Mediaboss Marketing

For a fractious coalition that at times seems to be held together with spit, baling wire, and old memories of Barack Obama, the Democratic Party has a remarkably singular message: Donald Trump is an existential threat to the country.

For the Biden campaign, the existential threat to democracy has become the overriding theme in his bid for reelection. There is one existential threat: Its Donald Trump, Biden said at a fundraiser in February.

For the environmental activists in the party, climate change is the existential concern, and a Trump victory would be devastating for the planet, as Biden himself argued at Thursdays debate: The only existential threat to humanity is climate change, and [Trump] didnt do a damn thing about it.

Reproductive rights, too, are cast in existential terms. Trump poses an existential threat to abortion rights in Pennsylvania, Democratic US Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon said at a press conference in April. If given the chance, he will ban abortion across the country with or without Congress.

As it happens, I know a little bit about existential threats, having written a book in 2019 on the subject. It refers to those threats that could conceivably risk the extinction or widespread destruction of humanity.

The real way to tell the difference between an existential threat and a more ordinary one is not what people warning say, its what they do. Existential threats demand existential responses. After all, if you conceivably felt the country and perhaps even the world were truly at risk, youd presumably do everything you could to prevent that catastrophe.

When it comes to the Democrats and the left from the Biden campaign on down to the activists it is impossible to look at what theyre doing and conclude that they truly believe Donald Trump is an existential threat. And that may pose an existential challenge to the party.

Biden entered Thursday nights debate clearly losing, and its safe to say that afterward, very few people outside perhaps Bidens inner circle think the president is positioned to win this election. The debate spotlighted the one issue that voters have repeatedly told pollsters is a serious problem, the one issue Biden can do almost nothing to change: his age. And rather than seizing a rare opportunity to disprove those fears, Bidens halting, often disoriented performance did the opposite.

Cue the Democratic panic and an entire New York Times editorial board worth of columnists urging Biden to step aside. The campaign instantly said, as it has said every time these calls have been made, that the president would do no such thing, and at this point theres little reason not to believe them.

Some of this is risk aversion: A president has never called off a reelection bid this late in the campaign, and no one really knows what would come next. Some of it is presumably pride. Biden is a proud man who was on his third try for the presidency when he finally won in 2020. Giving up is not really in his DNA.

Some of it is political calculation. If the president steps aside, the logical candidate is Vice-President Kamala Harris, but Harris has struggled in office and her poor poll ratings mirror those of Biden. If the Democratic Party tries to sideline Harris and open the door to other candidates through an open convention, they risk alienating her and her supporters and opening up further wounds in the Democratic coalition.

Bad choices, all. But the nature of an existential threat is that everything else feelings, ambition, everything is put aside. Yet even as the chance of a second Trump presidency rises by the day, the Democratic political establishment does nothing. Thats not how you act in the face of an existential threat.

Its not just politicians, though. The winners of presidential elections pick Supreme Court justices, and it was obvious that a then-83-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg might not make it through the next presidential term after the 2016 election, potentially imperiling abortion rights, among other Democratic priorities. Yet Ginsburg buoyed by a number of Democratic supporters who viewed calls for her retirement as sexist refused to step down. We all know what happened later.

One would think that sitting Democratic justices would have learned from Ginsburgs example and acted differently in the face of a new supposedly existential threat from Trump. Yet Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who are 70 and 64, respectively have so far refused to heed increasingly desperate calls from writers like my colleague Ian Milhiser to step down and lock in their seats for decades. Each has perfectly good reasons to stay on, as did Ginsburg; none of those reasons make sense in the face of a true existential threat.

Nowhere is the gap between existential rhetoric and existential action greater than in climate change, which has emerged in recent years as one of the top priorities for Democrats.

You cant find a climate activist and, increasingly, a Democratic politician who doesnt frame climate change as an existential issue. With reason the worst-case climate scenarios really do represent something like an existential threat to the future of not just the US, but the entire world. And given Trumps determined opposition to actual climate policy, its fair to view his potential return to the White House as a part of that threat.

Yet there is a clear and yawning gap between climate rhetoric and climate action. On the Democratic political side, thats perhaps understandable; climate change is not a top priority for most voters, and politicians have to grapple with that fact. (You cant save the Earth if you dont have the votes.)

