Reader’s Note: Please see Post immediately prior for background. As I’m just an old, retired lady and not a legal professional, I will not be providing citations, merely an overview and comments. Sorry, kiddos, you’ll have to go to AI to write your history paper!
He was Justice Robert Jackson, and in his concurrence that President Truman over-reached his presidential purview (Youngstown, 1952) he concluded with the following:
“With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations.“
I’m fascinated to learn of congressional and court deliberations and the reasoning behind decisions made and rebutted. There’s so much more available now than in the days when I was doing everything longhand and “Shepherdizing” cases via law books. We had no internet access back then, and when Lexis/Nexis came along we had to make an appointment for our librarian with a perfect query and if she agreed, she’d send the request. I actually scoured newspapers and professional journals for articles of interest to soon-to-be-fellow analysts during the half-year I was paid by our staff librarian. I sent them along as actual “clippings” hand-delivered by our own excellent messenger, Nadine, a very kind young lady with Down Syndrome who had a juge crush on Rick Springfield. Yes, I remember her well.
But I digress. Some of my favorite legal minds that I look to for insights and further reading are now online or even on television. They include the following, in no particular order: Neal Katyal; Andrew Weissman; Mary McCord; Rep. Jamie Raskin; Joyce Vance; Laurence Tribe and Judge Luttig.
Iin terms of the tariffs case decided by SCOTUS last Friday, I was particularly interested in the opinions of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch. Over the weekend I got to see (on TV) Neal Katyal, who successfully argued the case, and an analysis by Andrew Weissman. It appears that there may be some “deciders remorse” (my definition) regarding the Court’s presidential immunity ruling.
At the time, SCOTUS had witnessed the multiple indictments and impeachments of Donald Trump for various crimes and thought the president needed immunity from lawsuits based on actions within the scope of presidential duties. There was also, as I recall, particular attention given to private conversations with the Department of Justice. Now, with Trump fully weaponizing the DOJ and going after his real and perceived political enemies, it appears to me that the balance has gone totally the other way. Not to mention that I strongly believe in the rule of law and that Donald Trump doesn’t give a whit about it. Only power.
Of course SCOTUS didn’t define the scope of presidential duties. Anyway, Mr. Weissman opined that the language of Roberts and Gorsuch may provide a hint as to future issues of presidential overreach and perhaps deciding to limit or curtail them. I certainly hope so. Even though there is currently a banner of Donald Trump’s face (à la Ayatollah, Mao) gracing an entire side of Main Justice’s building downtown D.C.
I believe in We, The People and not a tyranny of one, or a theocracy. Ditto a tech bro-ligarchy. Free and fair voting (no SAVE Act) and counting of ballots. No masked goons at polling sites. If we can’t save our democracy beginning in 2026, I believe that as a nation, we’re toast.
So, write your Senators against the SAVE Act. Say it’ll hutt Republicans at least as much, if not more, than Demovrats. Get out with the people and be counted at No Kings and other protests, such as ICE Out. And if you’re not registered to vote, do so right away and vote in the primaries and in November. Write about your experience with voter suppression or whatever you want.
I’m just a legal nerd, and for a reason. My answers still come to me about 3 a.m. and I’m working on an organization that will change things, more on that in another post. Be informed! And vote like our country depends on you, because it does. Yours in respect for the rule of law, Dee
Cooking with Dee 