in the country illegally, they got a problem,” he said.

The administration has promised a mass deportation operation, as well as increased border security. Officials have said they intend to target those with criminal histories and convictions, but have also stressed that they will potentially arrest anyone in the U.S. illegally. There are currently more than 7 million individuals on ICE’s non-detained docket.

TRUMP DHS PICK NOEM PLEDGES TO END CONTROVERSIAL APP USED BY MIGRANTS ON ‘DAY ONE’

“The administration has been clear that we’re going to start arresting people on day one, and Chicago’s probably not going to be the only place that arrests are going to be made,” a source familiar told Fox News Digital.

The administration is expected to see significant pushback from “sanctuary” cities that refuse to allow state and local law enforcement to honor ICE detainers – requests that ICE be notified when illegal immigrants in custody are being released.

Advertisement

Some Democratic officials in Chicago, as well as Massachusetts and Arizona have said they will not co-operate with the administration.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS

But New York City Mayor Eric Adams has met with Homan about how they can work together on removing illegal immigrants who have been convicted of violent crimes.

DHS nominee Kristi Noem testified to Congress on Friday, and threw her support behind the mass deportation operation and increasing border security. She also said the administration will immediately end the use of the CBP One app, which currently allows migrants to be paroled into the U.S.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court will decide if parents have a religious liberty right to reject LGBTQ+ lessons for their kids

Published

on

Supreme Court will decide if parents have a religious liberty right to reject LGBTQ+ lessons for their kids

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up a culture wars dispute and decide whether parents have a religious liberty right to have their children “opt out” of using school textbooks and lesson plans with LGBTQ+ themes.

The court voted to hear an appeal from a group of Muslim, Jewish and Christian parents in Montgomery County, Md., who objected to new storybooks for elementary school children that they said “celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four.”

At first, the school board reacted to the complaints by saying parents could have their children excused from the class when the new textbooks were being used or discussed.

But after seeing a “growing number of opt out requests,” the school district reversed course in 2023 and said no opt-outs would be granted “for any reason.”

The parents then sued in federal court, citing the 1st Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion.

Advertisement

They were represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. After failing to win a court order in favor of the parents, they urged the Supreme Court to hear the case and to give parents an “opt out” right for books that they say offend their religious beliefs.

They argued many of the new “inclusivity” books for students from kindergarten to fifth grade champion a progressive ideology about gender and sexuality.

They cited one book that told 3- and 4-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather.” Another book advocated a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, they said.

Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, welcomed the court’s intervention.

“Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents’ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency,” he said in a statement. “The court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.”

Advertisement

Last month, the school district’s lawyers said there was no reason for the justices to take up the case.

“Every court of appeals that has considered the question has held that mere exposure to controversial issues in a public-school curriculum does not burden the free religious exercise of parents or students,” they said. “Parents who choose to send their children to public school are not deprived of their right to freely exercise their religion simply because their children are exposed to curricular materials the parents find offensive.”

The justices are likely to schedule the case of Mahmoud vs. Taylor for arguments in late April.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending