Nixon Resigned, What A Piker

President Nixon resigned OTD 51 years ago. The Supreme Court had shortly before handed down a unanimous opinion (one justice recused), written by the Chief Justice he nominated, requiring him to release the Watergate Tapes. 

The district court ordered the tapes to be turned over on May 31. Both sides appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on July 8. The opinion was handed down on July 24. And, again, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. 

(His vice president was Gerald Ford. Ford wasn't great in some ways. He earlier tried to get Justice William Douglas impeached. Ford pardoned Nixon. But, let's say Ford is no James David Vance.) 

There is little reason to think this would happen this time. The Roberts Courts over and over again slow-walked Trump cases to his benefit. They repeatedly ran out the clock. Trump, in that situation, very well could have finished his term. Two months on an accelerated basis for Trump v. U.S. could have meant an early February 2024 opinion.

Two Trump judges slow-walked for months an appeal of criminal contempt proceedings arising out of interference with a federal district court. The case involved illegally sending people to a foreign hellhole. 

A human rights violation, among other things. When will there be justice for that? Is never good for you? 

If you check out the beginning of the opinion, one name might seem familiar. Emil Bove. The f-ing asshole, to use his language, who 50 Republicans (one not voting) decided to confirm to the court of appeals for a good behavior tenured position even though there were repeated red flags. 

The decision is held up for months, but is released shortly after he is confirmed. Huh. It must merely be a coincidence. BTW, in a more just world, Judge Pillard (who wrote the dissent) would have been Ginsburg's replacement on the Supreme Court. 

Executive overreach is a real concern--perhaps now more than ever--it does not justify the judiciary responding in kind.

A conservative (sometimes labeled "libertarian") who now and then notes he is not a fan of Trump recently, somewhat sarcastically, replied to complaints that the Supreme Court is appeasing Trump. Sure. 

Executive overreach is a concern, "perhaps" it is particularly so now, but that doesn't mean the judiciary should respond too strongly. Both sides do it! He, without comment, posted the news of the court of appeals judgment.  

I think a "conservative" supports the rule of law, including not ignoring court rulings in fact and spirit. We have no Barry Goldwaters in Congress these days. We have some actual conservatives in the judiciary. Not those two.   

The specific thing addressed here is, on some level, ridiculously limited. No one ultimately got a criminal contempt. It was ultimately a statement of judicial principle. If they did, Trump could have pardoned them. The bare minimum, however, was blocked on bullshit grounds.  

Less than five years after urging rioters to “kill” police at the Capitol, a former Jan. 6 defendant is working as a senior adviser for the Department of Justice, which has been dramatically remade under the second Trump administration.

NPR has a striking, well-researched article on this guy. He isn't some simple schmuck. He had long-term federal service before he engaged in an insurrection, which under the terms of the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment should mean he was constitutionally unqualified for his latest position. The Supreme Court, however, blocked that. 

The specific decision discussed here is likely to be appealed to the full D.C. Circuit, which has a clear liberal majority. It was statistically rather strange that Trump had a 2-1 panel. And then, perhaps in another year, the Supreme Court will find it moot or something. 

Anyway, as a guy said in The Whole Nine Years, this is some shit. The battle continues, including the battle to try to get us to a world halfway like the one where Nixon got his comeuppance, helped by a Supreme Court doing its job. 

I refuse to think that will happen "never."