19 Comments
User's avatar
David Roberts's avatar

Hi Kathleen,

Thanks for this cautiously hopeful essay. I join you in being grateful for Judge Nichols' rulings. We're just at the beginning here and it's important to celebrate any and all victories for the rule of law.

Expand full comment
Kathleen Weber's avatar

thanks so much David.

Expand full comment
Linda McCaughey's avatar

You mean they aren't all Mitch McConnells???

Expand full comment
SandyG's avatar

Kathleen,

Re lawyers, Asha Rangappa, who is a lawyer, put this at the top of her weekly newsletter: The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers — Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV.2.

Thought you might enjoy that.

Expand full comment
Kathleen Weber's avatar

Yep. Under ordinary circumstances, lawyers seem like a plague, but now they're the big heroes.

Expand full comment
SandyG's avatar

I've got a lotta lawyers in my extended family. I always bristled when anyone made lawyer jokes. I wanted to say to them, "If you were caught doing something illegal, or were treated unjustly by the government, you wouldn't think they were a joke."

Expand full comment
Kathryn Clancy's avatar

Thanks for the information Kathleen!

Expand full comment
Andrew Terrett's avatar

Thanks for sharing Kathleen. Resist the tyranny! Sending love from Canada

Expand full comment
Kathleen Weber's avatar

Love back!

Expand full comment
Sharon Bottesch's avatar

Kathleen, thank you for sharing this important information.

Expand full comment
CMP's avatar

I think we’re also looking at Americans with Disabilities Act violations. Federal employees who use sign language to communicate had their sign language contracts cancelled, leaving these employees without a reasonable accommodation.

Expand full comment
Andrea Allen's avatar

Of course the Supreme Court will not side with Trump on everything. I personally don’t know anyone on the left who thinks they will. And I know lots of people on the left (I live in AOC’s district. I think you should think about your own insulting stereotypes they were not necessary to this column.

Expand full comment
Steve Foman's avatar

Am I correct in assuming there will be no consequences for Trump blowing past all those laws you listed because of the SCOTUS ruling on immunity?

Expand full comment
Kathleen Weber's avatar

Most of those are civil laws, not criminal laws. So Trump would not have any criminal liability. But if there are criminal penalties attached to those laws, he would escape those criminal penalties.

Expand full comment
Steve Foman's avatar

I will never understand the logic behind that SCOTUS decision. It is literally a stay out of jail free card. I have to believe that a future court will ultimately overturn that decision because there is nothing in the Constitution that even supports it.

Expand full comment
Kathleen Weber's avatar

I do not believe that it is a wise decision either. It is based on nothing in the constitution— but there are situations that arise that are not addressed by the constitution. For example, the power of judicial review by which the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional is not found in the constitution. Also, the power to delegate legislative authority to agencies that make rules interpreting laws passed by a Congress.

One must realize that this decision recognizes three categories:

1. For private actions by a president — strangling his wife — there is no immunity .

2. For core presidential duties there is total immunity.

3. Broad Official Acts: These are actions that are part of the president's official duties but are not exclusively within their constitutional authority. These acts are granted presumptive immunity, meaning they are presumed to be immune unless proven otherwise. This description is from copilot.

This last category can produce nothing but confusion.

Expand full comment
Steve Foman's avatar

Thanks for clarifying. Bottom line is he can get away with most anything until or unless a court stops him. That’s the new world we live in.

Expand full comment
Kathleen Weber's avatar

Agreed.

Expand full comment
SandyG's avatar

Hi Kathleen, thanks for all the legal coverage. I share your interest in and study of history, the law and politics with you.

Do you have the source for the survey released Wednesday shows 26% of Republicans want Musk to have “a lot” of influence on Trump, down from 47% when the same question was asked shortly after Trump’s victory in November? The link you provided was for the 47% in November. I want to see the question asked so I can ask it of my conservative friend.

Also, I love lawyers - my dad was one. So I love "Our lawyers are always better than their lawyers.”

Expand full comment