Posts

How SCOTUS Got Us Here

/11 Comments/in /by

Index to posts in this series

My previous post was about an article titled What Are We Living Through by Jedediah Britton-Purdy and David Pozen. The authors offer three scripts people use to answer the title question.

It seems odd that the authors, both law professors, don’t address the role of SCOTUS, but it’s probably because people don’t think about the role of SCOTUS in creating this disastrous presidency. But thinking about SCOTUS clarifies the situation. The Trump regime isn’t a sudden turn, as centrists and almost all Democratic politicians say. It is part of a long project, funded by an ever-changing group of filthy rich right-wing White people. One of their first overt steps was taking control of SCOTUS.

Gaining control of SCOTUS

Appointments to SCOTUS have had been virulently political at least since the nomination of Robert Bork was stymied by Democrats, based largely on “… his outspoken criticism of the Warren and Burger Courts and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.“   The filthy rich loved Bork both for his right-wing politics and for his devotion to their interests.

The Federalist Society was formed in 1982 by students at Harvard, Yale and University of Chicago law schools “… with the aim of challenging liberal or left-wing ideology within elite American law schools and universities.” Bork and Antonin Scalia spoke at their first public event. The Wikipedia entry says this about early funding

… $5.5 million came from the John M. Olin Foundation. Other early donors included the Scaife Foundation, the Bradley Foundation[ and the Koch family foundations. Donors to the Federalist Society have included Google, Chevron, Charles G. and David H. Koch; the family foundation of Richard Mellon Scaife; and the Mercer family.

Readers will recognize those right-wing operations run by inheritors of great wealth.

Leonard Leo founded the Cornell branch of the Federalist Society and moved on to employment there. Under his leadership, five of the current members of SCOTUS are members of the Federalist Society.

Hacking at democracy

Once right-wing ideologues took over SCOTUS, they began hacking away at laws intended to protect our democracy. They got rid of campaign finance laws, eviscerated anti-corruption laws, wrecked the Voting Rights Act, authorized gerrymandering, and gave the filthy rich nearly everything they wanted. In the process, they ignored or dismantled guardrails on their own power, rules like standing, justiciability, and minimal decisions; they took on the role of determining facts (a role supposedly played by trial courts) and ignored stare decisis, the fundamental basis of US Constitutional law. Trump v. US freed Trump from criminal liability for anything remotely related to the office of President.

These cases had a huge impact, not least of which was the election of Donald Trump to a second term

Weakening Congress

Gerrymandering and toothless campaign laws enabled the Republicans to control the House of Representatives. Structural features of our system, including equal representation of states in the Senate and the filibuster made it possible for the Republicans to prevent congressional action.

SCOTUS compounded this weakness by striking down legislation it didn’t like. For example, John Roberts has a long-standing hatred of the Voting Rights Act. In Shelby County v. Holder he struck down the provision requiring certain states with a long history of racial discrimination in voting to submit all changes to their voting laws for pre-clearance. This procedure enabled the Department of Justice to review those laws for racial discrimination before they were allowed to take effect.

Roberts justified his decision with a newly-invented fiction he called the dignity of the states. Congress.he said, hadn’t done enough to satisfy Roberts that pre-clearance acted reasonably by singling out states with a history of racist actiions, somehow explaining away the express grant of such power toCongress in the 15th Amendment. Effectively Roberts set himself up as the arbiter of whether Congress had done enough to justify a rule he didn’t like.

Strengthening Trump

In Trump v. Andeerson, SCOTUS held that only Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, effectively neutering it. In Trump v. US the current majority held that the president cannot be held accountable for crimes he commits that the current majority says are within the core executive functions of the president. These two cases cleared the way for Trump to run again.

Because there were no enforceable limitations on campaign finance, Trump was able to raise hundreds of millions from the filthy rich and got a second term. He promptly began breaking laws. He destroyed entire agencies and weakened the rest of them, he set masked gunsels to snatch people off the street if they looked like not-white people (an action permitted as Kavanaugh Stops), refused to comply with Congressional appropriation laws, fired heads of independent agencies, fired tens of thousands of federal employees, and more. SCOTUS has at least temporarily allowed all these assaults on Congress’ express Constitutional power, explaining that Trump wants it and if he can’t have it that’s a terrible injury, worse than allowing ICE to kidnap people.

Political discourse

I think Purdy-Britton and Pozen are mostly right about the nature of political discourse, and that’s a problem. Their three scripts don’t include this partial list of horribles about the current SCOTUS majority. Concentrating only on the marauding president is simply not good enough to deal with our situation. The Supreme Court has also lost its legitimacy and done terrible damage to our democracy in the process.

I agree with an opinion piece in The Guardian written by Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn, law profs at Harvard and Yale, titled It’s Time to Accept that the US Supreme Court is Illegitimate and Must be Replaced. This article summarizes a longer paper,  The Post-Legitimacy Court.. Both of these deserve more consideration than I give them here.

The paper cites Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania as a major source of the idea of legitimacy:

“The Court’s power lies in its legitimacy,” Justices Kennedy, O’Connor, and Souter explained in their joint opinion, “a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people’s acceptance of the Judiciary fit to determine what the Nation’s law means and to declare what it demands.”

The authors say that the current majority has abandoned the goal of preserving legitimacy, suggesting that they

… might care about the views only of other conservatives (whether lawyers or the public) [which] would be consistent with the larger turn in Republican politics.

The authors discuss responses by some of my favorite legal writers. law profs Kate Shaw from the Strict Scrutiny podcast, and Steve Vladek. The authors say, and I agree, that their reactions to this Court are too legalistic and restrained. Doerfler and Moyn say the current majority has moved the Court’s institutional legitimacy to the brink of cliff, and citizens need to push it over the edge.

I agree, and would go farther. The current majority is not a court. It’s a group of six political actors no different from the majority of a congressional committee. Each member has goals, and these mostly coincide with the goals of the Republican Party and its largest donors. They have the votes and that’s all that counts. The current majority has rejected national legitimacy in favor of the exercise of raw power.

I always blame Roberts personally for every evil thing Trump does. Here’s an example.

Hammer the Court whenever you get the chance, on social media and in real life. It’s the first step to change.

Share this entry

But Who Gets Sammy Alito in the Divorce?

/52 Comments/in /by

Since I was traveling, I’m a bit late to  Trump’s fantastic 510-word Truth Social post, in which he calls Leonard Leo a sleazebag and blames the Federalist Society that Trump-appointed judges — including US Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif — have ruled against him and even suggests that people he calls “Radical Left Judges” are in cahoots with “very bad people” who by context must include Leo. 🤡🤡🤡

Simply fantastic.

I’ve annotated the post to unpack the treatise, which reads as if Peter Navarro and Mike Davis got together, chomped a bunch of hallucinogens, and stole the keys to Trump’s Truth Social account.

The key points are:

  • The tariffs are — Trump lies, repeatedly — super duper good!
  • The US Court of International Trade ruled they’re illegal, but the Federal Court of Appeals (which disappears later in this screed) put that ruling on hold
  • Leonard Leo (and not Mike Davis, who played a central role in confirming judges during Trump’s first Administration) must be responsible every time a Trump-appointed judge rules against Trump, because it surely can’t be the law and surely can’t be Trump’s (or Mike Davis’) shitty picks
  • And therefore (there’s really no therefore here — it does not logically follow at all) SCOTUS must reverse this decision

I’ve been tracking the significance of right wing support for these tariff challenges from the start.

It matters that not just a Leonard Leo-funded group but also a Koch-backed group opposed Trump’s tariffs — and his unconstitutional power grab in imposing them — even before Gavin Newsom and then a bunch of other Democratic states did (last week’s decision pertained to the Koch-funded effort; the one associated with Leo is still pending). It matters that there are some issues that are so dear to right wing jurisprudence (or pocketbooks) and are so clearly reserved for Congress that left, right, and centrist opposition to Trump can agree on those issues. It matters that the topic at hand, Trump’s tariffs, have already done so much damage to the US economy and stature in the world.

This treatise appears to be an attempt to deal with both those issues: Trump has been ruled to have violated the law over and over again, including (increasingly) by Trump-appointed judges and if SCOTUS sides with the Koch Foundation and Democratic states on this, it’ll be an enormous rebuke to Trump’s unlawful power grabs.

This legal case is one that threatens his entire bid to authoritarian power, not because it is key to codifying his police state, politicizing government, or destroying civil society — the other topics that SCOTUS has and will review in months ahead — but because it unifies left, right, and center.

And so Trump implores SCOTUS, a SCOTUS on which his two most reliable allies, Clarence Thomas and Sammy Alito, also happen to have benefitted from a lifetime of Leo’s lucrative attention, to “QUICKLY and DECISIVELY” side with him here. Poor Trump even whimpers, “I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is!” that Leo controls SCOTUS, because if he did (the post implies) Trump would lose this case.

Perhaps Trump means this as a challenge to Clarence and Sammy’s self-respect.

As I said, I got to this fantastic post late. Much ink has been spilled about the extent to which this reflects a real break from Leo’s vetting of judicial candidates. Certainly Davis has promised to find real nutjobs in this second term. The screed appeared the day after Pam Bondi wrote the American Bar Association to tell them she believed their adherence to legal standards made them biased and so would exclude them from reviewing Trump’s judicial nominees. So it may well just be an effort to roll out a wider approach to installing hack judges.

That’s an interesting and important question; after all, Trump has yet to confirm any judge this term, so it’s possible that without Leo’s diligence, Trump simply won’t stack the courts like he did his first term. It’s also true that (as this post and his recent nomination of Emil Bove makes clear) Trump’s litmus test for judges going forward will be fealty to him, not the law.

But in the short term, I’m most interested in who gets Sammy Alito in the divorce. Who gets the hundreds of judges Trump appointed his first term. Who gets Aileen Cannon. Who gets everyone else who owes a decade of career advancement to Leo’s curation and care?

I imagine, in the short term, this is meant just like it reads. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump concludes, after giving SCOTUS an order. Don’t let Leonard Leo tell you what to do, that’s my job!

But it could well backfire among judges who do owe allegiance to the networks Leo built.

Share this entry

Leo’s Lane: Balls and Strikes versus Checks and Balances

/45 Comments/in , , /by

Last week, a group of Federalist Society members kicked off the annual meeting by announcing a new group, calling itself Checks and Balances, led by Kellyanne Conway’s spouse, George.

On its face, it’s not clear what function the group will have, aside from focusing even more attention on George and Kellyanne’s differing views on the President. I assume, however, the statement the 14 lawyers signed is meant to embarrass other conservative lawyers into remembering the principles they lay out in their statement.

We believe in the rule of law, the power of truth, the independence of the criminal justice system, the imperative of individual rights, and the necessity of civil discourse. We believe these principles apply regardless of the part of persons in power. We believe in a “a government of laws, not of men.”

We believe in the Constitution. We believe in free speech, a free press, separation of powers, and limited government. We have faith in the resiliency of the American experiment.

That said, I want to look at a few details of timing and intent.

The WaPo has an article that describes why some of the signers joined the group. Attacks on DOJ, Trump’s cultivation of racists, and attacks on the free press.

As to Conway, though, it focuses on the appointment of Matt Whitaker (though also includes Trump’s claim to want to end birthright citizenship).

Other members have pointed to Trump’s ouster of Jeff Sessions as attorney general and installation of Matthew G. Whitaker as acting attorney general.

Conway, the group organizer, said, “There wasn’t any one thing; it’s a long series of events that made me think that a group like this could do some good.”

Conway has authored a series of articles attacking Trump’s politics, most recently an opinion piece in the New York Times that called Whitaker’s appointment unconstitutional.

“It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid,” Conway wrote. He similarly called the president’s plan to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional.

That’s interesting given the role multiple NYT stories have described Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo had in the hiring of Whitaker. After the NYT almost got Rod Rosenstein fired (probably relying at least in part on Whitaker as a source), it described Leo recommending Whitaker to be Sessions’ Chief of Staff back in 2017.

Leonard Leo, the influential head of the conservative legal organization the Federalist Society who has taken leaves from the role to periodically advise the president since the transition, recommended Mr. Whitaker for his job with Mr. Sessions, according to a person briefed on the job search.

[snip]

“He has the trust and confidence of any number of people within the Justice Department and within the law enforcement community, but also the White House,” Mr. Leo said of Mr. Whitaker.

Installing Whitaker as Chief of Staff last year is one of the reasons Whitaker’s appointment would be legal under the Vacancies Reform Act (though the appointment’s legality is still very much under debate), because it meant he had been in a senior position at DOJ long enough to qualify. And hyping Whitaker at that moment was a key step in prepping his installation after Sessions’ eventual firing.

NYT emphasized again, once Whitaker had been installed, Leo’s role in his installation.

At this point, let me take a detour. Most of the lawyers who signed onto Checks and Balances are thrilled with the way Trump has been packing the court with conservative judges. Which would mean, by extension, they’re thrilled with Leo’s role in the Administration (indeed, in all recent Republican administrations) for the way he has provided the Executive branch a steady supply of vetted conservatives to get approved for lifetime appointments. Conway himself has said Trump “deserves a tremendous amount of credit for that. I’ll be the first to clap my hands for it.”

Yet, in the NYT story on the group, Conway suggested that Republicans were so happy with Trump’s success in packing the courts that they overlooked other things like rule of law.

Mr. Conway, who has long been a member of and contributor to the Federalist Society, said he had nothing but admiration for its work. But he added that some conservative lawyers, pleased with Mr. Trump’s record on judicial nominations and deregulation, have been wary of criticizing him in other areas, as when he attacks the Justice Department and the news media.

“There’s a perception out there that conservative lawyers have essentially sold their souls for judges and regulatory reform,” Mr. Conway said. “We just want to be a voice speaking out, and to encourage others to speak out.”

In championing Whitaker, Leo has stepped beyond his traditional role — vetting and supporting judicial candidates — into a different one, which might either be judged as interfering in DOJ’s operations or, more alarmingly and accurately, helping the President (who has succeeded so well at packing the courts) undermine a criminal investigation into his own conduct.

Leonard Leo has stepped outside his lane. And George Conway, at least, is pushing back.

And that’s why I find Leo’s response to the group so interesting. He gave Axios a screed of bullet points talking about how offended he is by the move.

  • “I find the underlying premise of the group rather offensive,” Leo told me. “The idea that somehow they need to have this voice because conservatives are somehow afraid to talk about the rule of law during the Trump administration.”
  • “And my response to that is, no, people aren’t afraid, many people just don’t agree that there’s a constitutional crisis and don’t agree with the people who have signed up with this group.”

Several of those bullet point screeds focused on the Jeff Sessions’ firing.

  • “I measure a president’s sensitivity to the rule of law by his actions, not his off-the-cuff comments, tweets or statements. And the president has obviously had lots of criticisms about former Attorney General Sessions and about the department, but at the end of the day, he hasn’t acted upon those criticisms.
  • “He’s allowed the department to have an awful lot of freedom and independence. … He can say what he wants to say, but at the end of the day, words don’t threaten the rule of law, actions do. I’ve been to 48 countries around the world. I know a constitutional crisis, and I know what a rule of law crisis is. Lots of countries have them. This country doesn’t right now.”

Leo seems to be having fun playing DOJ kingmaker, on top of the great success he has had playing judicial kingmaker under Trump. But it seems at least some conservatives don’t believe that’s his role to play.

