Monday, March 04, 2024

Maybe This Only Applies To Major Party Candidates 🧐

Age must be proven by evidence in court. Citizenship must be proven by evidence in court. And courts could vary on those opinions, depending on the facts presented in each court.

But this can’t be proven in court. Because: reasons.

I wonder how the Court would rule if a state court had adopted the “birtherism” argument and struck Obama from a state ballot.

I just find this argument very weak.

Brevity Wins

Even when it shouldn’t. CW is that Biden’s policy on Gaza us “awful.”

News Is Gossip

I think the simpler analysis is: policy is boring and accomplishments are not news.

Twitter and TeeVee are not long-form fora. Both focus heavily on brevity. You gotta get your soundbite in, and “Joe Biden is old” doesn’t need the explanation that “Joe Biden has accomplished more in three years than any president in recent memory” does.

Besides, the first sounds “objective” while the second sounds like “opinion.” Or you’d have to explain it, and the panel has already moved on. Even on PBS, panels are not for discussion, they are for regurgitating CW. 

Sort of like ew’s analysis: “Tl;dr.”

“I don’t have time for that, bro. I’m sorry that happened to you. Or I’m glad for you.”

Sunday, March 03, 2024

Off The Top Of My Head?

In answer to a question in the title of the article, I’d say promoting Jerry Falwell to a position of apparent authority way back when.

He taught Trump how to be a public racist and Moms for Liberty how to exploit groundless fears with vague accusations, and used evangelicalism for power. A shining example of Christian humility and compassion for the least among us, he never was.

Not surprising; that shit really doesn’t sell. It’s the heart of the gospels, but honestly, those just get in the way of amassing power and wealth, too.

“It Only Takes 90 Minutes In The Movies!”

Judges would also accept any commentary on the “wisdom of the crowds” (“Some people were saying…”).

Amazing how much expertise there is among persons unburdened with knowledge.

American History πŸ‚

Americans have always embraced fascism when it suited them. Slavery; Jim Crow; Trail of Tears; Wounded Knee; turning ”Indian Territory” into Oklahoma. The Tulsa Massacre. Postcards of lynchings in the 20th century. Eugenics laws, until that was synonymous with “Nazis.” The Tuskegee Experiments. I’m just going off the top of my head at this point. The Kent State Massacre, where it was decided the Guard did nothing wrong shooting innocent students because a handful of students were rowdy. Isn’t fascism about imposing power in the name of the state? Of order? Of compliance?

I mean, it’s not like Trump has made the fasces the symbol of MAGA, is it? Still, we call him a fascist.

There are lots of examples of violence in the name of order in American history. Waco and Koresh. Bull Connor. Selma, Alabama. The Edmund Pettis Bridge. We don’t call all those “fascism.” But now we see fascism because Trump?

I’m just saying, we have been down this road once or twice before. It all depends on whose ox, doesn’t it? And how vicious we want to be. Definitions matter. But when the boot is on your throat, or the gun is firing at you, do they matter that much?


Sharpened it to a very dull point.
I’m sure Trump thinks he means “Covid vaccines.” πŸ’‰ But that just means Trump is very stupid. I knew adults who had polio as children. They lost the use of their legs, one way or another. I saw film as a child of people in “iron lungs” because they couldn’t breathe on their own. When the vaccine was available, my parents took me to a school building (it had large rooms to accommodate the people) to get my sugar cube. Best vaccine I ever had, because the rest had to be delivered hypodermically.

My mother-in-law suffered partial hearing loss in one ear because of childhood measles. Measles walks the land again because people won’t get vaccinated against it, or vaccinate their children. Me, I don’t want tetanus, diphtheria, mumps (had them as a child; don’t want them again), etc.

But as I said, Trump is stupid. That hasn’t changed since ‘16, either. But maybe we shouldn’t forget it because “Biden is old” or his policy on Gaza is “awful.” Are we stuck with that narrative, too?
Only if we want to be. We don’t have to remain blind to reality, do we?