Too often, though, climate activists and groups end up opposing many of the new energy projects that are needed to actually decarbonize energy, from transmission lines to solar projects to wind power, often tying them up in years of litigation. The Sunrise Movement, one of the most radical climate activist groups out there, has bafflingly withheld its endorsement from Biden so far, even though he prioritized passage of the most ambitious climate bill in US history.

The groups have reasons for what theyre doing there are always reasons but if climate change were treated as the existential threat the loudest activists say it is, those reasons wouldnt matter.

Treating an existential threat as existential requires the one thing that the Democratic coalition has increasingly struggled to do: prioritization. It means putting aside personal feelings, individual ambition, and subjective preferences in favor of a single goal: success. Otherwise, its just empty rhetoric.

As New York Timescolumnist Ezra Klein, who has been pushing the possibility of an open convention to replace Biden, said on his podcast after Thursdays debate: If the fate of American democracy is hinging on this election as Democrats are always telling me it is and as I think there is a chance that it is then you should do everything you can to win it. That a strategy, any strategy, might make people or groups uncomfortable cannot be a reason not to pursue it in the face of an existential threat. Not if you believe what youre saying.

This story originally appeared in Today, Explained, Voxs flagship daily newsletter. Sign up here for future editions.

Youve read 1 article in the last month

Here at Vox, we believe in helping everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help to shape it. Our mission is to create clear, accessible journalism to empower understanding and action.

If you share our vision, please consider supporting our work by becoming a Vox Member. Your support ensures Vox a stable, independent source of funding to underpin our journalism. If you are not ready to become a Member, even small contributions are meaningful in supporting a sustainable model for journalism.

Thank you for being part of our community.

Swati Sharma

Vox Editor-in-Chief

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Read more from the original source:
Democrats say Trump is an existential threat. They're not acting like it. - Vox.com

Former President Donald Trump celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling about whether he has presidential immunity in the Department of Justice election interference case.

The court on Monday ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity for official acts but no immunity for private acts. The court sent the case back to a lower court in Washington, D.C., to figure out how to determine what constitutes an official act.

While Trump may still face trial for some charges in the case that are not deemed official, conservatives are viewing the ruling as a victory. It makes it less likely the case will go to trial before the November election. Legal analysts have said Trump could dismiss the charges in the case if he wins in November.

Trump responded to the ruling in a post to Truth Social, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"

Newsweek reached out to the Department of Justice for comment via email.

The case, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, focuses on Trump's actions surrounding the riot and his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, such as creating false slates of pro-Trump electors in states he had lost to President Joe Biden.

Trump's attorneys argued that his actions constituted official presidential acts and that he was raising concerns about the election's legitimacy in his official capacity as president. Prosecutors, however, argue that he was acting as a candidate, not a president, at the time.

The court handed down the ruling in a 6-3 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by the other conservative justices. Justices Ketanji B. Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts," Roberts wrote.

Sotomayor wrote that she dissents "with fear for our democracy," warning about the ruling's implications.

"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," she wrote.

The Biden campaign responded to the ruling in a statement.

"Today's ruling doesn't change the facts, so let's be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election," the statement reads.

"Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he's above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself."

Conservative legal analyst Jonathan Turley said on Fox News, "In reading through this opinion, I can't see how this doesn't induce cardiac arrest in the special counsel." He said the court imposed "a very significant burden on Jack Smith when this goes back to the judge" and that the court gave "much more clear lines than some people expected."

Legal analyst and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman wrote on X, formerly Twitter, "As I read it, no conduct in indictment is clearly not subject to immunity. Everything calls for a "fact-bound' analysis. Is that analysis of the allegations or something more? Even the ellipse speech could turn out [to] be immune.

Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, posted, "Hyper-partisan prosecutors like Jack Smith cannot weaponize the rule of law to go after the Administration's chief political rival, and we hope that the Left will stop its attacks on President Trump and uphold democratic norms."

A lower court will now work to determine which of Trump's alleged crimes constitutes official actions. It remains unclear how long that will take or when Trump's trial may begin.

Update 7/1/24, 11:11 a.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.

