Please consider supporting The Front Page with a paid subscription: HERE I'm sorry son. I tried to raise you the best way I knew how as a person who knew right from wrong and as a citizen who was lucky to be born in the greatest country in the world.
Carl I do not understand. Why now? The Supreme Court did not find that Nixon had immunity. Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama were able to do their job and did not ask for immunity. Throughout time the one consistent thought in the USA has been, no one is above the law. No one! And now that is not true. One man is.
I am not sure that is true Carl. Nixon could have argued that this was part of his official business so he was immune from prosecution and subpoenas. As a result, he would not be required to release the tapes.
“Nixon argued that the concept of executive privilege gave him the power to withhold sensitive information, such as the tapes, from other government branches in order to maintain confidential communications within the executive branch and to secure the national interest.”
We all saw what happened on Jan. 6. We saw a mob summoned by the president beat police officers and ransack the Capitol. There is "presumed immunity" for Trump's actions to try to overthrow the election. Eventually, the Supreme will decide these were "official" presidential actions and he is immune. It can't happen here. It is happening here.
Can you please share your source where Trump specifically called for people to protest peacefully? Or are you referring to where he asked the insurrectionists to go home, we have to have peace?
Trump, in the last few minutes of his Jan. 6 speech:
"Together we will drain the Washington swamp and we will clean up the corruption in our nation's capital. We have done a big job on it, but you think it's easy, it's a dirty business. It's a dirty business. You have a lot of bad people out there."
And a few minutes later —
"…I said, "Something's wrong here. Something's really wrong. Can't have happened." And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
Trump spent his entire speech riling up the mob. Note that Trump’s fighting words are just prior to ending his speech and protesters leaving to march on the Capitol. Trump’s parting exhortations to "fight like hell" aren’t erased by a meek reference to peace early on in his speech.
Eventually the SC will decide if the actions taken by President Trump on or around 1/6/21 while in office were official actions, based on FACTS. One fact is that President Trump did NOT assemble any mob.
“Mr. Trump had urged supporters to come to Washington for a “Save America March” on Wednesday, when Congress would ceremonially count President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win, telling them to “be there, will be wild!””
When it was determined there w/b a significant number of people to attend , Trump asked pelosi if she wanted the Natl Guard, which she refused. She recently admitted that security of the Capitol was HER responsibility.
I suspect when The Chronicle comes out Thursday, Mark Frost will print some convoluted rationale to justify the Court to make the Trump supporters that make up the majority of both his readers and his ad base happy.
He'll say something like, "Wow. Big goings-on at the Supreme Court. It feels important, earth-shaking, but the left blows it out of proportion with its doomsaying, act like they're the only ones on the moral high ground. Things swing one way, then the other. We keep our heads down and keep on trying to move forward."
I'm a moderate and have never expressed any written opinion of the weekly newspaper so Mr. Tucker I have no idea why you think that. It appears you made it up.
Frost has been a loyal Republican and will remain a loyal Republican, no matter what criminality they embrace or what games they play with fundraising and violence. He is a sad man.
I often wonder if any WW2 veteran would look at SCOTUS' (or shall we rename it as a branch office of the Federalist Society) and wonder - with the lens of history - why they donned a uniform, shed blood or sacrificed their lives. The pendulum has swung. It will swing back in a few decades or will it freeze and mark the decline of a new version of the United States.
And that failure has been supported for 50 years by Republicans. It is conservatism's failure, not liberalism's because conservatism has refused to even look at the wreckage it has caused by government inaction.
My question is how quickly will the corruption approved by the Supreme Court become accepted and commonplace and perhaps extended to other levels of government and without a doubt to justices on the Supreme Court so they all can have their vacations paid for without fear of retribution.
Unlike you I have spent my life training my brain to think deeply and use history -- global history not just American history which makes no sense apart from the history of Europe and in turn the rest of the world because of Europe's influence on the rest of the world -- as a guide to understanding our contemporary world.
