The US Supreme Court continues to be a vehicle for advancing fascism, which comes as no surprise to the left. Meanwhile, though, liberals continue to be surprised, and I have to wonder when (or if) they will finally understand how this works. In essence, the Supreme Court has decided to delay their decision on Presidential immunity until after the election. If Trump wins the election, they can conclude that the President has absolute immunity; if Trump loses, they can conclude that the President does not have absolute immunity.
The court has moved very quickly in prior cases involving presidential power, deciding the Watergate tapes case against President Richard Nixon just 16 days after arguments. Earlier this year, it took the justices less than a month to rule unanimously that states couldn’t kick Trump off the ballot.
Supreme Court seems skeptical of Trump’s claim of absolute immunity but decision’s timing is unclear (AP)
Why oh why can’t they take care of this decision as quickly as those past decisions? Well, if they did the right thing and released their decision now, then one of two things would happen: Either Trump’s legal problems would rapidly become insurmountable (and his presidential campaign would collapse) or the Supreme Court would be giving the Biden administration tacit permission to assassinate Trump.
From Heather Cox Richardson’s April 25 email:
“I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S. Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act,’” lawyer Marc Elias, whose firm defends democratic election laws, wrote today on social media. He added: “I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”
Shocked! Shocked is what Marc Elias is.
Did everyone forget that moment in 2016 when Trump bragged that he could commit murder and get away with it? And the right wing just nodded in approval?
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. “It’s, like, incredible.”
Donald Trump: ‘I Could … Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn’t Lose Any Voters’
Central to fascist thought is the idea that they, and their leader specifically, has a sort of political super-legitimacy that allows the leader to literally do whatever they want. As the in-group, the law is supposed to protect them but not bind them, while it simultaneously binds their enemies without providing protection (per Wilhoit). This was described by Nixon in 1977 thusly:
Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal. […] Exactly … exactly… if the president … if, for example, the president approves something … approves an action, ah … because of the national security or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of, ah … ah … significant magnitude … then … the president’s decision in that instance is one, ah … that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.
Transcript of David Frost’s Interview with Richard Nixon
How did we get here? Well, those naughty leftists didn’t vote for Hillary! I’m kidding, of course. The way we got here was that Barack Obama was elected fair and square and when he attempted to nominate a Supreme Court Justice (Merrick Garland), the Republicans refused to even begin the process of approving the nomination; Obama didn’t fight back (that would have been disruptive). That was in March of 2016, and Trump didn’t win the Republican nomination until May. This was a pre-Trump Republican party which makes it clear that what we now call Trumpism pre-dates Trump; the Republicans have had something very wrong with them since the late 1970’s when far-right Christian racists grabbed control of the party, but as the Nixon quote from 1977 points out, there was something rotten even before that.
Do I think Biden would actually assassinate Trump? No. Democrats have a well-established habit of pulling their punches for the stated purpose of promoting national unity, but I also doubt that far-right conservatives want to risk granting that kind of power to near-right (possibly medium-right at this point) liberals.
The even bigger problem is the decades-long trend of both parties giving more and more power to the Presidency. Now, we are having a serious conversation as a nation about whether the President is a mere mortal or, instead, a God-Emperor. Certainly, the US has a history of authoritarian actions, but they’re usually conducted in secret and then revealed decades later, when that action is irrelevant and beyond the practical ability of the law to address it. Now, though, we are on the verge of having an executive branch that can do whatever it wants, and tell us about it without fear of consequences because the chief executive is immune from prosecution forever and has the ability to pardon his minions.
No Democrat or Republican can be trusted with that kind of power because they both serve a powerful minority group — the billionaire class. Clearly, billionaires do not agree about everything, and they’re not necessarily well-organized, but they’re still the class of people that controls our government, and they agree that non-billionaires just don’t matter.
One of the dangers of conflating liberals with the left is that it creates this illusion that liberal authoritarianism is not possible. It is, however, entirely possible and many American voters are really feeling that right now. The Biden administration started out reflecting the views of the average Democratic Party voter (near right) pretty well, but as time has gone on, it has gotten increasingly right wing, and it seems like the primary reason is Joe Biden himself taking charge of the administration.
The latest thing would be Biden signing the TikTok ban into law which essentially silences the voices of younger Americans who are strongly against the Israeli genocide of Palestinians and creates the precedent for banning any foreign-owned media that the US government dislikes. Given that all domestically-owned media in the US is under the firm control of the billionaire class, this would exacerbate the already dire lack of free (i.e., not controlled by US billionaires) media in the US. To be clear, politicians are making these decisions because their primary duty is to the billionaire class, not the average voter.
One of the themes of George Orwell’s 1984 was about propaganda, and the control of media. Basically, if you control all the media, then you can claim anything you want about today’s reality, and you can portray the past any way you want. The quote is:
“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” repeated Winston obediently. “Who controls the present controls the past,” said O’Brien, nodding his head with slow approval.
On April 23, Biden condemned “anti-Semitic protests” and people who “don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians”. This kind of gaslighting is a classic fascist move; though, I suppose someone could try to make the argument that Biden is simply mistaken rather than purposefully evil. Regardless of his intent, though, Biden himself has become part of the flow of misinformation that Americans are experiencing, and the single biggest obstacle to his own re-election in November.
Trump currently leads Biden in national polls, and is significantly ahead of Biden in swing states, which are really what matters thanks to the anti-democratic electoral college. (If you are a leftist living in Missouri, for example, you can vote for whoever you want!) Therefore, my guess is that the Supreme Court will conclude that the President has total immunity from prosecution, like a God-Emperor, and then the Democratic Party will shrug dramatically because their donors would rather accept full-blown fascism than risk the chaos that would result from any kind of effective resistance.