Update 7/1/24, 11:37 a.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Read the rest here:
Donald Trump's 2-Sentence Response to Supreme Court Ruling - Newsweek

A new poll shows Black voters believe President Joe Biden performed better than Donald Trump during Thursday's debate, suggesting Trump's remarks about "Black jobs" may have caused him damage with the crucial bloc.

Recent polls have indicated that former President Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee, was making inroads with Black voters, a key demographic that propelled Biden to the White House in 2020.

Although polls show that Black voters remain overwhelmingly supportive of Biden, minor shifts in voting patterns could sway races in battleground states in November's election.

A CBS News/YouGov poll that surveyed 1,130 registered voters between June 28 and 29 found that Americans overall think Trump "won" the debate56 percent said Trump performed better, while only 16 percent said Biden.

However, the poll found that when it came to just Black voters, more thought Biden had "won" the debate: 39 percent said Biden did the better job, 25 percent said Trump did, and 35 percent thought it was a tie.

Newsweek reached out to the Trump and Biden campaigns via email for comment.

The poll's results suggest that Trump's comments about migrants taking "Black jobs" during the debate may have had an impact on Black voters.

"The fact is that [Biden's] big kill on the Black people is the millions of people that he's allowed to come in through the border. They're taking Black jobs now," Trump said during the debate on CNN. "They're taking Black jobs, and they're taking Hispanic jobs."

There is no evidence to suggest that those in the country unlawfully are taking jobs that would otherwise go to American citizens.

However, the survey also reflected the impact of Biden's shaky performance during the debatewhere he spoke in a raspy voice, at times stumbled over his answers and appeared to lose his train of thoughtwhich has sparked calls for him to be replaced at the top of the Democratic ticket ahead of November's election.

The CBS News poll found that almost three-quarters of voters (72 percent) believe Biden should not be running for president, up from 63 percent in February.

Black voters were more split on that question55 percent said Biden should be running, while 45 percent said he should not.

Black voters also backed Biden over Trump in every other debate-related question asked in the survey.

Twenty-seven percent thought Biden presented his ideas clearly, compared to 22 percent who thought Trump did. However, 30 percent of Black voters thought neither candidate did.

Similarly, 28 percent thought Biden inspired confidence, while only 17 percent thought the same of Trump. But once again, a plurality of Black voters42 percentthought neither candidate inspired confidence.

But a majority of Black voters63 percentsaid only Biden told the truth during the debate, while only 10 percent said the same of Trump. Another 8 percent said both candidates told the truth, while 19 percent said neither had.

The poll had a margin of error of 4.2 points.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Link:
Donald Trump's 'Black Jobs' Remarks Have Done Him a Lot of Damage - Newsweek

It seems fitting that the Supreme Courts decision granting presidents read: Donald Trump robust immunity from criminal prosecution landed less than a day after Trump shared a social media meme suggesting that his critics should stand before a military tribunal on charges of treason. If Trump is reelected in November, the courts decision Monday would suggest that he would have enormous leeway in exacting revenge against those he dislikes without fear of criminal prosecution.

This isnt theoretical; in writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. offered this idea explicitly. It is one reason observers of threats to democracy saw a result like that in Trump v. U.S. as so dangerous. Yet in his opinion, Roberts gets that threat backward.

The President is not above the law, the opinion states. But and its a very big but under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.

Roberts dismisses criticisms offered in the dissents written by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissents, he writes, strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.

Whats more, he argues at a later point, Sotomayor and Jackson offer no constitutional basis for rejecting the idea that a president should have such immunity.

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, he notes. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a Presidents immunity from prosecution. He offers a slippery slope: Without immunity, such types of prosecutions i.e., centrally political ones of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The result would be an enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government.

These are hard to reconcile: If this hasnt happened before, why would they happen routinely in the future? Solely because Trump pressed the issue, seeking protection against prosecutions rooted in his efforts to retain power after losing in 2020? In essence, the majority opinion accepts an argument that the exceptional occurrence here was the prosecution of Trump, not Trumps actions that led to the prosecution.

This was a distinction elevated by special counsel Jack Smith in an April filing with the court.

This prosecution is a historical first not because of any assumption about immunity but instead because of the singular gravity of the alleged conduct, he wrote. Trump did something that no other president had done, crossing an uncrossed line, and criminal prosecution was a result.

