(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . SCOTUS's Fifty-Year Descent into Lawlessness [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2024-07-02 Fifty years ago, in 1974, the US Supreme Court ruled on The United States v. Nixon, a case involving the refusal of a sitting president to turn over to investigators tape recordings made at his own direction, which he knew would conclusively incriminate him in a scheme to interfere with the 1972 presidential election. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the Court ruled against Nixon, finding that there was no special immunity for presidents in matters of law. You may wonder why was that case decided by only eight of the nine members of the Court. Because Justice Rehnquist, having served under and been appointed by one of the parties to the case (Nixon), believed that the integrity of the Court required that he recuse himself. And recuse he did. If today’s Supreme Court had the same level of integrity, three Justices — Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett — would likewise have recused themselves from a case where the person who nominated them to the Court, Donald Trump, was one of the parties. Yet they did not. Neither did the Justice whose spouse very publicly endorsed the overthrow of the results of the 2020 presidential election choose to recuse himself from this case, even though legal precedent and common decency required it of Clarence Thomas. What the Compromised Six of the Supreme Court have done is no less than the pounding of a stake through the heart of over 200 years of American democracy. They, in defiance of over 200 years of tradition, precedent, and Constitutional law, have ruled that the President of the US is somehow immune from the laws he is charged with upholding. The idea of a special presidential immunity is not Constitutional. It is found neither in Law, nor in case precedent. In fact, as the Nixon case and other cases have shown, the exact opposite is true: There is no such thing as presidential immunity (or at least, there wasn’t until July 1, 2024). Nor should there be, in a country where all are equal under the Law. Beau of the Fifth Column, who provides a level-headed reading of current affairs, states that with this ruling, the character of the next presidential election — and indeed, of every presidential election until this ruling is nullified or reversed — has been radically changed by this decision. No longer are the usual considerations of the Economy, Foreign Policy, etc. the important issues for voters to weigh the merits of in choosing between candidates. Those concerns have now been replaced with one grave, overriding concern: Which candidate can be entrusted with near-absolute power? For myself, that question has a clear answer. One candidate has spent his adult life in public service, while the other has spent his adult life serving himself. One candidate has repeatedly shown his ability to help all Americans prosper, while the other offers promises to billionaires in exchange for their financial support. One has upheld his Oath of Office, while the other promises to be a “Dictator on Day One.” One honors our veterans; the other ridicules them as “suckers” and “losers”. If President Biden loses this election, the nation loses as well. His allies on the Supreme Court have laid the groundwork for an imperial presidency — one from which they have stripped the existing legal guardrails. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, states that she “fears for our democracy”. So, too, do I. Welcome to a Not-So-Brave New World. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/7/2/2250736/-SCOTUS-s-Fifty-Year-Descent-into-Lawlessness?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/