An important function of the Exec., Leg., and Jud. branches is for each to serve as a check on the other two. Given what we have learned about DJT and his plans for a second term, one would have hoped that SCOTUS’ opinion on immunity would have been a conservative interpretation of the Exec.’s prerogative, to preclude a rogue President from abusing their power. That would be especially true if that President was elected with a small - and through the Electoral College, even non-existent - majority, so that the rights of roughly the other half of the country’s citizens would be protected. Wishful thinking. Thanks, David, for advocating with your usual eloquence for this development to be addressed.
Yep, I think you're right on all counts, David. While I at times have expressed myself in your comments section pretty adamantly that Biden was politically stronger than he was being given credit for, there are signs, once again over-amplified by the MSM, but there nonetheless, that Biden may lose the support of his political peers and the Democratic establishment. If that escalates beyond a certain point, he may no longer have a choice, and circumstances may require that he hand the baton to Kamala. If that were to occur, one might pray that, as a negotiated agreement among the candidates helped Biden win the South Carolina primary in 2020 and thus the nomination, a similar arrangement could be made among the current Dem candidates-in-waiting, thus ruling out a contested convention. Dunno If that's possible again, but one can dream. As you allude, SCOTUS has increased the stakes to the point that the cause has replaced the candidate in terms of urgency, and whoever gets the nod needs that blue wave behind them. And once that blue wave happens, the reforms that you list absolutely must take place.
The idea that the minority on the court could be viewed by the conspiracy-soaked Right as the architects of the Immunity ruling is delicious to contemplate. I have quietly held the view, which waxes and wanes depending on current circumstances, that, federally, the MAGA crowd is drunk on their perceived successes, most of which are based solely and alone on the ripples from Trump's four years in office, and that a massive hangover is headed straight for them. A huge, and devastating be-careful-what-you-wished-for moment. Blue wave gotta happen, though.
You are 100% right. I made a bad judgment, writing too quickly, and thanks to your comment and one other, I realized it and edited the piece. I’m grateful. And I’m sorry.
I wish Jamie Harrison and top Democrats all subscribed to your column. A single citizen can try to make a difference, but s/he cannot drive the campaign. It is up to the DNC and various campaign committees to stop being soft and start playing hardball. As to the Biden conundrum, the media is sure pushing it 24/7 (while not putting the same effort into Trump and the fading of our democracy). It would be nice if both candidates were required to take an independent cognitive test, but we know that's not happening.
I've not heard one plan from Democratic leadership for addressing Court reform, Project 2025, or restoring rights lost since 2020.
If Biden remains the nominee, it's clear he lacks the vision or fortitude to lead the way. So who steps up? Not Schumer or Durbin. Jeffries has had 2 years to communicate a strategy.
What happens if Democrats don't retain the Senate majority?
It's not just Biden's many weaknesses, it's the unmoored feeling that's growing that Democrats have no plan B, other than winning every election and hoping SCOTUS limits its cruelty.
Again, something that should be evident everywhere I’m finding just here. Thanks David! I totally agree that we must 1) win big in November in Congress as well as the presidency and 2) push through judicial reforms as quickly as possible to erase those abominations of court rulings. This will mean removing the filibuster. Rather than thinking why it’s impossible to do which will be the temptation, we need only ask how quickly we can do this. Otherwise, we’ve lost our country. There is no other way.
I was talking about judicial legislation such as expanding the court or term limits, not judicial confirmations. The former will most certainly be fillibustered.
Thank you for your framing. I understand the fears of losing. It is healthy to wonder. But also Harris and Whitmer and whoever else would be massively disadvantaged if they started running themselves independently of Biden. Biden has a capable Vice President who can and will take over if and when Biden is no longer able, for any reason. That is the point of the constitution.
He has a capable administration and very popular policies, the polls are quite clear about this. So yes, Dobbs, any and all of the rulings this month, immunity. I think you are correct and running on those and highlighting Project 2025 and how it is counter to much of what Americans have been polled to actually support.
The Senate couldn’t pass any of the important laws needed in the last 4 years because of Manchin and Sinema refusing to let go of the 60 votes filibuster. It is amazing how many people either don’t understand the filibuster has been the problem, or that it actually only takes 50 Senators + the vice president to have 51 to modify the filibuster rule. With them gone, Ds can be much bolder about passing these laws.
So, playing for all the marbles. I think it is possible.