Is this how they’re getting people into the pews since I left? Vaping marijuana (c’mon, it’s Colorado!) and giving hand jobs?

Makes Paul’s concerns about the Galatians suddenly look more contemporary.

Coming Around Again

This is good old-fashioned GOP isolationism. Pre-WWII, pre-Pearl Harbor variety. It never went away, it just went quiet.

And here it is again. Every GOP argument against funding Ukraine is a Ghost of Isolationism Past. Like racism, like xenophobia, like violence, this is as American as cherry pie.

We’ll never be rid of it. We just have to recognize it.

Press The Meat

I was walking through the room as The Lovely Wife watched MTP, where “the panel” was earnestly discussing the pending SOTU. Of particular concern was whether or not Biden would appear “old.”

I’m going to go out on a limb and say they didn’t spend 30 seconds in the entire show discussing Trump’s rallies yesterday.
Or mention that.

There’s a reason I don’t watch TeeVee news anymore. The narrative gets serviced just fine without my eyeballs.πŸ‘€ 


"Plausible” is a Trumpian argument. It’s the argument Trump used to justify (well, to himself) all his attempts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election. He was convinced the polls (again: the ones he liked) had declared him invincible (a la Macbeth?), and he used that conviction to declare the outcome fraudulent.

I’m not saying that was enough. I’m saying that’s what he did.

So why does a Biden win have to be made “plausible”? Why does it have to align with the “buckshot use if the curved question” (Walt Kelly) asked of less than 1000 people who answered the phone to a stranger (I never do)?

Every four years we swear by the power of campaigning (he/she who raises the funds has the credibility) but demand the polls be the Delphic Oracle which will reveal the true future because polls, not campaigns, are what count.

“Plausible”? Are our elections now only valid if they align with the polls and the expectations of the pundits? Is that what we have “normalized”? Trump’s wailing about his losses have all been based on the predictions he (and his supporters) want to hear. They were made “plausible” because we all look to polls to pull back the curtain if time and shine a light into the darkness that is the unknowable future.

Maybe let’s just say there will be a political campaign, as there has been since Washington stepped down, and the polls will imperfectly try to mirror the results before they happen. It’s not Biden’s election that has to be plausible; it’s the interpretation of the chicken entrails that we call “polling.”

Saturday, March 02, 2024

The Truth Will Out

Had to stop himself. And he goes again in Virginia, shortly. Or whenever he gets there; he’s famous for being late. It IS contagious! 😷  And the people say: “AMEN!” Haunted by the specter of Obama. Specters everywhere. It also gave us interracial marriages. Or what we now just call “marriages.” It’s sarcasm. In his mind, anyway. Where things are interchangeable: Not the flex he thinks it is. Truth keeps coming out. All the country’s a stage "We are back, Grandpa. We got back years ago. Why don’t you get ready for bed, now? Sun’s goin’ down.” “Sure, Grandpa. Great, big guy, with tears in his eyes. He cried for you, did he? That’s nice, Grandpa. Drink your warm milk πŸ₯› now.” "Yes, Grandpa, but we had to take your phone away, remember?” Grandpa does that, now. I can see it. Especially since this is the same speech he gave earlier today... ...and nobody’s going to report on how utterly off the bubble he is. We need to. So why can’t we?

🐍 πŸ‘§

I’ve said that to The Golden Child more than once.

Of course, I’ve also told her she’s my second favorite daughter. And gave her a coffee mug with that logo on it.

She’s an only child.

We have a very understanding relationship.


It’s hot. Or it’s contagious.😷  Okay, it’s just contagious. Outta yer ass. Projection is a cruel mistress. Not a legal defense. Or a coherent statement. Please ask why his lawyers haven’t dismissed the case yet. Joe Biden approves this statement. And this one. For thee, but not for me! His mommy said so. No wonder he wants that trial postponed. Wait’ll he finds out they’re made in China! They tell him the sun 🌞 comes up because of him, too.  "We don’ need no steenken’ badges!” Another sign of his incredible popularity. And blacks like him; more than they do MLK. Because MLK never racked up 91 felony counts.

