|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Funny you should ask! The Supreme Court!
0 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal@petersagal.bsky.social |
18541 followers 145 following 2842 posts
I make Dad jokes on NPR and also write books and other things.
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Funny you should ask! The Supreme Court!
0 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
They did, actually. The very separation of powers that the 6 justices used as an excuse to place the President above the law was meant to be a safeguard against any one branch acting badly.
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I’m thinking of the scene toward the end of 1984 when Winston is imprisoned at the Ministry of Love and there’s a senior Party apparatchik in there with him who keeps saying, “There must be some mistake.”
3 replies 3 reposts 60 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
So, yeah, that whole “moral arc of the universe” thing? Nope.
1 replies 0 reposts 19 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Not mine, David Simon’s. But yea, that scene, and Zoe Kazan’s performance as the mother, was devastating.
1 replies 0 reposts 6 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
What he didn’t understand, what I certainly didn’t, is those victories were still not universally accepted. That there were forces at work, energized in no small part by his occupying the office, that not only disagreed that those changes were improvements but were actively trying to undo them.
5 replies 4 reposts 76 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
He describes a country constantly trying to rise above its original sins by a constant effort to be “more perfect,” and succeeding, step by step, even in the face of violent opposition, as at Selma. A powerful and convincing message from a Black man speaking as President at the very site.
2 replies 4 reposts 59 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Been thinking today of Obama’s speech at the 50th anniversary of Selma, IMO the finest of his career. In direct response to an accusation from a now disbarred lawyer, who said he “didn’t really love America,” Obama laid out a vision of the America he loved.
time.com/3736357/bara...
2 replies 16 reposts 102 likes
|
Popehat
@kenwhite.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Things are pretty fucked up and the future is uncertain — probably the worst in my lifetime (perhaps excepting 1969 before I can remember). When it’s like that, I like to think about my grandparents and what they faced and got through with the Great Depression and WWII. /1
18 replies 104 reposts 646 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Who knows what the future holds, but SCOTUS’s grant of immunity applies only to the President, by virtue of the uniqueness of the office. Specifically, it holds that holding him to a criminal law (perforce passed by Congress) violates the separation of powers.
1 replies 1 reposts 5 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
To say nothing of Red Tails.
2 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Why Santa Monica, you ask? Because Stephen Miller will want to get back at all the people who made fun of him in high school.
1 replies 0 reposts 34 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Technically, impeachment is a political process, not criminal, so the ruling doesn’t apply. But of course impeachment is for “high crimes” and since it can’t be a crime anymore, impeachment also can’t be used. Or so they will argue when Trump drops a nuclear weapon on Santa Monica.
3 replies 0 reposts 21 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
They also didn’t convict him for trying to bribe and/or extort foreign government to slander his political opponent, so I don’t think he’d feel the need.
1 replies 0 reposts 13 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Trump’s lawyer made that explicit argument this AM to @steveinskeep.bsky.social, citing the court decisions that held his social media feeds are official communications so he couldn’t block people, hah hah hah.
6 replies 6 reposts 132 likes
|
|
Popehat
@kenwhite.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Prediction: Trump will argue that his NY conviction must be overturned because the court admitted evidence of conversations he had with his staff while President in order to prove knowledge and intent. He will argue those conversations were “official acts.” Judge Merchan and higher NY courts …./1
19 replies 78 reposts 548 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
As Jackson’s dissent explains, under our current system a person is considered innocent of a crime until prosecuted and convicted. Under this new regime, a President can’t be prosecuted, even if he breaks the law, so there is no crime.
2 replies 0 reposts 9 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
To be slightly more fair, he did say they “would be immediately impeached and removed from office,” not prosecuted, but that seems a little hollow as Trump’s own party refused to convict him for trying to overthrow the government.
2 replies 3 reposts 52 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
True. Which now — thanks to SCOTUS — is now immune. Meaning, Trump could order a Seal Team assassination of Ms Cheney, still putatively illegal. with the explicit promise of a full pardon the day it’s done and he can’t be prosecuted for that. It’s Catch 666.
1 replies 0 reposts 8 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
His argument seems to be that no other former President has ever been prosecuted, because immunity from criminal prosecution has always been a part of Constitutional design, And they didn’t commit horrific crimes because they might be prosecuted, which is still true.
3 replies 3 reposts 29 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Steve Inskeep raised this very issue with one of Trump’s “victorious” lawyers this AM, and then pressed him on it. The answer was unconvincing: it won’t happen because it’s never happened, and it’s never happened because of “Constitutional checks and balances.” Which SCOTUS has now eviscerated.
4 replies 9 reposts 102 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I recommend reading Sotomayor’s dissent, in which she explains in clear language why this will in fact never happen, due to the practical impossibility of threading the needle through SCOTUS’s decision.
