Another chat with my friend @goldsmithpolitics (Brian Goldsmith) about the Supreme Court immunity decision, @joebiden ‘s statement tonight from the White House and the latest conversations about whether President Biden should be the democratic nominee. What are your thoughts? I’d love to hear from you, dear followers.
Since last Thursday’s debate, numerous outlets have published pieces calling for Biden to drop out of the 2024 presidential race. While The New York Times called Biden’s campaign a “reckless gamble,” the Chicago Tribune said the idea of Biden serving four more years as President was “ridiculous.” Columnists in the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and the Washington Post echoed a similar loss of faith. Even Tom Friedman, a friend of the president’s, wrote in the NYT that he “has no business running for re-election.”
Meanwhile, other elected officials and the Washington Post editorial board are saying he should continue to run and it was one bad night. “Bad debates happen,” Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA) said on Meet the Press. “The question is, ‘Who has Donald Trump ever shown up for other than himself and people like himself? I’m with Joe Biden and it’s our assignment to make sure that he gets over the finish line come November.’” At the link in my bio, we have a rundown of who could replace President Biden as the democratic nominee—and the feasibility of getting his name off the ticket. What do you all think he should, or will, do? And if this is one of the most consequential elections of our lifetimes, is he the best person to defeat Donald Trump? 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
Of course I needed @nealkatyal to weigh in even though I’m on Orcas Island (and apologize for the occasional seaplane overhead!) Neal says this is a sad day for our democracy. Watch if you’d like to hear his take.
🚨 The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald Trump is entitled to some level of immunity from prosecution, a decision that may delay the trail of the case against him on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election. The vote was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion and the three liberal justices dissenting.
The justices sent the case back to a lower court to determine which acts alleged in the indictment are official — making it unlikely that Donald Trump will go on trial on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 president election before this year’s election.
“The president is not above the law,” the chief justice wrote. “But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent executive. The president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his officials acts.”
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”
Look! Another reel by moi! (My team would be so proud!) Went to the #chihulygardenandglass and was blown away by the museum and garden! Now on the ferry to #orcasisland !! 🐋 🚴🏿 ☕️
Just back from #aspenideas (well now we’re in Seattle!) and had such a great time interviewing all kinds of wonderful, interesting people including our dear friends @paulnicklen and @mitty about their conservation efforts, @janefonda who schooled us all on climate change (and didn’t need me at all, she was gassed up and ready to go—or solar paneled up maybe?) a great panel onAI and healthcare, one that asked “Are women going backwards?” And sadly the answer is yes and a terrific convo on leadership with Indra Nooyi, Mitch Landrieu and Darren Walker. Oh and Gretchen Whitmer, the Governor of Michigan who I loved! Ran into Common too! We will feature all these in upcoming additions if Wake Up Call so sign up at Katiecouric.com. Only regret is we didn’t get a snap with Herb and Paula who came to all of my sessions! (By the way I did this reel myself so it’s not great but I tried! lol)#aspenideas#cheesysongbutistill❤️johndenver
🚨The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a former police officer who is seeking to throw out an obstruction charge for joining the Captiol riot on January 6, 2021 — upending many cases against rioters who disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election.
The justices in a 6-3 vote on nonideological lines handed a win to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants — including former President Donald Trump — who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding over the effort to prevent Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory. Roberts was joined by other conservatives and one liberal — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — in the majority. The other two liberal justices were joined by conservative Amy Coney Barrett in dissent.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must establish that a defendant “impaired the availability or integrity” of records, documents or other objects used in an official proceeding. The court sent the case back to lower courts for further proceedings on whether the Justice Department could still prosecute Fischer under the new interpretation of the law.
Fischer faces seven criminal charges, only one of which was the focus of the Supreme Court case. Even if the obstruction charge is ultimately dismissed, the other charges, including assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, will remain in place.
The ruling may not affect Trump’s case. Prosecutors said that even if Fischer wins, Trump’s conduct would still be covered by a narrower interpretation of the statute.
In addition to this ruling, SCOTUS made the following decisions: ruled in favor of an Oregon city that ticketed homeless people for sleeping outside, rejecting arguments that such “anti-camping” ordinances violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment”; and undid decades of regulatory law— making it more difficult for federal agencies to issue rules and regulations that carry out broad mandates enacted by Congress. Chief Justice John Roberts said the Supreme Court will issue the final opinions of its terms on Monday.
Talked with my friend and former colleague, Democratic political consultant @goldsmithpolitics to discuss tonight’s debate. He’s one of the smartest people I know. Take a listen and tell me your thoughts. (Sorry the video cut off at the end!)
🚨 The Supreme Court said on Thursday that it would dismiss a case about emergency abortions in Idaho, temporarily clearing the way for women in the state to receive an abortion when their health is at risk.
The case marked the first time the court heard a case regarding state-level abortion restrictions after it struck down Roe v Wade.
The decision, which did not rule on the substance of the case, appeared to closely mirror a version that appeared briefly on the court’s website a day earlier and was reported by Bloomberg.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, enacted in 2022 after the fall of Roe v. Wade, prohibits nearly all abortions with exceptions only in cases of rape; incest, or to prevent the death of the mother. The Biden administration argued the law is in conflict with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funds to provide “necessary and stabilizing treatment.”
SCOTUS issued other rulings today including: overturning a controversial Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits; ruling against in-house Securities and Exchange Commission tribunals; and blocking an Environmental Protection Agency air-quality initiative while appeals continue.
Today @u.s.surgeongeneral Vivek Murthy declared gun violence a public health crisis and called on the nation to address it with the same vigor used to reduce deaths and injuries from tobacco and motor vehicle crashes.
This advisory is the first time the nation’s leading voice on public health — the same office that in the 1960s highlighted the lethal consequences of cigarette smoking — had issued an urgent pronouncement on deaths related to firearms.
As of 2020, firearm related injuries had become the leading cause of death for children and adolescents ages 1 to 19 in the United States. Gun-related deaths for youths exceed those from vehicular accidents, cancer and heart disease.
The advisory reports that overall, deaths by guns rose to a three decade high in 2021, driven by increases in homicides and suicides. In 2022, more than half of all gun deaths were from suicide, while 40% of firearms deaths were homicides.
Mass shootings only represent about 1% of all firearm related deaths in the US, but their number is increasing. The US experienced more than 600 mass shooting incidents each year between 2020 and 2023, according to the Gun Violence Archive.
Tuesday’s advisory was released alongside statements of support from 10 different medical, public health and children’s groups, applauding the advisory for raising awareness and calling for policymakers to act. The NRA released a statement slamming the advisory as “an extension of the Biden Administration’s war on law-abiding gun owners,” and blaming “a crime problem caused by criminals.”
📹: US Surgeon General
