Skip to main content

The Trouble With “Going High”

 

Michelle Obama famously said of Republicans, “When they go low, we go high.” While I applaud the sentiment, she may not have fully understood just how low Republicans might go, given enough time and money. I assume she and her husband have since adjusted that equation. Both are surely on Trump’s lengthy enemies list, and no amount of going high will count for much if he takes over.

It's time for Democrats to rethink that approach. Being on the side of right and good doesn’t seem to be cutting it right now. I’m hearing a lot of hand-wringing about the fanatical low-ness of the fanatical right, but not much about practical ways to deal with it.

Our imagination has failed us. We never imagined people so vile. We knew such people existed, but felt surely they were only on “the fringes.” We ignored the warning signs.

Now, the Supreme Court is finished with warning signs. If there were any questions remaining about the unacceptable direction they want to take this country, they’ve been resoundingly answered.

Their spectacularly nonsensical decision to grant Trump even limited immunity tells us, once and for all, that Trump is their horse, and they’ll ride him into Hell if need be.

How anyone with even a sixth-grade education, let alone a law degree, could decide to go this far for Trump’s sake speaks, more than anything else, of blackmail. We’ll probably never know what leverage Trump — or perhaps Leonard Leo — holds over these traitors, but they are doing the bidding of very dark forces, and I’m not sure they’ve thought it through.

In what amounts to a court-ordered coup, the judicial branch has declared war on the other two branches of government. The six ideologues on the Court are spitting in the eye of the vast majority of Americans, and they’re daring the government to do something about it.

The executive branch needs to take that dare, while it’s still in the hands of the sane.

SCOTUS just invested enormous power in the presidency, in anticipation of a Trump dictatorship. Why they decided to do it now, while there is still a Democrat in charge, is strange, and a bit unsettling. What do they know about the next election that we don’t?

Even so, it is inconceivable that Joe Biden would not use the immunity decision to expand his own power — even if only temporarily — to fight off the abominable forces of Trump, SCOTUS, and the Republican party. He is the president, after all.

The key to the immunity ruling lies in the distinction — or the supposed distinction — between “official” and “unofficial” presidential acts. How this plays out in the real world is massively unclear, not just to me, but also to Justice Sotomayor, whose blistering dissent describes the inherent lunacy of the decision much better than I ever could. She illuminates the contradictions, paradoxes, and nonsensical reasoning that are now, in effect, our new legal system.

Nobody knows exactly what powers the president now has, but I’d much rather see Biden figure them out than Trump. Seems to me there is no shortage of acts Biden can perform, at his own discretion, between now and the next inauguration that will be undeniably official, yet plainly done for partisan reasons.

Whether they carry presidential immunity or not will take years to sort out, and will need to be litigated on a case-by-case basis. Meanwhile, any lawsuit Biden triggers can be stalled almost forever, a trick Trump himself taught us all. Let’s use it against him.

Which brings us to the wonderful world of executive orders. Because under SCOTUS’s new rules, Biden will, without doubt, have a broader palette to work with.

As they’ve evolved over the last twenty years or so, executive orders have become largely a matter of “Shoot first, ask questions later.”

I’m not saying Biden should necessarily have his Justice Department arrest and prosecute Alito and Thomas — and their wives while they’re at it — though I have no doubt that there’s ample evidence to do so.

And as sweet as it would be to see Biden suspend the Supreme Court, expand it by six seats, codify affirmative action, reverse Citizens United, and declare all abortion legal — all by executive order — I think we’ll need to think more modestly. Not because these things aren’t strategically feasible, but rather because Democrats won’t be comfortable going that low.

Still, I would like to think that somewhere in the upper levels of the administration, there are people brainstorming executive orders that will certainly qualify as “official” — part of a president’s official duties — but not clearly defined by the law.

Better yet, they could work completely within existing laws, but order changes to governmental norms — another thing Trump taught us how to do.