Update: I asked Conway about this and got a response after the post was published. He says this is not about Leo at all.

It’s a response to Trump and the need for conservative lawyers generally to say something about him. It’s got nothing to do with Leonard.

Share this entry

Dear Lindsey: Not Even Trump Gives a Shit What You Think about the Whitaker Appointment

/43 Comments/in , , /by

About the most competent thing Trump managed with his ham-handed roll out of a hatchet man to oversee the Mueller investigation was to pick someone with close ties to Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley. Matt Whitaker has driven all around Iowa with Grassley.

And somehow, Whitaker managed to have Gary Barnett, whose Linked In profile says he still works as Jeff Flake’s Chief Counsel, installed as his new Chief of Staff in time to attend Whitaker’s takeover strategy huddle, while Sessions huddled with Senate confirmed officials.

So whatever else he is or is not, Whitaker is certainly well wired with one of the committees that would have oversight on his actions.

Perhaps that’s why Lindsey Graham and CBS Face the Nation thought he’d be a good guest to opine that everything pertaining to Whitaker’s appointment is hunky dory.

Graham told “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan on Sunday he believes the acting attorney general was “appointed appropriately” and “legally,” and he’s “confident” Whitaker won’t interfere in Mueller’s ongoing investigation.

“I talked with Matt yesterday,” Graham said. “I’m going to meet with him next week when we get our schedules aligned here. I think he was appropriately appointed legally. I don’t think he has to recuse himself. I am confident the Mueller investigation will be allowed to come to a good solid conclusion, that there’ll be no political influence put on Mr. Mueller by Mr. Whitaker to do anything other than Mr. Mueller’s job. I’m confident that Mr. Mueller will be allowed to do his job without interference.”

To be clear: I’m not minimizing the degree to which Trump has eliminated one possible source of resistance to his hatchet man plan, by picking someone wired into SJC (and backed vocally by Leonard Leo, since Republican SJC members appear to answer to him).

But by picking Whitaker, Trump has affirmatively told the Senate they — and the professionals for whom they have spent the time to advise and consent — are expendable. After all, the sole reason to appoint Whitaker rather than rely on normal succession is to prevent Rosenstein from having oversight of investigations into Trump.

More importantly, while SJC could have a hearing and Lindsey promises he’ll meet with Whitaker, none of that will have an immediate effect. SJC has absolutely no way to prevent Whitaker from burning up all the norms critical to a functioning DOJ, including recusal where it clearly is called for. There’s not even a way to prevent Whitaker from trumping up some charge and firing Mueller before any such meeting happens.

And it’s not SJC’s place to judge if Whitaker’s appointment is illegal. That role belongs to OLC (whose head, Steven Engel, has already been in at least one discussion about whether it is constitutional) and the Courts. If the question gets to the latter, SJC is not among the leading entities that might have standing to challenge it.

Having Lindsey’s seal of approval might make it easier for Whitaker to last out the two months or so until Democrats take the House. But that will have zero role in whether Whitaker blows up the Constitution.

Lindsey (and CBS) think he matters here. That’s quaint.

Share this entry

In Defending His Whitaker Pick, Trump Attempts to Placate Both Republicans and Lawyers

/97 Comments/in , , /by

President Trump flew all the way to Paris to (as far as we know) sit in the US Ambassador’s residence rather than attend the World War I remembrance he had flown all that way for. The stated reason was weather — basically some light drizzle in 50 degree temperatures.

I’m reminded that the other most prominent time Trump inexplicably blew off a high profile international event — when he had Ivanka sit in for him at the G-20 in July 2017 — he used the time instead scrambling with aides about how to craft a story about the June 9 meeting.

Given the way the Matt Whitaker appointment is blowing up — on top of persistent questions about the legality of the appointment, stories about the criminal investigation into his firm, (sketchy) claims that the White House knew nothing about his comments or past when they picked him, and additional reports of Whitaker’s radical legal belief, including that states can nullify federal law — I suspect he may similarly be huddled somewhere trying to prevent the Whitaker move from making his plight worse than it already was. (Though he’s demonstrably also working the phones in hopes of squeezing an extra Senate seat out of the process.)