“There’s one primary check on preventing corrupt, unscrupulous individuals from abusing the executive branch,” he said. “And that is the vote.” I too believed in our great country until President Ford pardoned criminal Nixon. From that point on when I said the pledge, I could no longer hear myself say, “Justice for all.” These justices and all of our elected officials take an oath to our constitution, to defend our democracy and our laws. These unamericans have failed us, and as you very well put it, failed those who gave their ultimate sacrifice. My dad served as the Morse code expert on the USS Ancon at Omaha Beach during WWll, communicating with generals Eisenhower and MacArthur, as he watched so many gunned down in their attempt to stop a dictator from taking over the world 80 years ago. He died 3 months ago, 3 weeks before his 100th BD, and I’m glad he’s not here to see what those who disgrace SCOTUS, and have never served in our military, have broken. An ideal of bravery, honor and good faith for a nation, where all deserve equal liberty and justice, has now been shattered. My husband, also a combat Vietnam veteran, born the day Roosevelt died, will be voting, as we all must, to preserve this ideal for our children and grandchildren, so that those who sacrificed will have not given their lives for a wannabe dictator to take over and end america’s great experiment. 💔🤍💙🇺🇸
In the 1860’s the USA had 35 million people. We now have over 350 million. It’s about time we add at least 3 more justices ASAP! Go 💙Joe! Go ❤️🤍💙congress! Go 💙senate! Represent our majority 🇺🇸, not the minority! The Constitution does not specify the number of seats on the Supreme Court. This power was left to Congress, which set the Supreme Court's size at one chief justice and five associates in the Judiciary Act of 1789. It was legally changed seven times. It underwent five full legal implementations: 1789-1807: six seats 1807-1837: seven seats 1837-1866: ten seats 1866-1867: nine seats 1867-1869: eight seats 1869-present: nine seats
We need a constitutionally moral president, senate majority, and democratic congress. At this polarized place we are now in, we need the executive branch, the house and the senate to be blue! 💙💙💙💙💙💙💔🤍💙🇺🇸
I have no desire for control. I believe in our constitution, rule of law, and democracy. I hope our leaders will care as much for the future of these freedoms, and our country, as our forefathers, honest citizens, and our combat soldiers have. Our SCOTUS should not be ruled by gifts or religious beliefs or favors. Our forefathers fought against a king, and we should not be anointing one 248 years later. No one in America is above the law.
Jill when you wrote “At this polarized place we are now in, we need the executive branch, the house and the senate to be blue!” How will one side’s control of the government help the polarized time we are now in?
I can only say that your article is a very hard read and an extreme piece of disillusionment. I sincerely feel awful that you have truly seemed to have lost your way.
Exactly, just like a newspaper we do not have to print anything. But we do believe in the First Amendment. We should always draw the line when people lie or are uncivil.
"At Dachau, we walked between the guard towers and saw the ovens where there was an attempt to eliminate an entire people from evil incarnate. It can't happen here we repeated proudly."
Now you say that it IS happening here. Unless you are referencing something else, you appear to have completely lost your bearings.
One, commonly expressed now, is that Tuesday, November 5, 2024, will be one of the most significant presidential elections in our history. We'll either elect a good and decent man as president, or a corrupt traitor. Woe to us and our country if we falter.
Two, it seems to me the Supreme Court has slyly made a significant power grab by the judicial branch in this just-completed term. If a former president is charged with a crime, who decides if the act was official and thus immune for prosecution? Why, it's the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. It, and only it, has the final say if a president is held accountable for a crime. Who decides how the executive branch administers the ambiguous laws passed by Congress? No, not the agencies charged with administering those laws. Why, it's the judicial branch when any regulation, past or present, may be challenged in court with no deference given to the agency. The Supreme Court has given itself the power to make law, not just interpret it.
A perfect storm is unfolding before our eyes for the next four years. Will we make wise decisions and weather it?
The Constitution was not tightly written and was deliberately left open-ended because they recognized that the laws and solutions of 1787 would probably not apply to 2024. That reverence for permanence, the refusal to acknowledge change and deal with it is responsible for this mess!
"Today the United States Supreme Court overthrew the central premise of American democracy: that no one is above the law." I have no words to counter this absolutely criminal ruling, and to use the court's recently stated goal of finding historic precedent to allow insane people to possess machine-guns, where is the historic precedent for this? Why does a president NEED to break the law? If the president needs to break a law in the execution of his duties we need to change the laws, but I guess 250 years of presidents not needing to break the law was just a fluke? Treasons bastards and as I see it, 5 should have recused for bias, three for appointment by the litigant and two for bias due to family ties, one married to one of the people who may have had a hand in it, one for the flag display. But by the reason of the kangaroo's , Trump can now pay them for the favor, as long as he does it after they do his bidding. This is worse than it seems, we are in a very dark place.
The SC justices have also provided a road map to legally bribe public officials. You just pay the bribe after services are rendered and it is ruled a "gratuity." I suspect there will be many "gratuities" coming the court's way this summer.
If this doesn’t prove to democrats that they need to stop taking the high road, I don’t know what will. There are no words for the damage the Supreme Court has done to our country. I never thought I’d see such destruction in our lifetime.