To take just one loaded example, the need for an arms-length relationship between the President and the Attorney General has only been in practice since Watergate. It was never a law, or even proposed as one. While most Democrats would feel squeamish about violating that norm, let’s remember that Trump and Bill Barr ran roughshod over it five years ago. And they’ll do it again, given the chance.

So what, besides that squeamishness, prevents Biden from ordering Merrick Garland to more aggressively investigate and even arrest those congressmen who clearly broke the law in connection with Jan 6? Why not make public examples of Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, Tommy Tuberville, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and others who were identified by name in the Jan 6 Committee hearings? Why not indict them? Even if the charges don’t stick, they’ll be out there in election season with scarlet letters on their foreheads.

We are very much in uncharted territory. SCOTUS is changing the rules right in front of us, and the immunity decision isn’t even the worst thing they did last week. But when rules of this magnitude change, it opens up all sorts of opportunities to test, feel out, and push the envelope of the new environment.

Democrats need to do that, and fast. To wait around for Trump to use these new powers — when they’d be far better used to keep him as far away from the presidency as possible — would be madness.

Even if Trump were elected, there would still be time before the inauguration to arrest him on national security grounds, or something. Nobody wants to go that low, but there’s no amount of going high that will cause this Supreme Court the slightest concern about swinging the election to Trump, given the opportunity.

So big ideas are called for. There are brand new legal tools available, and dire reasons to use them.

There’s nothing low about using them on Republicans.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Are America’s B.S. Detectors Finally Getting an Upgrade?

  Can a person acquire an immunity to propaganda? I’ve been wondering. It was Julia Ioffe who got me started. She wrote last week of the dwindling effectiveness of the Russian disinformation industry. She reports that the bot-farms that caused all the mischief in 2016 are now a shadow of their former selves. Ever since their founder and leader, Evgeny Prigozhin , was blown out of the sky last year, they’ve come under the control of Putin’s office, which means poor performance is now institutionalized. This can be seen in the messaging being disseminated by these so-called influence campaigns, which is almost comically inept. The content is focused exclusively on undermining support for Ukraine, a subject that couldn’t be less relevant to most Americans. Anyone who actually cares about Ukraine will just laugh at the fumbling English and feeble logic of the posts they’re seeing. But what really got me thinking was Ioffe’s assertion that these campaigns are old

France and Britain Just Gave the Finger to Fascism

There is now ample evidence that people with democratic systems of government actually like them, and would just as soon keep them, flaws and all. There seems to be a strong backlash occurring in several European countries, a trend toward shoring up democracies threatened by toxic authoritarian forces. In Poland last year, then in France and Britain last week, actual voters — as opposed to deeply compromised opinion polls — gave a big middle finger to the fascists in their midst. I don’t pretend to understand the electoral systems of these countries — let alone their political currents — but I’m struck by the apparent connections between different elections in different countries, and what they might be saying to us. I’ve spoken before of Poland , where ten years of vicious minority rule was overturned at the ballot box. A ban on abortion was the galvanizing issue — sound familiar? — and it brought an overwhelming number of voters to the polls, many for the fir

Democrats, Step Away from the Ledge

  Anxiety comes easily to Democrats. We’re highly practiced at perceiving a crisis, wanting to fix it immediately, and being consistently frustrated when we can’t. Democrats understand consequences, which is why we always have plenty to worry about. Republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about consequences — which is, let’s face it, their superpower. I wasn’t intending to write about last Thursday’s debate, mostly because I post on Tuesdays, and this could be old news by the time it gets to you. But then the New York Times weighed in with a wildly disingenuous editorial calling for Joe Biden to drop out of the race, and the rest of the mainstream media piled on. In the Times' not-so-humble opinion, Biden needs to consider “the good of the country,” something their own paper has repeatedly failed to do for almost a decade. And since this is now the crisis du jour for virtually every Democrat who watched that shitshow, I thought I might at l