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

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

  “FAFO” (Fuck-Around-And-Find-Out) is a coinage that probably hasn’t yet made it to a dictionary near you, but it has gained considerable traction of late. And among those millions of Trump voters who are currently finding out, in quite painful fashion, the malignant forces with which they fucked around, there’s the special case of Elise Stefanik, about whom I wrote this piece in January 2023. Stefanik’s star was rising then, back when Kevin McCarthy was taking control — if you can call it that — of the House. Having sold her soul completely to Trump, she might understand now what was totally obvious even then: that Trump is where political careers go to die. You’ll notice also in this piece that I failed to anticipate Trump’s second term, and got a number of other minor things wrong. All I can say is I was young and foolish.   It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So w...

Abortion Will Not Be Stopped, Or Even Slowed Down

  Back in 2022, before the Dobbs decision, abortions in the United States occurred at the rate of 79,600 per month. Put a pin in that number. When Dobbs ended Roe , it triggered a cornucopia of draconian laws banning — to one degree or another — abortion in most red states. One of the worst judicial decisions in history, Dobbs led almost immediately to a raft of high-profile atrocities, making simple pregnancy a high-risk proposition for both women and doctors. The Republicans running those states are now defined — politically and morally — by their anti-woman, anti-family policies. On their watch, long-standing, globally-accepted medical standards and practices are being rejected, not on the basis of science, but of ideology and, even worse, religion. The results are stunning. While I couldn’t possibly scan the entire landscape of reproductive issues, there are others doing that full time. Jessica Valenti and her new partner Kylie Cheung do deep dives int...

A Canadian Tells Us Like It Is

  I had intended to take Thanksgiving week off, then I realized I had to have a piece ready for the World Cup Draw, which, you may have noticed, turned out to be just as embarrassing and horrifying as I predicted last week. Being right comforts me no more than it does you. Regardless, I’m taking this week off instead. But rather than rerun one of my oldies, I thought I’d direct you to what I consider a must-read article , coming to us from a Canadian, Andrew Coyne, who has a knack for saying what the entire mainstream media of this country refuses to say. I apologize in advance that this piece is behind the paywall of the Globe & Mail, so some of you might be frustrated. But I urge you to find it, however you can ( Apple News is one way). The article is titled “ Donald Trump – and American democracy – is getting exponentially worse.”  Here’s an excerpt, with a brief commentary afterward, then I promise to shut up until at least next week: …On a m...