Also on today’s menu:
Grad Students At Dartmouth Win Labor Contract
Massachusetts Woman Charged In Elder Thefts
The case Donald J. Trump v. United States ended with the United States losing. The US Supreme Court has overthrown the US Constitution’s (and the founders’) attempt to establish a country that would be independent of a king and with a balance of power between the three branches of government. The Roberts Court, which has repeatedly weighed decisions against what they believed to be the founders’ intentions, has invented three levels of scrutiny never contemplated by the founders, that provide a president with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his core constitutional powers; presumptive immunity for other “official acts” unless the government can prove that criminal charges would not intrude on the authority of the Executive Branch; and no immunity for unofficial acts, but leaving it up to the courts — and ultimately, the Supreme Court — to determine whether an act was unofficial.
What that means is that a president can accept bribes in exchange for pardons because issuing pardons is a core presidential function; a president can pardon him/herself for the same reason; a president can ask the Attorney-General to target political enemies because discussions with the Department of Justice are core presidential functions; and a president can order the vice-president to miscount electoral ballots because a prosecutor cannot examine the president’s motives in proving that he was acting in an unofficial capacity.
A dissent by Justice Sonya Sotomayor (joined by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) stated,
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.
The historical evidence that exists on Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution cuts decisively against it. For instance, Alexander Hamilton wrote that former presidents would be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” The Federalist No. 69.
The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation.
The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune. Immune.
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
Although the court’s ruling fails “to muster any meaningful textual or historical support” for granting such presidential immunity, Justice John Roberts uses those terms to criticize the dissent: “Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an ‘established understanding’ that ‘former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.’ Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges — let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence.”
Yet in their confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh were not silent. Roberts said, “I believe that no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution, and statutes.” Alito said, “There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.” Kavanaugh stated, “No one’s above the law in the United States, that’s a foundational principle…. We’re all equal before the law…. The foundation of our Constitution was that… the presidency would not be a monarchy…. [T]he president is not above the law, no one is above the law.”
With this decision, the president is above the law, and the Supreme Court has the ability to declare it so.
Discussion: Up to this point, Trump supporters have been able to make a case that Democrats were exaggerating by saying the Trump-Biden presidential race is a choice between fascism and democracy. The Supreme Court has decimated that argument by eliminating all of the protections that existed to prevent Trump from becoming a dictator, and Trump has promised to be one “on day one” — and there would be no reason for him to stop after day one. The election is clearer than ever: Trump must be defeated.
Grad Students At Dartmouth Win Labor Contract
Members of the Graduate Organized Laborers of Dartmouth (GOLD-UE) have ratified a new contract with Dartmouth College administrators that raises graduate student wages from $40,000 to $47,000 per year, with a three-percent cost-of-living increase built in. The three-year contract also includes full dental coverage, paid medical leave, and a 40 percent contribution by the college to dependent health care premiums.
GOLD-UE formed in April 2023, representing about 800 students who work as research and teaching assistants while pursuing their graduate degrees. Their enhanced benefit package was valued at $129,035 for the 2023-24 academic year.
The new contract also guarantees financial assistance to international students to cover visa fees and required travel overseas; it provides neutral arbitration of disputes; and it includes language precisely defining job duties to more clearly delineate the line between employee and student.
Discussion: The National Labor Relations Board decided in 2016 to allow private university graduate students to unionize. Prior to that, graduate students were categorized as students instead of workers and were not eligible to seek a collective bargaining agreement.
Massachusetts Woman Charged In Elder Thefts
Rachel Chen, 25, of North Andover, Massachusetts, is scheduled to appear in the Hillsborough County-Southern District Superior Court on July 11, Grafton County Superior Court on July 22, and Merrimack County Superior Court on August 22 to face Class A felony counts of attempted theft by deception, theft by deception, and conspiracy to commit theft by deception after allegedly collecting a total of $62,000 from elderly New Hampshire residents in Merrimack, Hillsborough, and Grafton counties.
The allegations are that Chen convinced the victims that their financial accounts had been compromised. In once case, Chen allegedly conspired with an unknown co-conspirator who identified himself as a bank employee, to ask “J.S.” of Allenstown to put $22,000 in cash in a box, then Chen went to the victim’s home to obtain the box. In the other two cases, in Nashua and Littleton, the same ruse persuaded victims to put $20,000 in a box which Chen then picked up.
Chen faces a maximum penalty of 7 ½ - 15 years in the New Hampshire State Prison and a $4,000 fine on each charge.
Discussion: An indictment is not a finding of guilt, but an independent jury’s decision, after hearing from prosecutors, that sufficient evidence exists to warrant a court trial.
Café Chatter
On ‘Recalling The Tragedy’: I recall after the shock; of the talk of town 4th of July parade. Ralph was a dear and one can only wonder what could have been his future. I don't remember Glenn. As we approach our 50th class reunion, it is shocking how much we have lost. Ty Tommy.
— Louise
I liked all of them. I was very fond of Ralphie. He was a very sweet. Skip was really quiet. I enjoyed having you, Ed, and Skip next to me in English. We have lost too many already.
— Candace Skurnik
I had just gotten home from work when I saw the car speed past our house, moments later I heard the crash. Told my father to call 911 and ran to investigate what happened. I saw three people at the scene. I saw Glen on the ground and could tell by his postion he was dead but checked for pulse. He did not have one. Checked Eastward knew he had a broken leg and chest injurys and conscious. Propped him up so he could breath better and went to the third victum who was pinned between the front and back seat. Upon getting closer I found out it was Ralph. He was unconscious and had trouble breathing. I maintained a conversation with Eastward to make sure he was still conscious. Maintained Ralphs airway and kept him breathing until the ambulance arrived. Extraction equipment was necessary to get Ralph out. I did not know Ken was there until Chet Walker sr. Showed up at the scene about 1/2 hr. After the ambulance arrived. I have not told anyone about that day until now. Everytime I think of that day I wonder if I could have done anything more, maybe Ralph would have survived.
— Skip Sterner