Most of us agree with your disillusionment. Thank you for the responses with stories about family members who served in our military. May God bless them all. Yesterday was a very hard day for any law abiding citizen of this great country. Let's vote and hope that things will change for the better. In the meantime, Happy 4th of July, all! 🇺🇸🗽❤️
I feel very moved by your words to your son, Ken. I feel the same, deeply. But there was a time when the Supreme Court spoke for democracy and law and justice...the Warren Court. There was the Civil Rights movement where people risked their lives just to vote, to sit at a counter, to ride a bus. When workers won their battle for pay and dignity. When people "saw the light." I think now of Sotomayor's "I dissent" and of Kagan's dissent and anger...and the need for all our voices to resist, to dissent, to act for democracy, for earth, for truth. I think how good it is to say: Now I see....
I agree. The court should be revered. Allowing one person to be above the law will make the court suspect for those of us who love our country. But for the record, "I officially descent."
Carl I do not understand. Why now? The Supreme Court did not find that Nixon had immunity. Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama were able to do their job and did not ask for immunity. Throughout time the one consistent thought in the USA has been, no one is above the law. No one! And now that is not true. One man is.
Here is SCOTUS ruling on Nixon.
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/anniversary-of-united-states-v-nixon
I am not sure that is true Carl. Nixon could have argued that this was part of his official business so he was immune from prosecution and subpoenas. As a result, he would not be required to release the tapes.
“Nixon argued that the concept of executive privilege gave him the power to withhold sensitive information, such as the tapes, from other government branches in order to maintain confidential communications within the executive branch and to secure the national interest.”
They issued a ruling on executive privilege that Nixon had to turn over the tapes and implicated him in crimes. That was the ballgame.
Why now? Because the Supreme Court can. You change the bodies on the court, as the Federalist Society, McConnell, and Trump did, you change the law.
We all saw what happened on Jan. 6. We saw a mob summoned by the president beat police officers and ransack the Capitol. There is "presumed immunity" for Trump's actions to try to overthrow the election. Eventually, the Supreme will decide these were "official" presidential actions and he is immune. It can't happen here. It is happening here.
Can you please share your source where Trump specifically called for people to protest peacefully? Or are you referring to where he asked the insurrectionists to go home, we have to have peace?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/08/politics/trump-january-6-speech-transcript/index.html
Page 4 About midway down.
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Trump, in the last few minutes of his Jan. 6 speech:
"Together we will drain the Washington swamp and we will clean up the corruption in our nation's capital. We have done a big job on it, but you think it's easy, it's a dirty business. It's a dirty business. You have a lot of bad people out there."
And a few minutes later —
"…I said, "Something's wrong here. Something's really wrong. Can't have happened." And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
Trump spent his entire speech riling up the mob. Note that Trump’s fighting words are just prior to ending his speech and protesters leaving to march on the Capitol. Trump’s parting exhortations to "fight like hell" aren’t erased by a meek reference to peace early on in his speech.
Thanks W!!
Eventually the SC will decide if the actions taken by President Trump on or around 1/6/21 while in office were official actions, based on FACTS. One fact is that President Trump did NOT assemble any mob.
Yes. He absolutely did.
Sp Why did the people assemble that would turn into a mob?
The “mob” that is referred to was already at the Capitol and did not appear to include anyone who was at President Trump’s speech.
That’s comical. Is this like the “fine people” at a white supremacist rally? Those aren’t really the people he was referring to?
OK so, why are those people at the Capitol?
SP, yes he did.
“Mr. Trump had urged supporters to come to Washington for a “Save America March” on Wednesday, when Congress would ceremonially count President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win, telling them to “be there, will be wild!””
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
When it was determined there w/b a significant number of people to attend , Trump asked pelosi if she wanted the Natl Guard, which she refused. She recently admitted that security of the Capitol was HER responsibility.
Please site your source. I cannot find anywhere where Pelosi refused the National Guard. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-235651652542
“Be there, will be wild!” - actual Trump tweet.
Thank you for the clear-eyed analysis.
Orwell and Huxley both won. We the people have lost. For now.
Vote.
I suspect when The Chronicle comes out Thursday, Mark Frost will print some convoluted rationale to justify the Court to make the Trump supporters that make up the majority of both his readers and his ad base happy.
He'll say something like, "Wow. Big goings-on at the Supreme Court. It feels important, earth-shaking, but the left blows it out of proportion with its doomsaying, act like they're the only ones on the moral high ground. Things swing one way, then the other. We keep our heads down and keep on trying to move forward."
Will, what would be so wrong with that???
We should all be worried. This isn't left or right.
It's law.
I'm a moderate and have never expressed any written opinion of the weekly newspaper so Mr. Tucker I have no idea why you think that. It appears you made it up.
