To review this article, My Account, and then View Saved Stories
To review this article, My Profile, then View Saved Stories
By David Rohde
On Thursday, in a bland one-sentence order, the Supreme Court rejected a request by former President Donald Trump asking the nation’s supreme court to interfere in the legal battle over documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago home. The resolution came here on the same day that the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurgency subpoenaed Trump to testify before Congress about his moves that day. Trump responded by issuing a four-page statement, with a ten-page appendix, that falsely claimed the 2020 election “rigged and stolen,” called committee members “highly partisan political thugs and thugs,” and threatened revenge. “The other people of this country will not stand for unequal justice before the law, or liberty and justice for some,” Trump wrote. “Election day is coming. We ask for answers about the crime of the century.
The former president’s defeat at the Supreme Court came as no surprise. Legal analysts had said the court would likely reject his request that his lawyers have access to the hundred and three classified documents that Justice Department officials considered the most sensitive. among the approximately 11,000 recovered. His lawyers also argued that the federal appeals court that recently ruled against Trump lacked jurisdiction to do so. in doing so it was based on an incredibly technical legal argument,” Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, wrote in court. Fantasies of its consumers and supporters, the incursion of the Supreme Court is probably maximum to the amount to very little. “
So far, Trump’s legal maneuvers have been carried out in court, even though a third of the judges are appointed by him. Access to certain White House documents. However, Trump’s frantic search for friendly judges will continue unabated. “I doubt very much that this is the end,” Vladeck told me earlier this week. and each of his defeats to the Supreme Court, not because his chances of winning are good, but because it contributes to delaying and obscuring adverse decisions opposing him in the lower courts. “
Jake Grumbach, a political science professor at the University of Washington, said there is a political logic to Trump’s approach. The relentless legal battles, from the Supreme Court to federal, state and local courts, are a win-win political situation. . If you pass a ruling on the rules in your favor, you will say that it shows that the Department of Justice and the F. B. I. They pursue him. If Trump loses in court, he will say the approved sentences are haunting him. Aileen Cannon, a Florida federal judge whom Trump appointed in his final months in office, appears to have ruled in his favor several times, drawing applause from the former president’s supporters. On Friday, the Justice Department asked the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta to overturn one of the decisions.
Grumbach warned that authoritarian leaders have used similar tactics to delegitimize the courts of their counterparts in public view or, at least, their staunchest supporters. There is also the political dynamic of a strong politician who argues that he is being persecuted and that the rule of law does not apply to him,” Grumbach said. “This is an unusual, ancient feature of authoritarian leadership. “As my colleague Andrew Marantz has written, Hungarian President Viktor Orbán has consolidated his strength not through the final courts, but gradually weakening and discrediting them. rule on the investigation into the corruption of members of Orbán’s party.
Legal experts say court decisions between now and the 2024 election will play a critical role in determining whether the United States emerges from the Trump era or continues on an authoritarian path. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1974 that President Richard Nixon simply cannot refuse to turn over evidence, namely Oval Office tapes, in a fraudulent investigation into the Watergate scandal. The ruling, which was delivered by four Nixon-appointed justices, helped save his downfall. The rulings of at least thirty-eight Republican-appointed judges, adding several appointees through Trump, who have dismissed the former president’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen, have played a critical role in thwarting his efforts to prevent for Joe Biden to take office. . Vladeck argued that the 226 active federal judges Trump has appointed — out of a total of roughly 800 federal judges — have a key duty to uphold democracy and the independence of the courts. “That’s why it’s so vital that he not only lose in court, but that he lose to the judges and judges that he has appointed,” Vladeck said. “It is much more difficult for him to paint himself as a victim of a formula of justice to catch him when his own appointees sign the rulings that oppose him. ”
Last month, two judges appointed by Trump to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Justices Britt C. Grant and Andrew L. Brasher joined Barack Obama’s appointed judge, Justice Robin S. Rosenbaum, to overturn Judge Cannon’s rulings that largely stopped Justice Department fraud. Investigating whether Trump mishandled classified documents. The three-judge panel ruled that Trump had provided “no evidence” that he had declassified the documents when he was president, and dismissed some of his other legal arguments as a “red herring. “Vladeck said Trump’s appointment of two of the judges gave the impression of diminishing complaints about the resolution among the former president’s supporters. I’ve heard a lot more from Trump and his supporters about who appointed the judges and why they can’t be trusted. “
Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, cited something else in Trump’s legal setbacks: The claims and positions Trump and his allies have taken regarding the 2020 election and the Mar-a-Lago quest have bordered on the legally ridiculous. “In some cases, Trump and his supporters are presenting arguments so flawed that almost any judge would reject them,” he told me. However, court decisions opposing Trump appear to have had little effect on his political base so far. Despite the uniform rejection of Trump’s false election claims in 2020, a majority of Republicans, according to opinion polls, do not believe Joe Biden was legitimately elected president.
Aziz Huq, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said the courts, no matter how they rule, alone cannot alleviate the country’s polarization: “In a global world where, for the last 25 years, the The national political scene has become more polarized, the Court, whatever it does, will come across as biased one way or another. This is true of the current Court case. Earlier this month, a ballot found that only 40 % of Americans approved of his performance. However, Huq added, the courts in general, along with academia and the media, play an important and constructive role in a democracy by determining the essential facts required for substantive political debate. Courts decide, for example, whether a government policy has been shown to be effective in reducing public harm, or whether an individual is guilty or innocent of a crime, or whether a law is constitutional or constitutional. no. “A popular view of democracy is that it’s not just about having elections,” Huq said. “He also wants a series of establishments that supply real facts so that we can have a debate about the facts. “
David Laufman, a former senior Justice Department official, said Trump himself poses an existential risk to American democracy. He agreed with Vladeck that it is imperative that Trump’s appointees, especially those on the Supreme Court, continue to rule against it. to him when they deserve it. He also warned that if Trump returned to the Oval Office, he would appoint more court loyalists. a political weapon rather than an impartial arbiter of facts who governs without worry or favor,” Laufman said. , we would be toasted. ♦
Confessions of a cheater.
The whale thing from “Free Willy”.
They thought they had discovered the best apartment. They were not alone.
It is one of the oldest buildings in the city center. Why don’t you take a look to save it?
The biggest black on the right.
After top school football stars were charged with rape, online watchdogs demanded justice.
A comedian e-book by Alison Bechdel: The Seven-Minute Semisadistic Workout.
Subscribe to our newsletter to get the most productive stories from the New Yorker.
By registering, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement.
By Janet Malcolm
By Roberto A. Caro
By Patrick Radden Keefe
By Philippe Gourevitch
sections
continuation
© 2022 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement and your California Privacy Rights. The New Yorker would possibly earn a portion of the sales of products purchased on our site as part of our component partnerships associated with retailers. This site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached, or otherwise used unless you have the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Choice of ads