Don’t Get Me Started

Yeah, About That…

I’ve had more views of this blog today. And NOBODY reads this blog. (No offense, I just know I’m less significant than a raindrop in the ocean. Thanks for coming, anyway.) This is where I recall that 538 predicted Trump would win by 57 points in South Carolina. Trump himself said he’d win by 80 points. One prediction was about as accurate as the other. We might as well examine chicken entrails.

Or, you know, wait for election results.

And what Presidential election with an incumbent is NOT a referendum on the incumbent?
Just copy and paste from the last 20, 30, 40 years. Only the names have to change.

When Even Trump Knows It’s Over

The DQ of Willis is not coming.

Whatever she and Wade did, it didn’t create a conflict of interest (he wasn’t representing a defendant). No evidence of a conflict was ever presented.

The guy convicted of fraud for obtaining money under false pretenses is complaining about where Willis got her money, when there was no evidence questioning that at all? 

Willis wants this case to go to trial in August. Maybe that’s what Trump is worried about.


This is not stopping the execution of the judgment. And it’s not paying the judgment, either.

That’s the thing about appeal bonds. The judgment is a court order that a party has to pay up. It’s not a suggestion or a finding: it’s an order. The only way to stop that order is to prove you can pay up, and you will, if you can’t get the whole sum tossed out. You can’t delay execution while moving all your assets to an offshore bank or your cousin. 

The best part of this is Forbes insisting Trump is worth billions, and can pay this judgment. But that “worth” is not really “worth” as we ordinary people understand it. I’m “worth” the value of my house; on paper. But if I have to sell it to satisfy a judgment, what good is that to me? I have to get less than the best price because I need to let it go; and now I don’t have a home to live in. If that is what I’m “worth,” I ain’t worth it. Literally.

Trump is paying his legal bills with campaign contributions. Isn’t he rich? Is this a clever business move? But he’s literally robbing Peter to pay Paul, because he’s running out of money to campaign on, and outside the primaries, he’s going to have to campaign. And what’s he going to do that with? The RNC is not going to be a piggy bank. Ronna Romney McDaniel had strong connections to deep pockets. Laura Trump is the poster child for nepotism babies. She has zero fundraising skills. Trump is going to get control of the RNC and find the cupboards are bare.

It won’t be long until Letitia James is forcing the sale of Trump Tower; and that won’t be enough to pay the judgment. More dominoes are going to fall. Trump is going to spend weeks in court in Manhattan. He’ll have to; that’s the terms of his bond. And E.Jean Carroll is going to come calling for her $83 million within a week. James may have to get in line. And the legal bills are just going to get higher by the end of this month.

MAGA may be in denial:
But it’s going to be hard to deny that Trump is broke and his assets are being sold off and he’s (very likely, by summer) a convicted felon. And then MAGA proves to be a very small number of people indeed, and Trump’s positions, aside from his troubles, not all that popular: Biden hasn’t started to campaign, and all that “Trump is popular” blather (heard repeatedly from one “journalist” on Washington Week last night) is going to be disavowed by the time he does.


Friday, March 01, 2024


Elon Continues To Prove He’s A White South African  It Was That Or Let Hamas Get It, Says IDF
Trump Hears About 15 Week Abortion Ban, Wonders If It Means Banning Abortion For 15 Weeks  Bibi And The GOP Have More In Common Than You Think 

(No, Seriously: )
  Obama Needed An Anger Interpreter. Trump Needs A Black Interpreter. BREAKING NEWS: Abbott Loses VP Bid. Film At 11.
Be Careful What You Ask For. We MEAN IT!

