SCOTUS rules on presidential immunity …

The New Neo Posted on by

… and says about what was expected. The idea is that immunity is presumed but certainly not automatic, and can be rebutted.

Here’s Professor Jacobson’s take:

The SCOTUS Opinion pretty much came down as I predicted after the oral argument (link above):

“I think they will simply find in response to their question that there is presidential immunity for official acts while done in office and send it back down to the district court to opine on whether the charges in this case involve official acts or not.”

Some selective passages from the majority opinion which may be relevant to how this plays out.

As to charge of unlawfully colluding with DOJ officials, absolute immunity:

“The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment ¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

As to the charge of unlawfully pressuring Pence, presumptive immunity:

“Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.”

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances.

Please read the whole thing for further details.

Also, here’s Ace’s take. It’s long, but the gist is that this decision will almost certainly delay the case past the election.

So, since no one (no one I’ve read, anyway) predicted a decision that would grant immunity for every single act a person performs as president no matter what, this is about as good a result for Trump as could be expected. And in the larger sense, I believe it’s the generally correct result.

The Biden administration is withholding weapons systems from Israel; Netanyahu to address Congress in a few weeks

The New Neo Posted on by

The Biden administration continues to engage with the world in its usual fashion:

The Biden administration has held up transfers of seven weapon systems to the Jewish state, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Shannon Bream on the program Fox News Sunday.

“This is what is most disturbing to me—is that we’re withholding weapon systems that I have signed off on and Congress has appropriated with the intent of sending those weapons to Israel,” McCaul said.

Netanyahu is scheduled to address the US Congress on July 24. Nine years ago when he did the same in connection with Obama’s disastrous Iran deal, sixty Democrats boycotted his address. Now, with Israel at war in the fight of its life, more Democrats will almost certainly refuse to attend:

Many are torn between their long-standing support for Israel and their anguish about the way Israel has conducted military operations in Gaza. …

While some Democrats are saying they will come out of respect for Israel, a larger and growing faction wants no part of it, creating an extraordinarily charged atmosphere at a gathering that normally amounts to a ceremonial, bipartisan show of support for an American ally.

They’re “torn” about the optics, actually, in an election year in which many Democratic voters have expressed anti-Israel and anti-Jew sentiments.

The invitation was tendered by Speaker Johnson and the Republicans. There is no plan for Biden and Netanyahu to meet during the visit.

More:

A large portion of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — lawmakers who are among the most critical of Israel’s handling of the war — is expected to skip. Among them is Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the caucus, who told The Associated Press that it was a “bad idea,” to invite Netanyahu.

“We should be putting pressure on him by withholding offensive military assistance so that he sticks to the deal that the president has laid out,” she said.

Netanyahu’s visit is expected to draw significant protests and some members of Congress are planning an alternative event.

I wonder what kind of security is planned to deal with those “significant protests.”

If the Bidens have anything to say about it, Biden will remain the nominee

The New Neo Posted on by

The question is whether ultimately they will have all that much to say about it.

Here’s a report from the Times on the current state of the Democrats’ disunion (or at least how the party mouthpiece the Times is framing it). If I were a Democrat, I’d be tearing out my hair at this point:

President Biden’s family is urging him to stay in the race and keep fighting despite last week’s disastrous debate performance, even as some members of his clan privately expressed exasperation at how he was prepared for the event by his staff, people close to the situation said on Sunday.

Mr. Biden huddled with his wife, children and grandchildren at Camp David while he tried to figure out how to tamp down Democratic anxiety. While his relatives are acutely aware of how poorly he did against former President Donald J. Trump, they argued that he could still show the country that he is capable of serving for another four years. …

One of the strongest voices imploring Mr. Biden to resist pressure to drop out was his son Hunter Biden, whom the president has long leaned on for advice, said one of the people informed about the discussions, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations.

Astounding on so many levels, even as propaganda. Hunter, that upright font of wisdom (according to Joe, the “smartest man” he knows), is telling him to hang tough.

