At the time of the enactment of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, Thomas Jefferson declared it to be a “fire bell” in the night. With regard to yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in the Trump presidential immunity case, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson revived the “fire” analogy in her dissent. Specifically, she described the decision as a “five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our Government.” Most eloquently, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor closed her dissenting opinion with the words, “with fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
One aspect of the 6-3 majority immunity decision must be emphasized at the outset. This was an act of judicial autocracy, not of judicial conservatism.
The hallmark of judicial conservatism is the avoidance of legislation from the bench, particularly of matters that are nowhere found in the Constitution. Judicial conservatism in constitutional matters is manifested in two schools of thought: 1) the Originalist school, which bases interpretation of a provision upon the intent of the ratifiers at the time of enactment; and 2) the Textualist school, which bases interpretation upon the literal meaning of the text of the provision, regardless of its legislative history.
Yesterday’s SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity was hardly an act of conservative judicial restraint on government. On the contrary, the grant of immunity to Trump was an act of unbridled judicial ukase and a violation of both the Textualist conservatism of Antonin Scalia and the Originalist conservatism of Robert Bork.
As noted by Justice Sotomayor, the major impact of yesterday’s grant of immunity was the anointment of Donald Trump as King of America. America’s King Donald, an unquestionable fascist, is a purveyor of race hatred, a judicially determined rapist, a convicted felon, and the leader of MAGA, a cult of white grievance against People of Color. MAGA followers, led by Trump constitute a veritable Political Jonestown. When it comes to King Donald, they are indeed a widespread mob of self-delusionary lunatics.
The Supreme Court decision yesterday enables Trump and MAGA to pursue the implementation of Project 2025 in America, Hungary’s strongman, Viktor Orban will be alive and well in the White House, and his name is Donald Trump. The immunity decision enables Trump, from the day he takes office, to eliminate all guardrails and norms that preserve and protect American democracy. Bottom Line: Project 2025 implements the end of the American Rule of Law and Democracy and will mean the ultimate institutionalizing of racism in America.
The paramount issue for Presidential Campaign 2024 is the fascism of Donald Trump, the dire threat to democracy and the Rule of Law he will pose to America in a second Trump term, and the politically corrupt US Supreme Court that acts as his enabler. Now, we also have cogent evidence that the Supreme Court is ethically corrupt as well.
As noted by Laurence Tribe, the leading Constitutional scholar of the last century, of the six justice majority in yesterday’s immunity decision, two justices (Thomas, Alito) were violating federal law (28 USC 455) by not recusing from the case and three (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) were appointed by the man whom the decision essentially immunized, Donald Trump.
And Trump himself established irrevocably his fascism this past weekend. He escalated his vows to prosecute his political opponents by circulating posts on his social media website invoking “televised military tribunals” and calling for the jailing of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and former Vice President Mike Pence, among other high-profile politicians. He also called for Liz Cheney to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.
Yet Donald Trump is now unquestionably the favorite to win the White House again. Last Thursday’s debate indelibly placed on Biden the focus of whether he has the physical capacity to serve another term. It was not just a question of him having a cold. He had the haggard, frail appearance of Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference in February, 1945, two months before he passed away.
As long as the focus remains on the potential health incapacity of Biden, the paramount issue of Trump authoritarianism and his unholy alliance with SCOTUS will be ignored. If Biden were to withdraw from the race and be replaced by a competent candidate without substantial baggage, the focus would shift to Trump, his racism, bigotry, extreme mendacity, and his status as a convicted felon and judicial finding of rape.
Therefore, Biden, a good and decent man and a highly successful president must withdraw his candidacy in order to save American democracy. There is one major obstacle to his withdrawal. His First Lady, Jill Biden, is unalterably opposed to his exit from the race.
Jill Biden is an outstanding woman of high character and noble purpose. Her present behavior, however, is reminiscent of Edith Galt, the First Lady of Woodrow Wilson, who after he suffered a stroke in October, 1919 did everything possible to conceal the nature and extent of his illness from the American public.
There also is the issue of who should replace Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee if Biden were to withdraw. The speculation would center on Vice President Kamala Harris. She has been an exemplary Vice President and has the character and competency to be a successful president. Yet she has been unable to make a favorable political impression on the American electorate. The best route for both Kamala and the Democratic Party would be for her to return to California at the end of her vice-presidential term in January, 2025 and run for governor of California as the successor to Gavin Newsom in the November, 2026 election.
Fortunately for the Democratic Party, there is the prospect of a dream national ticket for 2024, even at this late date: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro for president and Maryland Governor Wes Moore for vice president. This is a winning superstar ticket, governmentally and politically.
The prospect of a debate between Shapiro and Trump would be a Republican Party disaster. In boxing terms, a debate between Shapiro and Trump would be like the infamous 1976 mismatch between Muhammad Ali and Jean-Pierre Coopman. Shapiro would destroy him.
To make all this possible, Joe Biden must first say no to Jill Biden and make a dignified withdrawal from the 2024 presidential campaign. Jill Biden can play the same magnificently supportive role for Joe that Lady Bird Johnson made for Lyndon Johnson at the time of his March, 1968 withdrawal.
Alan J. Steinberg of Highland Park served as regional administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush and as executive director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission. He graduated from Northwestern University and the University of Wisconsin Law School.
(Visited 21 times, 21 visits today)
As the 2020 presidential election approaches, many are questioning whether Joe Biden should continue his campaign for the presidency. With recent controversies surrounding his past actions and statements, some believe that it may be in the best interest of the Democratic Party for Biden to withdraw from the race.
One of the main reasons why Biden should consider withdrawing is his age. At 77 years old, Biden would be the oldest president ever elected if he were to win the election. This has raised concerns about his ability to effectively lead the country for four years, especially given the demanding nature of the presidency.
Additionally, Biden has faced criticism for his past actions and statements, particularly regarding his treatment of women. Several women have come forward with allegations of inappropriate behavior by Biden, including unwanted touching and kissing. While Biden has apologized for his behavior and has promised to be more mindful in the future, these allegations have raised questions about his character and judgment.
Furthermore, Biden’s track record as a politician has also come under scrutiny. Critics argue that Biden’s long history in politics, including his role in passing the 1994 crime bill and his support for the Iraq War, make him a less than ideal candidate for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. With younger, more progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren gaining momentum, some believe that Biden’s candidacy may not be in line with the party’s values.
In light of these concerns, some Democrats are calling for Biden to step aside and allow a new candidate to take his place. This would give the party a chance to rally behind a candidate who can better represent their values and appeal to a wider range of voters.
Ultimately, the decision of whether or not Biden should withdraw from the race is up to him. However, it is important for him to consider the impact of his candidacy on the Democratic Party and the country as a whole. By stepping aside and allowing a new candidate to take his place, Biden could help unify the party and increase their chances of defeating President Trump in the upcoming election.
