Jill Lawrence/sconce:
Donald Trump should never have been on that stage
Plus: What would you have done if you were faced with Trump’s outrageous lies?
Donald Trump won the first presidential debate the moment he took the stage. His victory was confirmed minutes later when the hosts addressed him as Mr. President. He didn’t deserve to be there, and his presence was stark evidence that our system is not only dysfunctional, but powerless when we need it most.
Guardrails such as impeachment proceedings, the 25th Amendment, and the courts did not hold up. It has proven to be a fairy tale we make up to make ourselves feel better. They will continue to remain illusions destined to implode.
Perhaps in the coming days, when the Supreme Court will tell us whether Trump has immunity from prosecution for laws he broke while president. Maybe a few months from now, in a poll. Maybe his federal criminal trial next year will be something or nothing, but it’ll be too late to cause trouble.
Grace Panetta/19th:
‘A missed opportunity’: Groups critical to Biden’s success say they’re shaking off bad controversies
Reproductive rights groups said they were disappointed with Biden’s response on abortion during Thursday night’s debate, but that neither they nor the voters who attended Friday’s rally wanted to abandon him.
On a call with reporters Friday, leading reproductive rights advocates acknowledged that President Joe Biden’s performance during Thursday’s debate with former President Donald Trump fell short. To varying degrees, the same was true for female voters who visited the North Carolina State Fairgrounds to meet the president at a post-debate rally.
But all of them, who are central to Biden’s reelection chances, have pledged to continue supporting him, seeing him as a way to avoid another Trump term.
Biden’s speech was much more animated than his performance in Thursday night’s debate, which raised new fears about his age, mental acuity and ability to serve another term. Key advocates also Expressed disappointment at Biden’s abortion remarksThey saw it as a missed opportunity to make a strong case for the party’s core issues and attack Trump. But the next day, Democratic voters and volunteers in North Carolina said Biden’s appearance had not changed their strong support for the president and their opposition to Trump’s extension.
Will Saletan/barrier:
Correcting Trump’s Unanswered Controversy Lies
Biden was unable to fact-check his opponent in real time. But Trump’s bullshit needs to be shown for what it is.
“I would have rather accepted it,” he said of the 2020 election results, “but the fraud and everything else was outrageous.”
This again? Of Trump’s many lies, this is the most inflammatory and biggest. thoroughly exposed. The fact that he continues to do that, still enjoys the full support of his own party, and continues to lead in the opinion polls is a major warning sign for our country.
“I heard what he said [Biden] “I told you before that it was insulin. I am the one who gave insulin to the elderly.”
lol. Medicare’s monthly limit on out-of-pocket insulin costs is $35. how to reduce inflation (Trump made a mini version of this though sharply limited Voluntary: Drug plans can choose to: opt out (of the program.)
Biden “allowed millions of people to come here from prisons, jails, mental hospitals.”
nonsense. Trump’s claim is statistically invalid.
Fischer’s Limited Effect: Supreme Court’s Jan. 6 Obstruction Charge Reduction Will Have Minimal Impact, DOJ Data Says
But even if the court’s ruling invalidates section (c)(2) charges against those who attacked the Capitol, as the data below shows, the government still has many tools in its toolkit to hold those individuals criminally liable. I have it. And this decision will have minimal impact on the vast majority of cases in which people have already been convicted or prosecuted.
Rick Hasen/Election Law Blog:
The Supreme Court handed the rioters a victory in the Fisher case on January 6, but it is unlikely to help Trump defeat similar charges against him. (Should he go to trial for election interference?)
Key possession Fisher v. United States Reading the obstruction law, “the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of a record, document, object, or other thing used in the proceeding as described above. Do by that way.” Because the rioters did not interfere with the destruction of evidence, they could not have been charged with obstruction under this specific statute even if they had tried to stop the Electoral College count.
However, Trump has reportedly attempted to obstruct the process by presenting evidence of a fake Electoral College scheme, so these charges could potentially proceed. (We are still waiting for a waiver ruling that would affect those charges, and Trump would likely have run out of time before the election.)
Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine: Implications for Climate Change Policy
As the high court evaluated Biden’s greenhouse gas reduction policy, it swept away the “Goliath” of modern law and weakened the agency’s legal authority.
The decision to reverse Chevron’s acquisition A long-held wish A conservative group that seeks to reduce the role of the federal government. They are led by a network funded by the Koch family, which made billions in the petrochemical industry. When small fishing operations sued federal regulators, they were represented by conservative legal luminary Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General, and lawyers from the Cause of Action Institute, which shares an address and staff with the Koch-funded organization Americans for Prosperity.
Ironically, the 1984 case that set out the deference principle, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, It was an anti-regulatory decision. In that case, the court unanimously upheld Reagan administration air pollution regulations that environmentalists had challenged as too weak.
The rule was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, led by the late Anne Gorsuch, who at the time was a fierce opponent of regulation. Her son, Chief Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote a lengthy concurring opinion today, finding it prudent to strike down the Chevron precedent, tracing its roots in common law from ancient Roman law to King George’s efforts to control the American colonies.
“Today, the Court has erected a monument to Chevron that no one can miss,” Gorsuch wrote. “In doing so, the Court returns to the justices the interpretive rules that have guided the federal courts since the founding of this country.”
Noah Rosenbloom/Atlantic Ocean:
The Supreme Court will not stop the dismantling of government power.
The decision is Jarkesy vs. SEC It puts at risk many of the basic tasks of the executive branch.
The case began as a typical securities fraud. Radio host George Jacquesi stole money from investors by lying about their investment strategies, auditors and prime brokers, and their profits, according to an SEC investigation. To protect the integrity of financial markets, the SEC forced Jacques to return his illegally earned profits and expelled him from the securities industry. He also fined him $300,000.
The story should have ended here. Instead, two Republican-appointed judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit made Jarkesy a celebrity. In recent years, the court has repeatedly approved legal efforts by the fringe right, including a nationwide ban on access to mifepristone (a decision later overturned by the Supreme Court). This has made it a favorite forum for conservative activists seeking to use the judiciary to advance right-wing projects, chief among them attacking the federal government’s ability to regulate industry.
Matt McNeill and Matt Robison talk about changing how Democrats campaign.