And why did Biden do so poorly in last Thursday’s debate? Why, his advisors led him astray, apparently through over-preparation (what, did they mistakenly drug him with Quaaludes instead of uppers?).

Many of the articles and posts I’ve read blame Jill as well for the decision not to quit (see this for an example). I suppose it’s true, but to me the major player is actually the befuddled Biden, whose entire life has been focused on gaining the presidency and who isn’t about to relinquish it now.

What a terrible, terrible mess. What a terrible person and what a terrible family.

Macron gambles, Le Pen benefits

The New Neo Posted on by

Macron called elections in France and in the first round Le Pen’s party did very well indeed.

And I’d really like to see an article that doesn’t describe the party as “far right,” but I think that wish will continue to be frustrated:

Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) won the first round of legislative elections on Sunday, leaving incumbent president Emmanuel Macron’s centrist alliance lagging in third behind the left, projections by polling groups said.

The projections gave the RN 34% of the vote, compared to 29.1% for the left-wing New Popular Front alliance, and just 22% for Macron’s centrist camp.

Note that the New Popular Front alliance isn’t described as “far left.”

The election featured the highest level of voter turnout in a regular format legislative election in France since 1981.

The next round is July 7 and it’s unclear whether the National Rally party will get an outright majority. Note that the coverage – even in the Daily Mail, which isn’t a leftist newspaper – lumps Le Pen’s party in with the Nazis in that “far right” designation:

The vote could give 28-year-old RN party chief Jordan Bardella, a protege of its longtime leader Marine Le Pen, the chance to form a government, making it the first time the far-right takes the reins of power in France since the Nazi occupation during WWII.

The last far-right leaders of France were Philippe Pétai and his prime minister, Pierre Laval, who headed the Vichy regime that collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.

Twenty-eight years old is incredibly young. Who is Bardella? His Wiki entry indicates an eclectic background that might surprise you:

Jordan Bardella was born on 13 September 1995 in Drancy, Seine-Saint-Denis as the only child in a family of mostly Italian origin. The maternal side of his family immigrated to France from Turin in the 1960s. His paternal grandmother, a native of La Ferté-sous-Jouarre, is also partly of immigrant origin, with an Algerian father who came to France in the 1930s in Villeurbanne working as a labourer in the construction industry. His paternal grandfather later converted to Islam and married a Moroccan woman, settling in the Bourgogne district of Casablanca.

He’s a Sorbonne dropout who became seriously interested in politics at an early age:

In January 2016, Bardella launched the organization Banlieues Patriotes. The group sought to “break with the politics of the city and reach out to voters in the forgotten territories of the Republic.” …

Bardella puts the global migrant crisis as one of his top priorities besides climate. Bardella says that immigration would lead to the extinction of France, the French identity, French sovereignty, and “France’s soul”. … Shortly after the 2024 European parliament election, Bardella stated his intention of abolishing the birthright to citizenship … He also wants to ensure that border controls are stepped up to limit refugees’ freedom of movement. …

Jordan Bardella stressed that the environmental protection should not be left to the political left, but resorted to patriotism, confirming that it meant the protection of the people and their environment. With that statement he associates the climate crisis with the anti-immigrant stance of the RN, since he agrees with the left-wing party that the climate crisis will lead to an unstoppable global mass refugee crisis.

Bardella must obviously have some personal qualities that are very compelling:

Bardella has risen up the ranks of the euroskeptic and anti-immigration National Rally (Rassemblement National, or RN) to become its president in 2022, with his youth, looks and social-media savviness helping to attract younger voters. …

Bardella’s rise to prominence has taken place under the aegis of party figurehead, Marine Le Pen, with reports suggesting he came to her attention after he dated the daughter of her close friend and confidant, Frederic Chatillon. Indeed, reportedly within weeks of meeting Le Pen in 2017, he had been made a party spokesperson. …

Having a young and (some say) handsome political figurehead that’s popular on social media — Bardella has 1.6 million TikTok followers — has softened the party’s hard-right image and reputation, and has boosted the party’s profile and appeal among younger people and female voters. The phenomenon has even been termed “Bardella mania” as hundreds of young women attend campaign events to get a glimpse of the young politician on stage.

