Clinton V Jones

Distinguished Group Of 25 Historians Advocating Removal Of Donald Trump Presidential Candidacy Under 14th Amendment Section Three Of The Constitution

admin 4 Comments

The upcoming Supreme Court case regarding whether Donald Trump should be removed from ballots in Colorado and nationwide for the Presidential Election of 2024 will be argued this Thursday, and a distinguished group of 25 historians has submitted briefs supporting Colorado in the case Trump V Anderson.

Among the reputable historians giving views supportive of such action are:

Allan J. Lichtman of American University
Nell Irvin Painter of Princeton University
James McPherson of Princeton University
Thomas C. Holt of the University of Chicago
Brooks D. Simpson of Arizona State University
Lawrence Powell of Tulane University
Peter C. Hoffer of University of Georgia
Steve Hahn of New York University

There are a multitude of conservative thinkers and authors who also believe Trump inspired the 2021 US Capitol Insurrection, and should be banned under the 14th Amendment Section 3.

The question is whether the conservative dominated US Supreme Court will follow through on their beliefs in “Textualism” and “Originalism”, or whether they will demonstrate their hypocrisy, with most observers thinking the latter will happen!

The reputation of the Court as an institution, and of its nine members, is at stake.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself in this case, since his wife was involved in the Insurrection.

And Chief Justice John Roberts should want his Court to be seen in history as reputable!

Earlier Courts unanimously repudiated Richard Nixon in US V Nixon (1974), and Bill Clinton in Clinton V Jones (1997), so the present Court has a heavy burden to deal with for history!

Supreme Court Once Again Stands Up To Presidential Assertion Of Executive Privilege, And Limits It!

Ronald 3 Comments

The Supreme Court of the United States for the third time in 48 years has stood up to a President who asserted “Executive Privilege”, and was smacked down by a court including members appointed by the President who was involved in the Court case.

First, we had US V Nixon in July 1974, having to do with Richard Nixon and the Watergate tapes, which the Court unanimously, 8-0, ordered them handed over to the Watergate Special Prosecutor and the House Judiciary Committee. This led within weeks to the resignation of Richard Nixon. Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself from the case, appropriately, as he had worked earlier in the Nixon Justice Department, but the other three Nixon appointees, Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Associate Justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell, joined the unanimous decision.

Next, we had Clinton V Jones, 1997, which involved the issue of whether Bill Clinton could be required to testify in a civil trial while in office, a case brought by Paula Jones against Governor Clinton for sexual harrassment. The Court unanimously, 9-0, including his two appointees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, ruled that he had to give testimony, and this helped to lead to his impeachment in 1998. So there was no immunity from civil law litigation for acts done before taking office, and unrelated to the office.

And now, we have Trump V Thompson, a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump against the January 6 House Committee investigation of the January 6, 2021 Insurrection, in the name of Chairman Bennie Thompson. So documents to show the series of events leading to the Insurrection are now to be made available to the House committee, as it investigates the wrong doing of the 45th President. This is a major victory, and all three Trump Supreme Court nominees—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—voted with the majority 8-1, with only Clarence Thomas in oppostion.

This is a conflict of interest by Thomas, who should have recused himself, as William Rehnquist did in the Nixon case. Since Thomas’s wife was involved in the planning of the January 6 Insurrection, encouraging lawlessness, this should be grounds for removal of Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court, highly unlikely, but would be appropriate!

US V Nixon; Clinton V Jones; And Now Trump Lawsuit Against January 6 Committee Appeal To Supreme Court!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Supreme Court has come out with two decisions in the past half century that made it clear of the limits of Presidential power!

In 1974, in US V Nixon, the Supreme Court, including three appointees of President Richard Nixon, unanimously by an 8-0 vote, declared that Nixon had to hand over the Watergate tapes to the Special Prosecutor, leading to the resignation of Nixon from the Presidency within weeks!

In 1997, in Clinton V Jones, the Supreme Court, including two appointees of President Bill Clinton, unanimously by a 9-0 vote, declared that a President had no immunity from civil law litigation in federal court for acts done before taking office. This case involved the sexual harrassment charge brought by Paula Jones against Governor Bill Clinton

Clinton’s evasiveness in testifying in court about Paula Jones led to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, and his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1998, although found not guilty by the Senate in the impeachment trial in 1999.

Now, Donald Trump wants “executive privilege” to be in effect to prevent evidence in White House records of what he was doing on January 6, 2021 involving the Capitol Hill Insurrection, to be presented to the January 6 House Committee, investigating the events of that day. President Joe Biden has authorized waiver of such privileges, since Trump is a former President.

