Yesterday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that an 1864 law essentially banning all abortion superseded a state law passed two years ago. Horrific as this was for women in the state, it’s a disaster for Republicans across the country, including those who support a national ban on abortion. (The only exception in this 1864 law is to save the life of the mother. But even with that one caveat, it’s worth remember that just the past year there are been cases where courts in Red states got involved to overrule doctors in what the life-risks were to women.) Let’s put this in perspective: It’s not just that this law is from 160 years ago – but Arizona wasn’t even a state in 1864, only a territory. It wouldn’t become a state for another half-century. More to the point, in 1864, the status of women was so low that they weren’t allowed to vote. That right wouldn’t come until 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed. In fact, the Arizona world of 1864, especially for women, was so incompatible with today, so draconian, that the age of sexual consent and marriage for girls in the state was 10 years old. And that’s the year Arizona will now have on the books for basically outlawing all abortion, rather than one passed two years ago. If anything can send up warning flares for the 2024 election, this was it. So high that even many Republicans in the state – and elsewhere – are expressing concern. Kari Lake, who is a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Arizona, decried the court ruling and called for current Democratic governor Katie Hobbs (who defeated Lake for the position) to start working to create a “common sense” bill that could pass the state legislature. It should be noted that Lake herself didn’t suggest what should be in that “common sense” bill – likely concerned that her “sense” isn’t as common as the rest of the state, especially since about 70% of registered voters across the country have expressed support of Roe v. Wade. This includes Republican Congressman Juan Ciscomani who joined Lake in disagreement with the state Supreme Court decision. But best of all was Steve Bannon, of all people, deeply concerned on his podcast about the ruling. Which is especially weird because you’d think he would widely embrace an abortion ban. Indeed, you’d think most, if not many MAGOPs would be singing the praises of an abortion ban in Arizona, since a national abortion ban seems to be on the party’s wish list and planning. So, why then are they so deeply concerned and upset about court ruling you’d like was their greatest wish?? Well, you see, there is a petition to put an abortion rights bill on the Arizona ballot this fall, and if it gets on, it only would need a majority vote to pass. It needs 400,000 signatures to quality – and at the moment, it has 500,000! And there are still several months to go for supporters to gather even more signatures. Now, keep in mind that special elections for abortion rights have passed by wide margins in every state where they’ve been on the ballot, including in Red states like Kansas and Ohio. Republicans have fought desperately to keep such bills off their state ballots, to no success so far – in fact, the Florida state Supreme Court just allowed such a bill to be eligible for the state ballot. And again: this Republican concern has been, as I said, even in Red states, where the losing debate has been over banning abortion after 6 or perhaps 15 weeks. Imagine now an abortion debate is over a total ban! And then remember that this isn’t a Red state, or even a Blue state, but…a Swing State. Arizona really matters this year, a lot. And not just for the presidential race, but there’s a major Senate race, as well, critical for control of the U.S. Senate. It’s between Democrat Ruben Gallego and Republican Kari Lake – hey, remember her??! No wonder the Steve Bannons of the world and others are horrified by this total abortion ban in Arizona. It’s one thing to call for it and rile up your base. It’s one thing to pretend you’re shuffling towards the center, just to get in office, where you can than push for a national abortion ban after you’re elected and safely in office. But…but…to actually have a real total abortion ban on the books staring voters in the face as they head to the polls in November, that’s the worst nightmare an anti-abortion advocate can have. Oh, my, be careful what you wish for. The issue, too, isn’t just a focus on Arizona, but across the country. For two reasons. First, Democrats can point to Arizona and show, see, this is what Republicans really want. A total national abortion ban. Elect Republicans to the Senate and House – and presidency – and this is likely what they will push for if they get control. Is that a risk you’re willing to take?? No matter how much Republicans are trying to flim-flam the public and shuffle towards the center. Just look at Arizona. See what they have there. An actual, real, true, honest total abortion ban. And second, only days ago, Trump released in shuffle-footed attempt to obfuscate his position. One the one hand, claiming responsibility for overturning Roe v. Wade (which is the main outrage for abortion rights supporters) – while on the other hand, insisting that all he supposedly really wants is for each state to decide for themselves about abortion. And then days later – WHAM!! There is Arizona ruling that there should be a total ban on abortion. Imagine him going on the campaign trail and crying out for states making the decision – as “What about Arizon???!!” is shouted out by the vast majority of women listening around the country. Not to mention all the men who support abortion right. And anyone else horrified by a total abortion ban. And the specter Arizona causes for a national abortion ban. This is what so many MAGOPs have been crying about wanting for years. A total abortion ban. And in Arizona – a Swing State, with a major Senate race being contested -- they got it. And lest anyone think I'm exaggerating the huge importance of this court decision in Arizona -- after I wrote this article offline yesterday and went to code it for posting today, I first checked my email. And there was a fundraising email for Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Arizona, Ruben Gallego. Its subject like was, "a dark day". As the expression goes: don't take my word for it, here's what the candidate himself said, and how his note opens. It's like he was looking over my shoulder...or I was looking over his -- Robert, I am incredibly disappointed. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
0 Comments
With the four major indictments against him, I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen someone claiming innocence scream and thrash and whine and fight as hard as Trump has to delay his trials from starting. He comes across like someone who falls out of a boat but doesn’t want to give away to those on deck that he can’t swim, certain he's cleverly fooling them while pounding the water, kicking frantically, going under, popping back up sputtering, flailing his arms, gasping for air, gurgling and yelling in stress, “No, no, I’m fine, this is how I do it, I'm okay, really, I can swim. I can swim. I'm just fine!!!!!!!” Gurgle, gurgle, gurgle. As has been stated often by others who deal with defendants for a living, most innocent people want their day in court as soon as humanly possible to prove their innocence and get on with their lives. And by “most” I mean everyone except those who apparently like living under the stigma of people wondering if they're a criminal felon. Now, multiply this by four trials hanging over them. And then add to that you’re a political candidate who proving you’re not guilty in four indictments, overcoming a massive political vendetta, would likely sweep you to landslide victory. But Trump has had more delaying tactics, whining, tantrums and weeping than a petulant four-year-old who doesn’t want to go to bed. Actually, no, that's not quite right. A petulant four-year-old who doesn’t want to go to bed, thinks that screaming at his parents to their faces will get them to agree to letting him stay up, and when it doesn't then opening the front door to yell out so all the neighbors can hear how awful and mean and really very nasty his parents and their bedtime rules are, and being forced to go to bed against his wishes are putting him in danger. Because, honestly, he’s not tired at all. And many people say, sir, you are the least-tired baby in all the world. Ever since Jesus. Now, to be clear, I know that the way Trump is acting isn’t legal proof of his guilt. Legal proof of his guilt would be all the evidence piled against him. As well as having been actually found liable (twice) by a jury for the equivalence of rape. And being found guilty of fraud and fined $464 million. And I know, too, that his claim for delaying is because he insists all these trials are unfair, even the ones where he’s had his guilt literally adjudicated. And further, delaying means that if he isn’t found additionally guilty before the election, then those verdicts can’t be held against him before people vote, and if wins the election he can nominate an Attorney General who’ll promise stop the investigations. (Except the state trial in Georgia, which remains a pesky bugaboo for him…) But all his reasons for delaying are a separate matter. At issue here is the whining and screaming and crying and thrashing and attacking the judges and attacking the lawyers and trying to intimidate witnesses and melting down all before any of the trials have even begun. (Well, okay, except for the ones where his guilt has already been adjudicated, and the ones hoping to get to appeal.) It’s just a bad look. And yes, that’s the politest description I can think of to describe things. It just makes it really difficult for people to defend the innocence of someone flailing that much, non-stop. Though the good news for Trump is that his defenders don’t need reality to support them. The bad news for Trump is that his defenders don't carry any legal weight. So, it turns out that Trump once more plans to sue CNN for $475 million over what he’s calling "Hitlerian" terms he claims the news channel used that were unfair representations about him after the 2020 election. Putting aside that -- this being Trump and that he, in fact, truly does now regularly use actual “Hitlerian” expressions such as “poisoning the blood” and calling people “vermin,” “not human” and "animals" -- I'd have thought Trump would have appreciated the reference, rather than sue for supposedly being insulted. His initial lawsuit against CNN was dismissed last summer. Apparently, though, Trump wants another bite at the poison apple -- for reasons unknown to rational man. After all, in dismissing the suit at the time, the judge wrote, in part -- "Acknowledging that CNN acted with political enmity does not save this case; the Complaint alleges no false statements of fact. Trump complains that CNN described his election challenges as 'the Big Lie.' Trump argues that 'the Big Lie' is a phrase attributed to Joseph Goebbels and that CNN’s use of the phrase wrongly links Trump with the Hitler regime in the public eye. This is a stacking of inferences that cannot support a finding of falsehood." The judge added that the comments were allowable because they were stated as opinion. Okay, that’s pretty brutal. A judge putting in his ruling that a link to Joseph Goebbels and Hitler cannot be considered a falsehood. And that Trump’s complaint of comparisons between his language and Hitler's do not include any false statements of fact. I believe the correct response is, “Ouch!” And Trump actually wants to go back and try again! In the middle of a presidential campaign!! Because, yes, the very thing most people want to do when running for president is debate whether or not they’re similar to Adolf Hitler. By the way, side question: how needy does a lawyer have to be in order to take this case? As for lawyers, from the other end of the equation, I suspect there is an army of lawyers lining up to defend the case. Begging CNN to take them on, saying that they'll even do it pro bono. Not only for free, but they might be willing to pay CNN for the honor of just being able to do a deposition against Trump under oath his racist, anti-Semitic and fascist tendencies and get him on the stand, sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. And ultimately, that’s the concept that makes this “lawsuit” by Trump so insane. Especially when he knows he’s already had this same suit thrown out of court. (I have to assume that it was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Trump to bring it again.) But for Trump to carry his charge to fruition, he’ll have to testify to prove that the “Hitlerian” comparisons weren’t true, that he had never said anything as bad or worse in private, that when he said other things just as bad and violent and anti-Semitic and racist and white supremacist and cruel he didn’t really mean it, and that when he enabled neo-Nazis it had nothing to do with actual Nazis. And almost worse, he’ll have to show that he was harmed by “Hitlerian” comparisons, which might be the hardest thing of all for him. Harmed?? Trump's very success in politics has been based on a foundation of appealing to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, fascists and racists. But Trump, for some unknown reason, wants to try again, and have a court debate comparing him and Hitler in the middle of his presidential campaign. Well, I say, you go for it! Now, of course, this might be one of those things Trump does for attention, and he doesn’t really plan to take this suit all the way, and is just hoping for a settlement. But if so, that doesn't even qualify as a nutty pipe dream. Because thinking that CNN would settle on a Freedom of the Press rights issue for saying things that are true, which a court already sided with them and dismissed, having found “no false statements of fact” is something that just is not going to happen. Indeed, CNN probably relishes the lawsuit, and would love to take it to court and get Trump on the stand, under oath. Which leaves the only remaining option Trump dropping the suit – which in some ways would be disastrous, as well. After all, suing someone for making “Hitlerian” allusions to you – and then you saying, “Okay, never mind, I can’t prove you did anything wrong” is a really horrific look for,,,anyone. But oh-so-much more so for a presidential candidate. Unless it's to be president of the Proud Boys. Seriously, I can’t get over this insanity in filing a lawsuit during a presidential election about comparison to your language and Hitler that has already been dismissed for having “no false statements of fact.” Trump’s depths of depravity are one thing. But when he drills that far down into the eighth level of seven-level hell to commit wounds this self-inflicted, he has no one to blame but himself. Works for me. There’s been a great deal of analysis on the Supreme Court decision yesterday that overturned the Colorado ruling that had declared Trump was ineligible to be on the state ballot for president. So, there isn't a whole lot for me to add. Especially since I wasn’t surprised by the 9-0, nor overly surprised (though a little) by the unanimous vote. I was surprised that the majority of those nine went further (which is rare for SCOTUS who usually only rule on the specific issue in front of them) and said it was only up to Congress to enact the 14th Amendment in a federal election. And I wasn’t alone in that, in good company with four of the Justices.
What did, however, stand out to me – and was something that didn’t get much mentioned in all the analysis, although it has gotten much more than I expected – was what the Court did not say. And that’s because Trump’s lawyers wanted the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the Colorado court that Trump was an Insurrectionist. And they refused to do so. They didn’t even touch it. Which means, lest it be forgotten -- it stands on the court record that Trump is officially and legally an Insurrectionist. As well as an adjudicated rapist. And an adjudicated fraud. And it can’t be repeated enough. And enough. And enough. I know that the Trump base has all of their hair-on-fire explanations why none of these are real and are all meaningless. But then, the Trump base also believes that JFK is coming back to life to run with Trump. And they’re not voting for anyone by Trump anyone. But most everyone else understands that all these things are real and true, when they’re reminded of them. Which is why it can’t be repeated enough. And enough. And enough. And enough. There are two issues at play with the troubling Supreme Court ruling yesterday, stating that they will hear the Trump “absolute immunity” argument in late April. The first is how this delays all Federal cases, which may now not be heard until after the election – something that opens the possibility of Trump shutting the investigations down if he’s elected. And the other is how will SCOTUS rule on absolute immunity.