Amazing how you know me better than me.
Wow!!! Disillusioned and confused!!
Frost has been a loyal Republican and will remain a loyal Republican, no matter what criminality they embrace or what games they play with fundraising and violence. He is a sad man.
Vote.
I often wonder if any WW2 veteran would look at SCOTUS' (or shall we rename it as a branch office of the Federalist Society) and wonder - with the lens of history - why they donned a uniform, shed blood or sacrificed their lives. The pendulum has swung. It will swing back in a few decades or will it freeze and mark the decline of a new version of the United States.
Yes Mr. Tucker
And that failure has been supported for 50 years by Republicans. It is conservatism's failure, not liberalism's because conservatism has refused to even look at the wreckage it has caused by government inaction.
Should read "mark the decline of the United States as a democracy."
My question is how quickly will the corruption approved by the Supreme Court become accepted and commonplace and perhaps extended to other levels of government and without a doubt to justices on the Supreme Court so they all can have their vacations paid for without fear of retribution.
Where in the SC decision did the SC approve corruption??
By refusing to acknowledge Trump's corruption because if they acknowledge it they come to face with their own corruption.
Sorry
Unlike you I have spent my life training my brain to think deeply and use history -- global history not just American history which makes no sense apart from the history of Europe and in turn the rest of the world because of Europe's influence on the rest of the world -- as a guide to understanding our contemporary world.
The SC are not trial judges.
“There’s one primary check on preventing corrupt, unscrupulous individuals from abusing the executive branch,” he said. “And that is the vote.” I too believed in our great country until President Ford pardoned criminal Nixon. From that point on when I said the pledge, I could no longer hear myself say, “Justice for all.” These justices and all of our elected officials take an oath to our constitution, to defend our democracy and our laws. These unamericans have failed us, and as you very well put it, failed those who gave their ultimate sacrifice. My dad served as the Morse code expert on the USS Ancon at Omaha Beach during WWll, communicating with generals Eisenhower and MacArthur, as he watched so many gunned down in their attempt to stop a dictator from taking over the world 80 years ago. He died 3 months ago, 3 weeks before his 100th BD, and I’m glad he’s not here to see what those who disgrace SCOTUS, and have never served in our military, have broken. An ideal of bravery, honor and good faith for a nation, where all deserve equal liberty and justice, has now been shattered. My husband, also a combat Vietnam veteran, born the day Roosevelt died, will be voting, as we all must, to preserve this ideal for our children and grandchildren, so that those who sacrificed will have not given their lives for a wannabe dictator to take over and end america’s great experiment. 💔🤍💙🇺🇸
May God bless your father!!!!
In the 1860’s the USA had 35 million people. We now have over 350 million. It’s about time we add at least 3 more justices ASAP! Go 💙Joe! Go ❤️🤍💙congress! Go 💙senate! Represent our majority 🇺🇸, not the minority! The Constitution does not specify the number of seats on the Supreme Court. This power was left to Congress, which set the Supreme Court's size at one chief justice and five associates in the Judiciary Act of 1789. It was legally changed seven times. It underwent five full legal implementations: 1789-1807: six seats 1807-1837: seven seats 1837-1866: ten seats 1866-1867: nine seats 1867-1869: eight seats 1869-present: nine seats
We need a constitutionally moral president, senate majority, and democratic congress. At this polarized place we are now in, we need the executive branch, the house and the senate to be blue! 💙💙💙💙💙💙💔🤍💙🇺🇸
Jill, how does your desire for control differ from Donald Trump’s desire for control
I have no desire for control. I believe in our constitution, rule of law, and democracy. I hope our leaders will care as much for the future of these freedoms, and our country, as our forefathers, honest citizens, and our combat soldiers have. Our SCOTUS should not be ruled by gifts or religious beliefs or favors. Our forefathers fought against a king, and we should not be anointing one 248 years later. No one in America is above the law.
Jill when you wrote “At this polarized place we are now in, we need the executive branch, the house and the senate to be blue!” How will one side’s control of the government help the polarized time we are now in?
Ken,
I can only say that your article is a very hard read and an extreme piece of disillusionment. I sincerely feel awful that you have truly seemed to have lost your way.
Hey Simple. How many times are you going to post without revealing who you are. Coward.
As many times as the 1st amendment allows me too, sweetie!!
Actually, the First Amendment isn’t allowing you to post here. The owner of this Substack newsletter is.
Exactly, just like a newspaper we do not have to print anything. But we do believe in the First Amendment. We should always draw the line when people lie or are uncivil.
What about an author that insults a commenter???
