One of the underpinnings of the radical right's 900+ page manifesto known as Project 2025 is the Unitary Executive Theory. That concept makes a president all-powerful, in direct opposition to the system built by our Founding Fathers. No one person can be trusted with absolute, unchecked authority.
Thanks for the recognition. It is still stunning to me that Project 2025 isn't the equivalent of scientists announcing that there is an asteroid on its way to Earth. In any reasonable civilisation, Project 2025 would be recognized as the end of American democracy...unless you are a phony Christian or someone ready for the Rapture.
If there was any recognition of this threat...EVERY journalist interviewing ANY politician would ask them "What is your opinion of Project 2025? Do you agree with this version of a Handmaids Tale?"
After today's Supreme Court decision to not say specifically that the President has immunity from prosecution, but what it DIDN'T say is what terrifies me! The Project 2025 "manifesto" is more than terrifying! As is our current Supreme Court, as their decisions just continue to sow anxiety amongst us "liberals." I'm trying to limit my intake of news commentaries, and especially limit my TV news viewing and glad I don't have "expanded cable" to hear all the really BAD commentaries!
I'll be so glad when this is over, but we do have quite a way to go before that! As you saw on your column the other day, I was "trounced" by a lady who thought I was being awful towards Mr. Biden. But your comment was nice, and you obviously understood where I was coming from, as I'm very concerned about "perception" and so many of our young voters see our president as someone absolutely incapable of another term. This is my fear, too. If Ms. Harris can't handle it, then Speaker Johnson is next in line--I can't even begin to imagine HIM as president. We're behind the legendary "rock and a hard place," with all this insanity to worry about for the next four months! We all need to do as Churchill famously said: Keep Calm and Carry On!
I will state again what I said after President Biden’s SOTU speech, portions of which reminded me so much of Churchill’s speech to the House of Commons - 4 June 1940, to quote Churchill - “We shall never surrender!”
Thanks, Catherine. I think we're in the same boat.
I actually wrote this piece yesterday and delayed posting it 24 hours so that I didn't overwhelm folks, so I didn't acknowledge the decision, which dropped just a few minutes before it was posted. I'm actually seeing a potential silver lining in the decision, as bad as it is, and I'm chatting on Robert Hubbell's site about it, but not getting much traction. The decision remands the case to Judge Chutkan, and allows her to proceed. That's significant, and may open the door to discovery and pretrial motions which may provide testimony in the court of public opinion before the election. I'm anxious to see if I'm on to something.
Bob, I’ve had similar thoughts on the resumption of the DC case, albeit only pre-trial motions, discovery, and now after today’s SC decision parsing through official and non-official acts. I’m thinking for better or worse Jack Smith is going to have to show some cards and witness sworn testimony and dispositions through this extended pre-trial phase. Not ideal and some witnesses will undoubtedly feel squeamish when testimony and depositions are introduced, but it will be out there for all to see with one of two or both results - Convicted Felon DT will not be looking good and maybe, even through defense objections and motions ultimately ruled not in Smith’s favor, enough made public to sway some voters.
Trying to remember the time frame for reactivating the trial and hearings that Judge Chutkan had stated many months ago when things went on hold. Vaguely remember ninety days, but not sure what’s allowed to occur if anything during those ninety.
I think you're right about the timeline, which was a concern when the Supremes derailed the case. Now maybe it's a good thing, time-wise. The trial won't likely start, but the fireworks might.
I didn't see your comments on Hubbell's stack Bob. Perhaps you could provide a 'Reader's Digest' version in another post. I like the concept, but would understand your reasoning better for having more details. I suspect that one reason you might not be getting much traction is that right now people are too busy panicking.
It would be typical of the Court to hedge their bets and leave some wiggle room since Judge Chutkan and the Circuit Court were both clear and concise in their findings and there has already been discussion of what acts fall under the definition of "official" and which are personal or campaign related. The panic is probably overblown, although the loss of whatever respect for the institution is appropriate and well deserved.