Despite having three Trump appointments to the Supreme Court, the strong likelihood is that the Court will, unanimously, reject such arguments, as earlier Courts did involving Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

If such does not happen, which seems like a long shot, then the Court will have besmirched its reputation for the long term, and the reputation of Chief Justice John Roberts will be damaged forever.

And that will promote the likelihood of attempts to add four new members to a Court which will be the most condemned and pilloried since the time of Chief Justice Roger Taney during the Civil War!

A Glorious Day For Democracy, The Rule Of Law, And The Supreme Court Saying “NO” To A President!

Ronald Leave a comment

Friday, December 11, 2020, will go down in history as a glorious day for Democracy, the Rule of Law, and reaffirming the Supreme Court for, once again, having had the courage to say “NO!” to a President who thought he was unaccountable!

In 1974, in US V Richard Nixon, the Supreme Court ordered that the Watergate Tapes be handed over to the Special Prosecutior, by a 8-0 decision, leading to the resignation of the President. Three of the votes against Nixon came from Justices he had appointed.

In 1997, in Clinton V Jones, the Supreme Court ordered that the President testify in a civil trial dealing with sexual harassment, leading to his impeachment for lying before a grand jury. The vote was unanimous, with even the two Clinton appointees in the majority!

And now in 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously, with even the three Justices appointed by Donald Trump, throwing out the frivolous case backed by 17 state Attorneys General and 126 House Republicans (two thirds of the party in that chamber), that wished to throw out the votes of the four swing states that went to Joe Biden, insuring him of victory in the Presidential Election of 2020!

The Supreme Court has its critics, and has some members whose ethics and morals are suspect, but the Supreme Court proved its mettle in a crisis moment, and once again limited Presidential power. It prevented a dictatorship from being established by the most corrupt President in American history who, even with a potential pardon by himself (which would be illegal) or by Mike Pence, will pay the price for his violations of the law in New York State, and face likely conviction and a prison sentence!

The Struggle Of Donald Trump With Chief Justice John Roberts More Dangerous Than Earlier Challenges Of Presidents To Supreme Court Chief Justices

Ronald Leave a comment

Donald Trump has challenged Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court, just as he has challenged every other institution of government, but Chief Justice John Roberts seems well prepared to deal with Trump, if and when he gets out of hand.

It is certainly a dangerous struggle, as Donald Trump has an authoritarian bent unlike any earlier President, but it seems clear that Roberts is ready to do what must be done to keep the President within the Constitution.

Earlier in history, there were major confrontations of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson with Chief Justice John Marshall; Abraham Lincoln with Chief Justice Roger Taney; Franklin D. Roosevelt with Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes; Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon with Chief Justice Earl Warren; Richard Nixon with Chief Justice Warren Burger; and Barack Obama with Chief Justice John Roberts.

But Trump has demanded that the court system favor him in all of his executive orders, and other executive actions, but the Court has refused to back him on a regular basis, leading Trump to say that there are Clinton Judges, Obama Judges, and Bush Judges, but Roberts responding that there are no such descriptions, as all are dedicated to the rule of law, a true rebuke of the President.

On a recent executive order to deny asylum automatically to those who seek it, the Court ruled 5-4 against it, with Roberts joining the four Democratic appointments on the Court, and he has earlier upheld ObamaCare in 2012, and at other times, has sided against conservatives.

It is clear that Roberts sees the Supreme Court as “his Court”, and is concerned about the reputation of the Court long term, so one can be assured that if a case comes up against Trump trying to grab too much power, that he will, likely vote against him, as the entire Court, including three Nixon appointees, voted against him in US V. Nixon of 1974, and when the Court, including two Clinton appointees unanimously voted against Clinton in the Clinton V. Jones Case of 1997.

US V Nixon; Clinton V Jones; And Now US V Trump?

Ronald 6 Comments

In 1974, the Supreme Court, by 8-0 vote, told Richard Nixon that he had to hand over the Watergate tapes to the Special Prosecutor, which led to Nixon’s resignation a few weeks later.

In 1997. the Supreme Court, by 9-0 vote, told Bill Clinton that he could not avoid trial on sexual harassment charges brought by Paula Jones, simply because of his Presidential duties, which led to the impeachment and trial in 1998-1999.

The point of these two cases, US V Nixon, and Clinton V Jones, is that the President is not in total charge, and can be held to account by the Court system of America.

Donald Trump is about to get the same reality check, as the case involving the ban of all immigration from seven Muslim nations goes to the 9th Circuit Court, after a District Court Judge showed courage in stopping the enforcement of the President’s executive order. This is seen by most legal experts as unconstitutional, as a violation of the First and 14th Amendments, and being used against nations that have sent no terrorists to America, while other nations that have, are not included in the ban.

Donald Trump seems to think he is above the law, and his authoritarian, autocratic and tyrannical behavior must be nipped in the bud right now!