If You Do Or If You Don’t

Nobody says anything, because 🀷🏻‍♂️ : “Trump.” Joe Biden “offering an olive branch.”πŸ•Š️ 

The priority of the GOP is to not govern. This isn’t new. It became public when Mitch McConnell announced his priority was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Now that the party takes him seriously, McConnell realizes the party has left him.

Be careful what you wish for.

But the press can’t discuss it because the GOP isn’t saying it. “Objectivity,” ya know.

Carrying On, My Wayward Son

That’s Bradley done. Someone tell Sean Hannity they’re playing the race card (and how is this evidence of a conflict of interest? Of any kind?) Legal Twitter erupts in anger because the judge didn’t rule from the bench and set the trial for Monday because the movants wasted his time, in 3…2…1…

While I Was Watching “Dune Part Two”

(which is even better than part 1), closing arguments were heard in the DQ hearing (no, not Dairy Queen) for Fani Willis. Again, people with too much money to spend on lawyers, and no good sense how to spend it. There were a lot of lawyers on Twitter equally lacking in good sense. You try two cases: one to the jury, one to the judge. You try the case to the judge in pretrial hearings. Trying a shit motion is never a good idea, and this was a shit motion. Lawyers were outraged that Fani Willis could behave in a manner that would subject her to these allegations. There were regularly broadcast and tweeted concerns about how she’d lost the case by her implied stupidity (rhymes with “cupidity”), and how it would inevitably taken away from her office to die a quiet death in another county. There were tremendous concerns about the appearance of impropriety and how it was clearly about to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

And then came the hearings, and the “star witness” decided, after all, that he couldn’t swear to it. Literally. So now, after three days, the judge never should have held this hearing because NOW we know there was no evidence, and how dare they all waste our time?


The allegations never were serious. It was the equivalent of: “Teacher! Fani and Wade were making out during the pep rally!” But we couldn’t know that until the hearing. Until no evidence of a conflict of interest was ever presented, and the judge gave the moving parties every opportunity to do so. That’s what judges do. With the attention of the national press on this case, the worst thing McAfee could have done would be to hold an in camera hearing during lunch and chase the lawyers out of his chambers for wasting his time. Even I would find that suspicious.

As it is, the defendants who backed this motion took their best shot, and failed miserably. The Press, ignorant as lemmings, raced over the cliff chasing the story of adults having adult relationships; disappointed, I think, that they never got salacious details or grainy photos. Fani Willis went to court and kicked ass from here to Sunday, and her father won our sympathies. If this hearing did any good, it was to show the country Ms. Willis is a force to be reckoned with and knows what to go to court with (i.e., evidence and a cause of action/criminal charge), and any further claims the defendants make to the press should be ignored until they are made to the jury. Who will be in a much better position to decide what those claims mean than the chattering heads in cable TV and the empty heads on legal Twitter.

The movants never had a conflict of interest case. What they had was gossip, and in the end not even that. The courtroom is no place for gossip, and even worse a place to find out you don’t have any evidence. It was worth something, after all. We learned that we have good prosecutors from the DOJ to Manhattan to Fulton County, Georgia. And we learned Trump isn’t the only one who has lawyers whose mouths write checks their asses can’t cash. That cannot make those clients feel good about their futures.