0 replies 1 reposts 14 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I also noted Alito’s unhinged dissent, in he plainly misreads Federal law, and accuses Biden — by name! Even though he was not a party to the case!* — of trying to get around Dobbs. *his administration is, but tradition is to refer to them as “the Government.”
0 replies 4 reposts 15 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It is hard to believe SCOTUS would say that a President is immune to federal criminal law, but not state law, especially given their purported concern with vindictive prosecutors causing Presidents to be, uh, cautious.
2 replies 0 reposts 15 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Seems crazy! But just logical. If a President cannot commit a crime in the course of an official act, like giving an order to the military, how can you prosecute the person who follows the order? There’s a whole code of military conduct about “illegal orders.” All orders are legal now.
22 replies 64 reposts 270 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Always worth reading Linda Greenhouse on SCOTUS.
www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/o...
2 replies 10 reposts 22 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Also, I will donate $500 to the Heritage Foundation if this historian of the early Republic ever once argued for the necessity of or even mentioned “presidential immunity” before Donald Trump made it up.
7 replies 6 reposts 106 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
And toilets won’t flush sufficiently.
6 replies 1 reposts 27 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Not even a commercial! Not even a print ad! A single custom made can, one of many, with the image of a trans influencer on it.
2 replies 0 reposts 28 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
John Eastman gave a long interview to the pres of Claremont College explaining why his attempts to overthrow the 2020 election were perfectly legal and when finally asked why it was necessary to do that he said something like, “Well, they’re teaching kids they can be any gender they want!”
5 replies 15 reposts 127 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It is remarkable to me that when they ever deign to name a specific complaint that requires them to overthrow American society (ie, a “revolution”) it’s always something like faculty senates or website DEI statements or calorie counts on menus.
10 replies 42 reposts 268 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Because as is well known, the first American Revolution was fought against the tyranny of faculty senates. (Read the transcript in the link.)
7 replies 16 reposts 193 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Same.
2 replies 2 reposts 30 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I haven't seen anybody say that, but I guess I missed it.
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Not allowed under the principle of estoppel. You don’t get to try a case again because you didn’t like the first result.
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The hypothetical relies on a new liberal majority SCOTUS, which depends on a Dem win in 2024 and even then won’t happen for many years. By that time, Trump will no longer be relevant, for one reason or another.
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Thank you. But I’m trying to figure out that that case would look like. You’d have to charge a President with a crime. A judge would then throw it out, that’s appealed to SCOTUS, which overturns Trump vs US. But for that to happen, you’d need a) Dem DOJ and b) a post Biden II GOP POTUS who crimes.
4 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It is *now.*
2 replies 0 reposts 9 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
So in one key respect, he *was* Trump’s Roy Cohn.
2 replies 4 reposts 103 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I tried! Too complicated for my addled old brain. But cool robot dinosaurs.
1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I’m sorry, but things have gotten to the point where I saw this and just laughed out loud.
22 replies 20 reposts 267 likes
|
Kevin M. Kruse
@kevinmkruse.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I've seen enough -- this is the most radical, dangerous, arrogant, out-of-control Supreme Court in American history, and it needs to be treated as such.
open.substack.com/pub/kevinmkr...
97 replies 642 reposts 2147 likes
|
|
Popehat
@kenwhite.bsky.social
[ View ] |
/8 At any rate, congratulations to the Federalist Society for an achievement beyond the reach of the British, outside the grasp of bloody civil war, impossible to Nazis and Soviets and terrorists: defeating the American idea.
40 replies 888 reposts 2772 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
One of the very disorienting aspects of our current moment is that a very smart man like @adamserwer.bsky.social can sound like a fire-breathing radical as he simply tells the truth.
www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...
4 replies 30 reposts 121 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Reagan was investigated by the Iran Contra independent counsel, along with his senior aides. And while the GOP protested mightily, and George HW Bush pardoned those who were indicted, it never occurred to anybody then that the President was just… immune to all criminal charges.
1 replies 3 reposts 42 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
"We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free." — Ronald Reagan, about Medicare
5 replies 26 reposts 195 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Nobody’s mentioned this, so I guess I will: Thomas wrote a separate concurrence just to note Jack Smith was illegally appointed, a question nobody asked.
16 replies 79 reposts 342 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I have never heard any advocate of the “unitary executive theory” or the pre-eminence of the executive make that argument when a Democrat is in office.
1 replies 0 reposts 14 likes
|
|
Peter Sagal
@petersagal.bsky.social
[ View ] |
What’s interesting of course is that Biden has in fact used his executive power in unilateral ways, to forgive student debt and require vaccines for federal employees. In both cases. SCOTUS struck it down as an unlawful violation of the separation of powers.
3 replies 6 reposts 33 likes
|
Chris Hayes
@chrislhayes.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Things are bad but all the more reason for optimism of the will and rejection of doomerism and nihilism. Only way out is through.
99 replies 291 reposts 1469 likes