What about a SIMPLE commenter who engenders a retort? That's on you. SIMPLE indeed.
It's more than insulting to call a woman sweetie.
Real men, or women, don't hide behind a screen name lol.
Cowards tend to do that.
I concur with the "coward" sentiment. I suspect this person is on Stefanik's staff.
Well said, Ken. Well said.
I saw a post yesterday on Facebook..........SCOTUS.... Supreme Court of Trump's United States.
That is hard to read. "It can't happen here." Yes, it can and it is.
Ken, you stated the following:
"At Dachau, we walked between the guard towers and saw the ovens where there was an attempt to eliminate an entire people from evil incarnate. It can't happen here we repeated proudly."
Now you say that it IS happening here. Unless you are referencing something else, you appear to have completely lost your bearings.
Two thoughts:
One, commonly expressed now, is that Tuesday, November 5, 2024, will be one of the most significant presidential elections in our history. We'll either elect a good and decent man as president, or a corrupt traitor. Woe to us and our country if we falter.
Two, it seems to me the Supreme Court has slyly made a significant power grab by the judicial branch in this just-completed term. If a former president is charged with a crime, who decides if the act was official and thus immune for prosecution? Why, it's the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. It, and only it, has the final say if a president is held accountable for a crime. Who decides how the executive branch administers the ambiguous laws passed by Congress? No, not the agencies charged with administering those laws. Why, it's the judicial branch when any regulation, past or present, may be challenged in court with no deference given to the agency. The Supreme Court has given itself the power to make law, not just interpret it.
A perfect storm is unfolding before our eyes for the next four years. Will we make wise decisions and weather it?
Ah, yes: magical thinking will solve all.
Shame you think all laws can be "tightly written."
Rainbows and kittens.
Like abortion restrictions that include vague allowances for the life of the mother. Are you aware of everything that can go wrong in pregnancy?
The Constitution was not tightly written and was deliberately left open-ended because they recognized that the laws and solutions of 1787 would probably not apply to 2024. That reverence for permanence, the refusal to acknowledge change and deal with it is responsible for this mess!
The Congress is incapable of passing any significant laws and the Supreme Court knows that.
It seems to be the ultimate "Catch 22."
"Today the United States Supreme Court overthrew the central premise of American democracy: that no one is above the law." I have no words to counter this absolutely criminal ruling, and to use the court's recently stated goal of finding historic precedent to allow insane people to possess machine-guns, where is the historic precedent for this? Why does a president NEED to break the law? If the president needs to break a law in the execution of his duties we need to change the laws, but I guess 250 years of presidents not needing to break the law was just a fluke? Treasons bastards and as I see it, 5 should have recused for bias, three for appointment by the litigant and two for bias due to family ties, one married to one of the people who may have had a hand in it, one for the flag display. But by the reason of the kangaroo's , Trump can now pay them for the favor, as long as he does it after they do his bidding. This is worse than it seems, we are in a very dark place.
The SC justices have also provided a road map to legally bribe public officials. You just pay the bribe after services are rendered and it is ruled a "gratuity." I suspect there will be many "gratuities" coming the court's way this summer.
If this doesn’t prove to democrats that they need to stop taking the high road, I don’t know what will. There are no words for the damage the Supreme Court has done to our country. I never thought I’d see such destruction in our lifetime.
Well said, Ken.
Most of us agree with your disillusionment. Thank you for the responses with stories about family members who served in our military. May God bless them all. Yesterday was a very hard day for any law abiding citizen of this great country. Let's vote and hope that things will change for the better. In the meantime, Happy 4th of July, all! 🇺🇸🗽❤️
Hard to celebrate our democracy and Constitution when the Supreme Court continues to make things worse.
How has the SC made anything worse??
I feel very moved by your words to your son, Ken. I feel the same, deeply. But there was a time when the Supreme Court spoke for democracy and law and justice...the Warren Court. There was the Civil Rights movement where people risked their lives just to vote, to sit at a counter, to ride a bus. When workers won their battle for pay and dignity. When people "saw the light." I think now of Sotomayor's "I dissent" and of Kagan's dissent and anger...and the need for all our voices to resist, to dissent, to act for democracy, for earth, for truth. I think how good it is to say: Now I see....
I agree. The court should be revered. Allowing one person to be above the law will make the court suspect for those of us who love our country. But for the record, "I officially descent."
Revered like kings????
We will try to have our light brigade with either :I dissent or Shameful Supreme Court. or....
Bravo to you for using your freedom of speech while you still have it. It is needed more than ever.
We are living and watching the destruction of our Democratic Government. Your piece was tough to read but on target.