Texts Are Not Testimony

Which says something about the quality of his testimony. So, there are now 413 known texts between Ashleigh Merchant and Terrance Bradley.
There were 413 texts exchanged between a key witness, Terrence Bradley, and Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for defendant Michael Roman, one of Trump’s co-defendants, helping her build a case that suggested the prosecutor engaged in an improper romance, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution who reported acquiring the text message evidence. 
Bradley helped Merchant's defendant prepare efforts to dismiss Willis by accusing her of misconduct by hiring personal injury attorney Nathan Wade as a special prosecutor in the sweeping criminal case and then carrying on a romance that had them spending suspected taxpayer funds on lavish trips to Napa Valley and the Caribbean.
But Merchant screwed her own pooch.
Before she filed her motion that exposed the relationship, Merchant asked Bradley point blank when the Willis and Wade began dating. 
Merchant asked: "Do you think it started before she hired him." 
“Absolutely,” he told her. 
She also supplied Bradley with an unfixed draft of her motion to suss out any errors and he noted she should include some income he earned from the DA. 
“Anything else? Anything that isn’t accurate?” she asked him in a text. 
“Looks good,” Bradley answered.
But what about the financial angle? You know, the reason to establish a conflict of interest. Fucking may be unseemly in BFE rural Georgia (if you’re that old), but Atlanta? Gimme a break. Besides, Bradley began to show signs of reconsidering the value of his 15 minutes of fame.
 Merchant had claimed that she would try to keep Bradley's identity anonymous telling him she "protected you completely" in the document she filed. 
“I am nervous,” reads a Merchant text from Jan. 8 — the day she filed her motion. 
“This is huge.” 
“You are huge," Bradley told her. "You will be fine. You are one of the best lawyers I know. Go be great.” 
Ultimately Merchant subpoenaed Bradley. 
“I will leave you out but think if I don’t subpoena you it would look fishy,” according to a Jan. 24 text. “What do you want me to do?” 
“I’m ok with it,” Bradley wrote back. 
Bradley also guided Merchant on potential staffers at the DA's office and even her security detail, texting her: “Subpoena them all."

Merchant was looking for gossip, not serious grounds to establish a conflict of interest. Most annoying to me were the tongue-cluckers who blamed Willis for putting herself in the position of being the target of gossip Bradley couldn’t even substantiate. Bradley made it all up, and when it came time to say it under oath, he realized he couldn’t. That would put his law license on the line.

But why let that stop you?

This has never been anything more than a smear campaign. And a desperate, poorly investigated one, at that.

Run With Reinie!

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Run To The Border

"Something else”? Does it matter? They speak languages nobody’s ever heard of, anyway.

The Only People Who Matter

"Nobody” = white people like Donald Trump. Ignorant xenophobes, IOW.

What? I’m tired of ignoring reality. See? Fuck ‘em.

Pitchforks And Torches

Is there a way to pin people down and make them commit to doing something while the initial moral revulsion is in control of their minds, before the self-interested rationalizations kick in?

Sure. Mob violence. Nobody is ever so certain of their moral authority as a person in a mob.

Moral revulsion is a terrible motivator. Not just because it fades so quickly, but also because it is so unreliable. Cold hard reason should have driven the effort to DQ Trump. Obviously he should have been tossed out and barred from ever seeking office again. Self-interest could have seen to that, too. It can be the guide to doing the right thing, just as it can lead us to doing the wrong thing.

But we’re always the ones responsible for our actions; for choosing what we do, and for choosing those we put into government.

October Surprise 😲

Delays have consequences.

“QAnon-Like Make-Believe”

Or just to explain things they really don’t understand. Is Josh serious? Or did he forget to post some kind of emoji indicating sarcasm? Because it’s hard to slip a piece of paper between that sentiment and the ignorant ravings of the person this Arizona election official is responding to: People really need to spend some time away from the Twitter machine.

Step Down Off The Ledge

 I mentioned Obama effectively dispatching the Navy Seals to assassinate Osama Bin Laden and everyone in that compound at the time. It was criticized at the time as a possible violation of U.S. law. Emptywheel now points out Trump’s lawyers though about such real world examples, too:

Update: Here’s the language from Trump’s brief that addresses this problem.
“The panel opinion ignores the long history of real-world examples of Presidents engaging in actual behavior that political opponents viewed as egregious and “criminal.” Instead, keying on the Special Counsel’s arguments, the panel fretted about lurid hypotheticals that have never occurred in 234 years of history, almost certainly never will occur, and would virtually certainly result in impeachment and Senate conviction (thus authorizing criminal prosecution) if they did occur—such as a hypothetical President corruptly ordering the assassination of political rivals through “SEAL Team Six.” D.C. Cir. Oral Arg Tr. 10:19-21. Such hypotheticals provide fodder for histrionic media coverage, but they are a poor substitute for legal and historical analysis. Confronted with real-world hypotheticals—such as President Obama’s killing of U.S. citizens by drone strike—the Special Counsel conceded below that Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts likely exists and would apply, directly contradicting the “categorical,” App’x 20A, holdings to the contrary of both the appellate panel and the trial court. D.C. Cir. Oral Arg Tr. 49:18-22 (Special Counsel admitting that a “drone strike” where “civilians were killed … might be the kind of place in which the Court would properly recognize some kind of immunity”). Further, the logical presupposition of such speculative hypotheticals—i.e., that the Founders supposedly must have intended that no alleged Presidential misdeed could ever escape prosecution—is plainly incorrect and contradicts the basic premises of a system of separated powers. “While the separation of powers may prevent us from righting every wrong, it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty.” Morrison, 487 U.S. at 710 (Scalia, J., dissenting). 
Jack Smith’s response doesn’t really deal with this issue in depth. 
7 A sufficient basis for resolving this case would be that, whatever the rule in other contexts not presented here, no immunity attaches to a President’s commission of federal crimes to subvert the electoral process. See Amici Br. of John Danforth et al., at 7. The court of appeals’ analysis was “specific” to the allegations that applicant conspired to “overturn federal election results and unlawfully overstay his Presidential term,” Appl. App. 31A, and a stay can be denied on that basis alone, leaving for another day whether any immunity from criminal prosecution should be recognized in any circumstances. See Gov’t C.A. Br. 45-49 (explaining that foreign affairs are not implicated in this case); cf. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 707, 710, 712 n.19 (reserving whether an absolute presidential-communications privilege might exist for military, diplomatic, or national security secrets).

 I think Trump’s lawyers push the point too hard and much too far. But, as ew points out, the D.C. circuit dodged the question almost entirely. Although everybody and his dog considered the Circuit court opinion unassailable and the last word on the subject, it could be a majority of the Court wanted to chew on this bone a bit. And perhaps reasonably so.

Counter Narratives

Trump is running out of money. The longer it takes these cases to get to trial, the less money Trump has to spend on them. He’s been spending like the proverbial drunk sailor on shore leave. Delays do indeed just delay the inevitable. They also cost money. The thing about governments are: they never run out of money. Not for criminal prosecutions, anyway. Besides, it’s not like the Court postponed arguments until next October. It is still not yet March.

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

A Simple Desultory Philippic

The problem is that this is going to feel to a lot of folks watching at home, like the Court is by and for former President Trump, another 7 or 8 weeks, gosh, maybe even three months when you factor in how long it will take the Court to rule of delay in the January 6 prosecution — even in a context in which I still think it's likely that Trump is going to lose," he said. "And I think this gets to the broader problem, which is as these cases get backed up against the timing of the election year, every little delay on the Court's part looks like it is nefarious; looks like it's substantive, and bodes at least in the short-term well, for former President Trump." 
Vladeck found it impressive "how fast the court moved to hold argument in that case" where it took about five weeks to weigh in versus the immunity case which clocked in closer to seven or eight weeks. 
"And yet, even though it's now it's been gosh, three weeks tomorrow since the oral arguments, still no decision... what that suggests to me is that the Court really doesn't feel like it's in a hurry.
If I understand correctly:

A) if the Court moves quickly (a la the Watergate tapes case, where the Court heard arguments on July 8, 1974, and issued their opinion on July 24, 1974. (Is it relevant Nixon first refused to release the tapes on July 23, 1973? It’s only relevant because it took that long for the issue to get to the Supremes, because Jaworski and the House were both after them, on separate tracks.), then they are on the side of Trump’s enemies. (Nixon lost the tapes case. I don’t remember anyone pointing out which President appointed who on the Burger Court. Now it seems to be a reflexive element of reporting on any federal judge today.)

