Good morning. I'm Paul Thornton, and it is Saturday, April 27, 2024. Here's what's been happening in Opinion.
Ever since Donald Trump emerged as a presidential candidate nearly a decade ago, there's been this odd tension between holding him accountable as we would anyone else, and letting him run amok in the hope that the traditions and comity that enable politics in this country would outlast him, and one day we could all go back to how things were. All along, we've hoped that the former president would start respecting democratic "norms."
Now, in hindsight, it looks like all that's done is hinder the enforcement of laws that he so clearly has violated. The U.S. Supreme Court's hearing Thursday of Trump's absurd presidential immunity claim bears that out.
For starters, we shouldn't be here. We shouldn't have to write down that a federal law against, say, assassinating political opponents applies to the president too — because our constitutional system subordinates everyone to the law. Trump, while he was in office, may be constitutionally protected from prosecution (though that's debatable), but once he's out, he's a citizen like you and me. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made precisely that point when justifying his vote in early 2021 to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial.
But Trump apparently had a sympathetic audience Thursday at the Supreme Court , where many of the justices during oral arguments expressed a desire to define which acts taken as president count as "official," which are "personal," and to what extent someone who flouted the most fundamental aspect of our democracy — carrying out election results — can be prosecuted. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith's indictment of the former president clearly lays out how Trump's conduct after the 2020 election violated specific U.S. laws. By my listening to the oral arguments Thursday, there's no real debate over the specific allegations made in Smith's indictment.
But because of who he is, the justices may allow Trump to avoid prosecution on some charges altogether or in effect delay his Jan. 6 trial until after the election. That is extraordinary. Op-ed columnist Harry Litman, a veteran of the U.S. Justice Department, recaps the hearing and lays out the grim implications for our constitutional system:
"Going into Thursday's showdown, the critical question was whether the court's opinion would permit the trial to go forward without further proceedings. In the wake of the arguments, that seems more unlikely than ever. Indeed, the court's questions raised the additional alarming prospect that it could confer the kind of expansive presidential immunity that would further weaken the constitutional principle that a president is not a king."
Antiabortion states should not deny pregnant women emergency care. The first sentence of this Times editorial also captures the disorienting state of the Supreme Court: "It's absurd that in the 21st century, the Supreme Court is debating how close to death pregnant women need to be before doctors can perform a medically necessary abortion." But in overturning Roe vs. Wade in 2022, the court opened a Pandora's box, and earlier this week it heard arguments on an Idaho law outlawing all abortions except in cases of rape, incest or imminent threat to the life of the mother. The editorial board reminds the justices: Women are not incubators.
Criminalizing homelessness is unconscionable, but is it unconstitutional? In yet further Supreme Court news, the justices heard a case this week on the law against sleeping in public in Grants Pass, Ore., a topic covered by my colleague Kerry Cavanaugh in Wednesday's newsletter. Op-ed columnist Robin Abcarian says the case demonstrates a sad fact of modern America: "We continue to fail the homeless people who live among us, and no single court ruling in the world is going to solve the underlying issues."
America's "big glass" dominance hangs on the fate of two powerful new telescopes. If the situation on terra firma feels bleak, you won't feel much better looking skyward after reading the op-ed article by the respective presidents of Carnegie Science and Caltech, Eric D. Isaacs and Thomas F. Rosenbaum. They warn that the U.S. risks ceding its global leadership on building large telescopes.
Enjoying this newsletter? Consider subscribing to the Los Angeles Times
Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most. Become a subscriber.
Lots of people lie to their doctors. His father did — with tragic results. Paul Karrer's dad really wanted to drive — so much that he withheld information from his doctor about the severity of his epilepsy, allowing him to be certified healthy enough for a license. Karrer says that ended in the worst way possible: "In 1998, when he was 67, my father had his final seizure while driving. He caused an accident, killing the driver of the other car, and himself. The passenger in his car was severely injured and spent months in the hospital before she died. It was all shocking, unnecessary and horrible."
California law requires police to fix these bad policies. So why haven't they? Six years ago, the state enacted legislation calling for the end of dubious witness identification practices by police. Todd Fries, an attorney who directs the Northern California Innocence Project, says his group has since found that law enforcement agencies have largely failed to implement reforms meant to prevent the conviction of innocent people.
More from this week in opinion
From our columnists
- Jonah Goldberg: The GOP can still do what's rational and right. Here's the proof
- Jackie Calmes: MAGA Mike sings a chorus of "Kumbaya" with the Democrats, but for how long?
From the op-ed desk
From the editorial board
Letters to the editor
No comments:
Post a Comment