An important function of the Exec., Leg., and Jud. branches is for each to serve as a check on the other two. Given what we have learned about DJT and his plans for a second term, one would have hoped that SCOTUS’ opinion on immunity would have been a conservative interpretation of the Exec.’s prerogative, to preclude a rogue President from abusing their power. That would be especially true if that President was elected with a small - and through the Electoral College, even non-existent - majority, so that the rights of roughly the other half of the country’s citizens would be protected. Wishful thinking. Thanks, David, for advocating with your usual eloquence for this development to be addressed.
Yep, I think you're right on all counts, David. While I at times have expressed myself in your comments section pretty adamantly that Biden was politically stronger than he was being given credit for, there are signs, once again over-amplified by the MSM, but there nonetheless, that Biden may lose the support of his political peers and the Democratic establishment. If that escalates beyond a certain point, he may no longer have a choice, and circumstances may require that he hand the baton to Kamala. If that were to occur, one might pray that, as a negotiated agreement among the candidates helped Biden win the South Carolina primary in 2020 and thus the nomination, a similar arrangement could be made among the current Dem candidates-in-waiting, thus ruling out a contested convention. Dunno If that's possible again, but one can dream. As you allude, SCOTUS has increased the stakes to the point that the cause has replaced the candidate in terms of urgency, and whoever gets the nod needs that blue wave behind them. And once that blue wave happens, the reforms that you list absolutely must take place.
The idea that the minority on the court could be viewed by the conspiracy-soaked Right as the architects of the Immunity ruling is delicious to contemplate. I have quietly held the view, which waxes and wanes depending on current circumstances, that, federally, the MAGA crowd is drunk on their perceived successes, most of which are based solely and alone on the ripples from Trump's four years in office, and that a massive hangover is headed straight for them. A huge, and devastating be-careful-what-you-wished-for moment. Blue wave gotta happen, though.
“Still walking funny” is not funny, David.
You are 100% right. I made a bad judgment, writing too quickly, and thanks to your comment and one other, I realized it and edited the piece. I’m grateful. And I’m sorry.
Thanks, it means a lot that you admitted wrong, and I appreciate it. We all err sometimes.
I wish Jamie Harrison and top Democrats all subscribed to your column. A single citizen can try to make a difference, but s/he cannot drive the campaign. It is up to the DNC and various campaign committees to stop being soft and start playing hardball. As to the Biden conundrum, the media is sure pushing it 24/7 (while not putting the same effort into Trump and the fading of our democracy). It would be nice if both candidates were required to take an independent cognitive test, but we know that's not happening.
Thank you.
I wish I shared your optimism.
I've not heard one plan from Democratic leadership for addressing Court reform, Project 2025, or restoring rights lost since 2020.
If Biden remains the nominee, it's clear he lacks the vision or fortitude to lead the way. So who steps up? Not Schumer or Durbin. Jeffries has had 2 years to communicate a strategy.
What happens if Democrats don't retain the Senate majority?
It's not just Biden's many weaknesses, it's the unmoored feeling that's growing that Democrats have no plan B, other than winning every election and hoping SCOTUS limits its cruelty.
Jared Huffman (D-CA) chairs the House Task Force against Project 2025. He was just on MSNBC …Alex Wagner’s show,, I think.
Again, something that should be evident everywhere I’m finding just here. Thanks David! I totally agree that we must 1) win big in November in Congress as well as the presidency and 2) push through judicial reforms as quickly as possible to erase those abominations of court rulings. This will mean removing the filibuster. Rather than thinking why it’s impossible to do which will be the temptation, we need only ask how quickly we can do this. Otherwise, we’ve lost our country. There is no other way.
For judges do they need 51 votes or 60? I thought the Republicans changed it to 51, but is that only for lower courts?
60 which is the problem all
Around.
I was talking about judicial legislation such as expanding the court or term limits, not judicial confirmations. The former will most certainly be fillibustered.
Thank you for your framing. I understand the fears of losing. It is healthy to wonder. But also Harris and Whitmer and whoever else would be massively disadvantaged if they started running themselves independently of Biden. Biden has a capable Vice President who can and will take over if and when Biden is no longer able, for any reason. That is the point of the constitution.
He has a capable administration and very popular policies, the polls are quite clear about this. So yes, Dobbs, any and all of the rulings this month, immunity. I think you are correct and running on those and highlighting Project 2025 and how it is counter to much of what Americans have been polled to actually support.
The Senate couldn’t pass any of the important laws needed in the last 4 years because of Manchin and Sinema refusing to let go of the 60 votes filibuster. It is amazing how many people either don’t understand the filibuster has been the problem, or that it actually only takes 50 Senators + the vice president to have 51 to modify the filibuster rule. With them gone, Ds can be much bolder about passing these laws.
So, playing for all the marbles. I think it is possible.