B) if the Court moves deliberately, it’s on Trump’s side.

C) The Court has signaled in oral arguments that it disfavors applying clause 3 of the 14th to Presidential candidates. But it hasn’t ruled, and now Illinois has blocked Trump from their primary ballot. I still don’t see how that’s a Constitutional crisis in the making, but challenging the signatures needed to get him on the ballot is no big deal; especially if the challenge succeeds? Isn’t that federalism? Is there a Constitutional right to Democrats and Republicans being on state ballots, but not third party candidates?

I’m sorry, I’m wandering.

D) if the Court rules against Trump on immunity, it’s put a thumb on the electoral scales.

E) If the Court rules for Trump on immunity, it’s put a thumb on the electoral scales (among other things)

F) Whatever the Court does in the 14th Amendment question, it’s put a thumb on the electoral scales.

Have I got that right?

The authority of the Court rests on acceptance of the validity of its rulings, and only secondarily on the reasoning. The reasoning of Roe was harshly critiqued by sharp legal minds who liked the outcome, for 50 years. Dobbs, most understand, was not nearly so well argued. It’s the outcome of Dobbs, though, that’s the real problem. Ditto Bush v Gore. That was a hasty decision because of the deadline set by the Electoral Count Act. But everyone just knows it as a bad decision, where the Court put its thumb on the scales.

But Brown v Board? Miranda? Gideon? Even Griswold (which treads on the same ground as any argument for government bans on IVF)? Most people can’t explain the reasoning (or how Dobbs directly threatens Griswold); but they are very comfortable with the results.

That said, it does matter how the Court decides the immunity issue and the 14th Amendment question, and I don’t just mean what the result is. The reasoning is important. Can the Roberts Court do what the Burger Court did, in 16 days? That is, write a unanimous opinion that is almost universally accepted? Not today they can’t, and not just because of who’s on the Court. But this issue of immunity hasn’t been pending for nearly a year, and it doesn’t involve the sitting President and a “cancer on the Presidency.” So while the sense of urgency might be strong, this is not 1973-1974 redux. Nixon had a lot of power Trump doesn’t have right now. It’s ultimately up to we, the people, to see that he never gets it.

We are acting like a nation of children upset that Christmas isn’t coming fast enough, and afraid Santa won’t bring us what we asked for.
That, she said, is "the way that the question is framed." "Whether and if so to what extent a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts. There are some tells there in the language," Rubin said. "As lawyers, our professional hazard is to parse words too closely. The phrase alleged to. Alleged by who? If you ask Jack Smith, everything they are alleging is outside of Donald Trump's official purview as president by interfering with an election over which a president has no administrative responsibility. Nothing about this is official. Alleged is by him." 
She continued: 
"The Supreme Court is essentially giving in to his reframing of the question. And then the D.C. Circuit and ruling said that he has no categorical immunity. They have reframed it, whether and if so to what extent? They are opening the door to that there is a possibility that a president could have immunity to some subcategory of official actions, but not as to others."
 That’s Lisa Rubin trying to parse the one page order issued by the Court today (without, again, noting this action is pursuant to a request by Jack Smith). I will only note that Ms. Rubin’s last foray into Court Kremlinology was to assert the opinion on this case was being held up by Alito’s draft of a dissent.
Maybe the better course of action is to wait until Christmas morning before we decide whether we’re happy with what Santa brought us. Or just wait for a final ruling and critique that.

The Supreme Court is not Santa Claus. It’s not going to bring us the elimination of Donald Trump before November 5, 2024. The Supreme Court is neither democracy’s savior, nor its deus ex machina. Nothing is going to save us from the responsibility of doing the right thing ourselves.

Whatever the Court does is going to be seen as “election interference” by somebody. And the more we expect the courts to save our democracy by ruling the right way, the more we the people distort, and distrust, our constitutional system. It works pretty well for us. But it doesn’t work in spite of us. If we want to save the Republic, we have to do it ourselves.