That’s quite a contrast to our current geriatric candidates. Kind of like a junior Justin Trudeau of the right (“far right,” of course).

Two extremely important videos

The New Neo Posted on by

On urban warfare in general and the present one in Gaza in particular:

I think this is the most important video I’ve ever seen on the topic of the propaganda leading to such widespread anti-Semitism today. It’s a detailed explanation of how the internet can be used as a potent force for evil:

Biden seems determined to stay in the race

The New Neo Posted on by

No surprise here. Biden’s a stubborn cuss who’s always wanted to be president and he finally caught the brass ring. He sees no reason to give it up.

That’s why I’ve said before that, although I understand why many people say that allowing Biden to run or encouraging him to run is elder abuse, I disagree. With every ounce of brainpower he has left – and he still has some – he clings to the position he’s pursued his entire adult life.

I know how to tell the truth!!

Astounding, coming from Biden. Orwellian.

Meanwhile, media outlets such as the New York Times beg him to drop out. Their editorial is entitled “To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race.” Here’s the gist of it:

“The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence,” the board wrote in an opinion piece published Friday.

“The greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election. As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes,” the Times also said.

The board went on to say it would still support Biden as its “unequivocal pick” if the choice remains between him and former President Donald Trump.

So the august editors of the Times think Biden’s condition has deteriorated to the point where he’s incapable of speaking coherently or thinking straight. And yet, if he runs against Trump, they support him “unequivocally.” That’s the very model of a yellow dog Democrat.

This past Wednesday was the fifteenth anniversary of FredHJr’s death

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: The following is a somewhat revised version of a post that has appeared previously on this blog.]

Unbelievable that it’s been fifteen years since commenter FredHJr died suddenly and tragically. As time passes, the number of readers here who don’t remember Fred must necessarily increase, so for those of you who don’t know who FredHJr was, please see this and this, as well as these.

Fred’s death was extremely tragic for his family. But it was tragic for this blog, too, because he was an invaluable and irreplaceable member of our community, a “changer” who knew a lot about the Left, and a keen observer of politics, history, religion, culture—of life itself. I still think about him at times, wondering what he’d have to say about everything that’s happened in these last fifteen years.

Every year around the anniversary, I offer some excerpts from his many comments here.

This comment is from October 18, 2008, just a few weeks before Obama was elected president for the first time:

It’s the Marxist/Leninist ethics of expediency. No regrets. Whatever it takes to discredit anything the other side does and excuse the sins of your own side.

…this reveals a lot about who is about to take power and how they will wield it against the rest of us. They get away with it and many will not at all be troubled by it because they are shaped by the post-modernism, cultural Marxism that they imbibed during their formative and educational experience. If we as a people cannot name this accurately and expunge its corrosive influence over our lives, then down into the wages of perdition and disaster we go.

The comment is from October 28, 2008. The election was getting close:

Obama is part of a nexus of interests. What the American dopes who will put him in office are getting is a NETWORK of alliances and interests, running the gamut from Finance (Soros) to academia to media to law. Thus far, in order to appeal to the Middle Muddle he has been packaged as a moderate or centrist. But once in office the venomous swarm of this network will burst out of the nest and devour the host. You wait and see. And I’m not eager for the moment to say “I told you so.” I really would it be the case that it never happens at all.

This was a comment of Fred’s from the very beginning of the Obama presidency, but I think it’s worth mulling over today:

For me, Western Civilization is an incredibly complex work that has eclectically and also seamlessly borrowed the excellence and the virtues of Athens, Jerusalem, Rome, and the Enlightenment. The High Middle Ages and the Renaissance also made important contributions. In its totality it is a meritocracy and a liberation of humanity that has resulted in ever greater learning and material prosperity and health for most of the people who live under it. It is not an unblemished history. Yet in its totality it gleams with advancement when juxtaposed against civilizations which enslave humanity.

