The Existential Threat Facing SCOTUS | The Bar That Was Too High For Trump
November 27, 2019
CALL IT LIKE I SEE IT|
The problem with being umpire is that the duty of calling balls and strikes almost always amounts to there being a winner and a loser. Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow with The Washington Post report on the legal cases concerning PRESIDENT TRUMP that they say are “moving like a brush fire to the Supreme Court.” The two cover what has been described as an “existential threat” for SCOTUS, with case after case landing at the justices’ doorstep, each testing the institution’s desire to be seen as a nonpartisan, neutral arbiter.
A REVERSE ROBIN HOOD|
In The New York Times Magazine, Jesse Barron explains “how a hedge fund’s efforts to take the island territory to the cleaners wound up before the Supreme Court — with ordinary Puerto Ricans arguing in the hedge fund’s favor.”
THE ODOR OF CRIMINALITY|
In The Atlantic, David Frum writes on the latest judicial rebukes to DONALD TRUMP — court disputes that may determine whether our current and future presidents are above the law. But Frum thinks that although Lady Justice is often depicted with a blindfold, she can still smell “the odor of criminality.” He writes, “To date, presidents have resolved the question ‘Can a president be investigated and potentially indicted for state crimes?’ by the excellent expedient of not committing state crimes. Trump has apparently found that too high a bar. And so the question will head to the Supreme Court to be addressed at last. It’s hard to imagine a favorable outcome for him in this case—or in any of the cases Trump is now fighting.”
HOT NEW BOOK REVIEW|
“Whose ‘supreme ambition is Ruth Marcus referring to in the title of her extraordinarily detailed and highly insightful new book, ‘Supreme Ambition: Brett Kavanaugh and the Conservative Takeover’? There are several possibilities.” That’s Geoffrey R. Stone’s book review in The Washington Post in which he suggests that “supreme ambition” could be a reference to BRETT KAVANAUGH or even to ANTHONY KENNEDY. Stone writes, “As in the rest of ‘Supreme Ambition,’ Marcus does a terrific job of unpacking the complex conflicts and interactions within the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FBI to present a fair-minded and evenhanded account of what went on behind the scenes.”
Thank you for being a loyal reader — and for so closely following the highest court in the land. SCOTUSDaily wishes you and your family a safe and restful Thanksgiving. We’ll be back Friday!