Hey Bob,
Thanks for the recognition. It is still stunning to me that Project 2025 isn't the equivalent of scientists announcing that there is an asteroid on its way to Earth. In any reasonable civilisation, Project 2025 would be recognized as the end of American democracy...unless you are a phony Christian or someone ready for the Rapture.
If there was any recognition of this threat...EVERY journalist interviewing ANY politician would ask them "What is your opinion of Project 2025? Do you agree with this version of a Handmaids Tale?"
You're absolutely right. Have we become so inured to the hypothetical horrible that when it's presented in this way, it seems familiar and thus okay?
After today's Supreme Court decision to not say specifically that the President has immunity from prosecution, but what it DIDN'T say is what terrifies me! The Project 2025 "manifesto" is more than terrifying! As is our current Supreme Court, as their decisions just continue to sow anxiety amongst us "liberals." I'm trying to limit my intake of news commentaries, and especially limit my TV news viewing and glad I don't have "expanded cable" to hear all the really BAD commentaries!
I'll be so glad when this is over, but we do have quite a way to go before that! As you saw on your column the other day, I was "trounced" by a lady who thought I was being awful towards Mr. Biden. But your comment was nice, and you obviously understood where I was coming from, as I'm very concerned about "perception" and so many of our young voters see our president as someone absolutely incapable of another term. This is my fear, too. If Ms. Harris can't handle it, then Speaker Johnson is next in line--I can't even begin to imagine HIM as president. We're behind the legendary "rock and a hard place," with all this insanity to worry about for the next four months! We all need to do as Churchill famously said: Keep Calm and Carry On!
I will state again what I said after President Biden’s SOTU speech, portions of which reminded me so much of Churchill’s speech to the House of Commons - 4 June 1940, to quote Churchill - “We shall never surrender!”
And, as Churchill and others may or may not have said, "when you're going through hell, the best strategy is to keep going."
Thanks, Catherine. I think we're in the same boat.
I actually wrote this piece yesterday and delayed posting it 24 hours so that I didn't overwhelm folks, so I didn't acknowledge the decision, which dropped just a few minutes before it was posted. I'm actually seeing a potential silver lining in the decision, as bad as it is, and I'm chatting on Robert Hubbell's site about it, but not getting much traction. The decision remands the case to Judge Chutkan, and allows her to proceed. That's significant, and may open the door to discovery and pretrial motions which may provide testimony in the court of public opinion before the election. I'm anxious to see if I'm on to something.
Bob, I’ve had similar thoughts on the resumption of the DC case, albeit only pre-trial motions, discovery, and now after today’s SC decision parsing through official and non-official acts. I’m thinking for better or worse Jack Smith is going to have to show some cards and witness sworn testimony and dispositions through this extended pre-trial phase. Not ideal and some witnesses will undoubtedly feel squeamish when testimony and depositions are introduced, but it will be out there for all to see with one of two or both results - Convicted Felon DT will not be looking good and maybe, even through defense objections and motions ultimately ruled not in Smith’s favor, enough made public to sway some voters.
Trying to remember the time frame for reactivating the trial and hearings that Judge Chutkan had stated many months ago when things went on hold. Vaguely remember ninety days, but not sure what’s allowed to occur if anything during those ninety.
I think you're right about the timeline, which was a concern when the Supremes derailed the case. Now maybe it's a good thing, time-wise. The trial won't likely start, but the fireworks might.
I didn't see your comments on Hubbell's stack Bob. Perhaps you could provide a 'Reader's Digest' version in another post. I like the concept, but would understand your reasoning better for having more details. I suspect that one reason you might not be getting much traction is that right now people are too busy panicking.
I may write about it tomorrow, and your suspicion may make that timing more apropos.
I just read the first few pages of the decision, and some of it is pretty devastating. But I do see some daylight (or else it's an illusion).
It would be typical of the Court to hedge their bets and leave some wiggle room since Judge Chutkan and the Circuit Court were both clear and concise in their findings and there has already been discussion of what acts fall under the definition of "official" and which are personal or campaign related. The panic is probably overblown, although the loss of whatever respect for the institution is appropriate and well deserved.
I'm hoping Judge Chutkan and Jack Smith anticipated this and have been working behind the scenes.