The risk the Supreme Court majority identifies and seeks to address is that others might be prosecuted, not that others or reelected presidents might feel confident in ignoring the law. Instead of addressing whats happening, they excuse it by theorizing about what might.

Roberts offers a president targeting his opponents as an example of something thats protected: The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. With that sentence, Roberts apparently intended to excise one of the charges that Trump faces in his D.C. indictment. Trump allies may read that line as a subtle excoriation of what they perceive President Biden to have done. But a Donald Trump who takes office on Jan. 20, 2025, will read it as carte blanche.

Sotomayors dissent is particularly sharp in criticizing the majority opinion, in keeping with her recent public comments about dire court opinions yet to come.

Todays decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency, her dissent begins. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.

She offers examples when contrary to Robertss suggestion that this situation is novel the question of presidential criminality has emerged previously. Past special counsels have considered whether criminal charges might be brought, for example. Richard M. Nixon accepted a pardon from President Gerald Ford that rested on the understanding that the former President faced potential criminal liability. The result after Watergate was not a cascade of partisan attempts at prosecution.

The majoritys main concern could be that Presidents will be deterred from taking necessary and lawful action by the fear that their successors might pin them with a baseless criminal prosecution a prosecution that would almost certainly be doomed to fail, if it even made it out of the starting gate, Sotomayor writes, having articulated (as she has in the past) the systems checks against unfair prosecution. The Court should not have so little faith in this Nations Presidents.

But Sotomayor clearly has her own concerns about future presidents, and her warnings to that end are repeatedly pointed. The decision 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, she writes. At another point, she states that in every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

This is the outcome most concerning to political scientists and other experts when surveyed earlier this year. Presented with several ways the legal system might put the democratic system at risk, a finding of presidential immunity was the one that experts viewed as the most obvious and dangerous threat.

In the majority opinion, Roberts attempts to separate the decision from Trump. (Unlike the political branches and the public at large, he writes, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.) But the decision is inextricable from Trump, in the immediate sense that it all but ensures that Trump wont face prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election before Novembers election and in the sense that it offers Trump clear guidelines on the power he might assume should he win.

It is further a decision that comes in the moment that allowed Trump to attain power. One reason Watergate didnt trigger a partisan backlash was that partisanship was not as toxic and divided then as it is now. And, again, a reason that no president has previously been criminally charged with trying to retain power despite losing an election is that no president has previously engaged in such an effort to retain power despite losing an election.

In her dissent, Jackson notes the ways in which the majoritys decision will slot into the system as it exists.

A majority of this Court, applying an indeterminate test, will pick and choose which laws apply to which Presidents, she writes, by labeling his various allegedly criminal acts as core, official, or manifestly or palpably beyond the Presidents authority. Theres no standard offered in determining what constitutes an official act. It is like so many other things in this courts estimation something that will be decided by the courts and, ultimately, should they choose, by the Supreme Court.

A president who engages in even extreme actions in the guise of his official duties faces obvious sanction. If a president orders the Navys Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, to use one of Sotomayors examples, he is immune from prosecution. He might be impeached, but as Trump showed more than once, removal from office is unlikely barring a dramatic shift in the composition of the Senate.

Roberts is right that the question was triggered now because of exceptional circumstances. He seems to be wrong about those circumstances. And those circumstances may arise again in about seven months.

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, Sotomayors opinion concludes. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity.

With fear for our democracy, she writes, I dissent.

Go here to see the original:
Analysis | The Supreme Court gets the stakes of presidential immunity backward - The Washington Post

The Supreme Court ruled today in a 6 to 3 decision that Donald Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution, a significant expansion of presidential power. All three of the courts liberal justices dissented.

The decisions most immediate effect is that it all but ensures that the trial of Trump on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election will not be held before the November election. More broadly, todays ruling could become one of the most important decisions on the presidency in the history of the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority, said that Trump and all presidents have immunity for their core constitutional actions, and presumptive immunity for all official acts. In the election subversion case against Trump, Roberts said that the trial judge must separate the former presidents official and unofficial conduct to see which charges should still stand.

The chief justice said that such broad immunity is necessary to protect an energetic, independent executive. The courts liberal wing offered some of the harshest dissents ever filed by justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, wrote: The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.

See original here:
The Supreme Court Granted Trump Substantial Immunity - The New York Times