Was this ruling a total disaster? Well...depending on how things turn out, it could be. But since we don't have a clue how things will turn out, there are several reasonable avenues to this all that suggest, if not "positives," some important perspectives that allow for better outcomes than at first glance. As for the “How will they rule?” question, as much as it’s reasonable to not remotely trust this court, which I’m sure is the valid and terrified fear of many, I have a profoundly difficult time imagining the Supreme Court – even this Supreme Court – ruling that a president can quite literally do anything and not be indicted for it. Especially when Trump’s side actually argued that a president could order the Navy Seals to murder a political rival. And even more especially when Trump’s lawyers argued that the only way that president could be indicted is if he had been impeached and convicted in the Senate first…and the Supreme Court dismissed that argument. In other words, if the Court has already rejected the argument that a president must be found guilty in an Impeachment trial before he can be indicted, that would suggest they are already saying that a president can be indicted and therefore doesn’t have absolute immunity. I’ve mostly (by far) heard this argument, though there have been some who suggest the opposite. But at this point, it’s all just guessing. They’ll announce their decision and show what it actually means. As for the delays to the trials, that is very troubling. However, there are some caveats that give me a few less concerns (while acknowledging that “a few less” still leaves a ton of concerns on the table). Not that any of this is "Good!!" Just that it isn't necessarily the unmitigated disaster many understandably feel. To be clear, it certainly could end up that way. But not necessarily. And it's important to look at all the ramifications, in order to face everything to come more effectively. One is that Judge Chutkan overseeing the D.C. will eventually be able to trim down the 88 day “waiting period” if she wants to. She may not want to, of course, but seeing how SCOTUS has delayed the case, it’s reasonable to think she will act to offset that a bit. Another is that, as much as the public deserves to know if one of the two major candidates has been convicted or acquitted of actions to help overthrow the government, one of my own concerns has been that there could be a single juror who doesn’t vote to convict, bringing about a “not guilty” verdict – which would allow Trump to brag about how this is proof he’s innocent (it wouldn’t be, it would only be that the prosecution couldn’t prove its case to all jurors) and wrongly insist the verdict was proof that it was a witch hunt. So, in some ways – admittedly a small way – there is an advantage to letting the damning charges hang over Trump’s head when people vote, as opposed to risking a “not guilty” verdict. To be clear, I’m not saying it’s better to have no verdict than a guilty verdict. A guilty verdict would be a massive deal. Just that there’s a risk of a “not guilty” verdict, or a hung jury. I should add that I know there many believe that a guilty verdict is critical before the election because of all the Republicans who have told pollsters that if Trump was found guilty of Insurrection, that would keep them from voting for him. However, I’ve never been convinced that that would be the case. Some wouldn’t, I’m sure, but I think it’s largely an empty position. Yes, I know that’s nothing more than a totally unsubstantiated guess on my part. But it seems to me that if people who see Trump with four indictments, 91 counts, a liable verdict for rape and defamation, a guilty verdict for business fraud, three penalties totaling over $550 million against him, two impeachments and everything they see of him on the news echoing Hitler and insisting he wants to be a dictator still support him despite all that, a guilty verdict – sorry, I mean a third guilty verdict! – is not enough the convince most of them that, “Hmm, y’know, now that I think of it, maybe this Trump guy really is pretty bad.” While I do think a guilty verdict would have some impact, it wouldn’t have as much as many believe. Though, yes, in a close election, even “some impact” would be valuable. But I also think there’s an important perspective to keep in mind. It’s not “good news” or a ray of sunshine hope. But something to keep in mind when feeling morose about it all. And as I was planning this article, I was extremely glad to see Lawrence O’Donnell raise the same point on MSNBC. It’s that as disturbing as the SCOTUS delay is and risks no verdict before the election, and if Trump wins, he could shut down all the Federal cases – which is a massive concern – it’s important to keep something in mind: this horrific scenario does not exist if Joe Biden wins the election. O’Donnell said that he believes President Biden will win re-election. I do, as well. I am not confident of it. And I know the election will be exceedingly close. And it would not remotely a surprise if Trump won. He absolutely could. But for many reasons too long to go into here, I think President Biden will win. (Just a very few in brief: abortion, guns, Ukraine, the GOP voting down the border bill, an improving economy, Trump is delusional and will not be getting better as the election goes on and as the pressure of his court cases and owing $550 million builds, and once there are two candidates, people will begin to focus on them more closely and recognize that one of these two men will be the next president, they’re almost the same age, and Trump is a fascist, demented, wannabe dictator who echoes Hitler.) Obviously, I could be wrong. But there are only two candidates to pick from, so the odds of me being right aren’t bad. Especially for the reasons I gave. More importantly, the point isn’t who I or Lawrence O’Donnell think will win. Because we don’t know, and it could be Trump. But the point is that, if one is feeling morose that there won’t be a guilty verdict against Trump before the election, that is only a problem is Trump wins. If President Biden wins, the Federal cases will all go on, and there will be four years to bring them to fruition. This is where people usually say to me, “I hope you’re right.” And I reply – I hope I’m right, too. But those are my reasons why I think I will be. I hope. HBO has changed its policy of releasing the Main Story video from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on Mondays, the day after the broadcast. Now, they are releasing it on the Thursdays following. So, if you didn't see the show this past Sunday, here 'tis. The Main Story was on Internet scams, specifically a scam that goes by the notable name of "Pig Butchering." (No, this has nothing to do with animals, but the victims of the scam.) The story is extremely interesting, and often very funny. (And Oliver is more self-effacing in his ridicule of himself than usual.) But it does take a darker turn when diving deeper into the scam. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|