I think the beginning of the end of our civilization began with the French Revolution and The Terror. It was the beginning of the elaboration of totalitarian thought and throughout the 19th century this kept on finding newer permutations of elegant, intellectual terror. The 20th century was the culmination of the barbarity of totalitarianism.

These are chosen somewhat randomly, but so very much of what I looked at that Fred had written was on target.

RIP Fred, and may your family be comforted in their grief. We miss you.

Over the years there have been other commenters here who probably have died, and I would like to mention them too, but for no one else did I actually get official word of that person’s death. So it’s hard to be specific. One commenter who comes to mind is “strcpy,” who announced that he was very ill and then disappeared shortly thereafter, about fourteen years ago. I wrote him an email but never heard back, and I fear he’s gone. But I don’t know for sure. Another prolific commenter who disappeared many years ago was Occam’s Beard. I was never able to contact him after that, and so I fear something tragic may have happened. Same for parker.

There may be others, as well. I wouldn’t necessarily find out. Sometimes people just stop commenting here because they get busy or they get tired or they get turned off. But it stands to reason some of them will have died. So I’ll take this opportunity to say RIP for all of them.

And then there’s SCOTUS: on camping ordinances and “interference”

The New Neo Posted on by

The Democrats aren’t having what you’d call a good day. Mama said there’d be days like this, and mama was right.

SCOTUS has handed down some important rulings that didn’t go the left’s way. The first is to allow anti-camping ordinances, and the second is to more narrowly interpret the “interference” statute under which the J6 defendants have been prosecuted/persecuted.

Here’s the first:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided whether cities should enforce anti-camping ordinances against the homeless in an Eighth Amendment challenge to an Oregon law. The Court held 6–3 that cities may enforce anti-camping ordinances against homeless people even when insufficient shelter beds are available.

Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, which the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.

So this one broke down in the usual 6/3 conservative/liberal split.

The reasoning:

The Court held that “[t]he enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.”

The Eighth Amendment states, “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

The majority expounded on the history of the Eighth Amendment, which “has always been considered, and properly so, to be directed at the method or kind of punishment,” not what conduct may be punished.

The left continually tries to use the process of legal interpretation to expand the law in the ways the left wishes it would go. They didn’t succeed this time; this SCOTUS decision allows localities to stop their streets from becoming tent cities or worse.

The second decision was on something that should have been a no-brainer – the “liberal” interpretation and stretching of a law to new and partisan political purposes:

In a big decision today, the Supreme Court, in a split that saw KBJ siding with the Roberts majority and ACB writing the dissent joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, rejected the use of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 against a J6 defendant, ruling the statute only applied to interference with records or evidence, not interference with an official proceeding. This has implications not only for other J6 defendants, but also the DC court charges against Trump.

Note the split there; highly unusual.

From the opinion:

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(1). The next subsection extends that prohibition to anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” §1512(c)(2). We consider whether this “otherwise” clause should be read in light of the limited reach of the specific provision that precedes it.

This is a classic method of judicial interpretation of statutes. Again, the left wanted to use this statute in novel ways for political purposes to punish their enemies.

Good day for the Court, for the J6 defendants, and potentially for Trump.

ADDENDUM:

And then there’s the agency case, with a huge win for the right in overruling Chevron. This is a long-hoped-for victory for the right:

The Supreme Court upended the federal regulatory framework in place for 40 years, expanding the power of federal judges to second-guess agency decisions over environmental, consumer and workplace safety policy, among other areas.

The 6-3 decision, along ideological lines, discards a 1984 precedent directing federal courts to defer to agency legal interpretations when the statutory language passed by Congress is ambiguous. Conservative legal activists, Republican-led states and some business groups have argued in recent years that the 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, allows agenda-driven regulators to push the limits of their power.

By abandoning the doctrine called Chevron deference, the justices have given parties unhappy with agency decisions more opportunities to overturn regulations by persuading federal judges that agency officials exceeded their authority.

Again the SCOTUS decision was split along the usual political lines.

The other day I said the Roberts court was cowardly at times, although it was brave in overruling Roe. I’d say this is another brave decision, and a potentially far-reaching one.