Which is why I’m interested in the two tweets Trump made on the topic last night.

First, while also affirming his qualifications, Trump claimed (falsely) that he didn’t know Whitaker.

Yes, his claims here are narrower than the ones already debunked by his statements on Fox News the last time he tried to install Whitaker. He now admits to knowing Whitaker. But he falsely pretends that Sessions, not the White House, picked Whitaker. And he suggests, incorrectly, that he and others at the White House (including, per the NYT, Don McGahn when he was looking for an attack dog to work Trump’s defense) didn’t have direct contact with Whitaker.

President Trump first noticed Matthew G. Whitaker on CNN in the summer of 2017 and liked what he saw — a partisan defender who insisted there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. So that July, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, interviewed Mr. Whitaker about joining the president’s team as a legal attack dog against the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

[snip]

The decision to fire Mr. Sessions and replace him with Mr. Whitaker had been in the works since September, when the president began asking friends and associates if they thought it would be a good idea, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The goal was not unlike the first time the White House considered hiring Mr. Whitaker. As attorney general, he could wind down Mr. Mueller’s inquiry like the president wanted.

Mr. McGahn, for one, was a big proponent of the idea. So was Leonard A. Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society who regularly advises Mr. Trump on judges and other legal matters. Mr. Whitaker had also developed a strong rapport with John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff. Nick Ayers, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, was a fan, too.

A team that has spent over a year claiming intermittently that Robert Mueller has a conflict because he interviewed to be FBI Director the day before he got named Special Counsel has made a guy who interviewed to be part of his defense team Attorney General.

All this creates an overwhelming appearance of a conflict, one DOJ’s ethical advisors — if they get the opportunity — would surely say disqualifies Whitaker from overseeing the Russian investigation.

So Trump, with his first tweet, is making false claims to try to deny these conflicts. It’s an appeal to lawyers — ethics lawyers at DOJ, constitutional lawyers questioning the legality of the appointment, and probably Mueller’s lawyers, who’ve been Hoovering up evidence relating to this latest obstruction of justice. This is the kind of performance tweeting Trump does all the time. It has no legal value — the lawyers he’s trying to influence will instead work with actual evidence — but it might lead his supporters to overlook egregious conflicts.

I’m more interested in his second tweet, posted 12 minutes later, touting that Republicans — most who worked or fought campaigns with him in IA — think highly of him.

Along with selling lawyers a lie, it seems, Trump feels the need to assure fellow Republicans (in the wake of losing many suburban women voters in part because of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process) that it will be worth fighting for Whitaker. Sure, Iowa politicians matter for anyone thinking of running for office. It definitely helps that the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has driven to all Iowa’s counties with Whitaker.

But the key validator here, of course, is Leonard Leo, who has been pushing Whitaker as part of a defense strategy. That is, Leo is not (yet) pushing Whitaker to be a judge, though I think it likely that’s how he expects to be paid off, which makes Leo’s involvement even more suspect. For now, though, Leo is instead pushing Whitaker to help wind down the Mueller probe.

And Trump wants fellow Republicans, who just got shellacked in the House and may not even extend their advantage in the Senate, to risk political capital to defend Whitaker, all the while blowing up a half century of conservative beliefs about appointments.

Yet, even with these two bids to placate two different audiences about the Whitaker move (and all the related bullshit about not knowing what a hack Whitaker is), Trump simply doesn’t address all the glaring problems with Whitaker, starting with the question about whether the appointment is even legal.

It’s always a mistake to underestimate Trump’s survival ability, and it may be that he’ll find a way to persuade the two audiences he’s trying to reassure that Whitaker is worth the risk.

But these tweets suggest a heavy-handed move he probably imagined would bring him salvation has just added to his headaches.

Share this entry