Lawrence: SCOTUS justices of 3 GOP presidents ended Roe. ‘Your vote lives after you.’
In the latest episode of Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News, the discussion centers on the profound impact of presidential elections on shaping the Supreme Court. Lawrence O'Donnell is joined by guests who outline how Republican presidents played a pivotal role in nominating the conservative justices responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade.
The episode also examines the historical context behind Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Scholars and legal experts analyze the Founding Fathers' intent to limit executive power and ensure accountability, providing a compelling counterpoint to Trump's assertions.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Apr 11, 2024 episode of the Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
The conservative Supreme Court majority overturning Roe v. Wade
The transformative effect of presidential elections on the U.S. Supreme Court has recently been highlighted, especially with the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. According to Lawrence O'Donnell, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tammy Baldwin, and Neal Katyal, this is a direct result of the justices selected by previous Republican presidents.
Republicans' long-standing plan to take control of the Supreme Court
Neal Katyal and Sheldon Whitehouse discuss the plan Republicans have executed over decades to gain control over the Supreme Court. The Federalist Society plays a key role in vetting judicial nominees to align with conservative goals. A notable instance was the withdrawal of Harriet Meyers's nomination during George W. Bush's presidency, instead nominating Samuel Alito, which Whitehouse criticizes as a move orchestrated by right-wing billionaires and far-right pressures, to decisively shape the court.
The Federalist Society vetting Republican judicial nominees
The Republican strategy to reshape the courts dates back to the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, which led to the formation of the Federalist Society. Katyal notes this organization actively influences the selection of justices, ensuring the far right's objectives are fulfilled through these appointments.
Right-wing billionaires dominating the Republican Party
Whitehouse reproaches how right-wing billionaires sway Republican Party decisions, including Supreme Court nominations. These financial backers, he suggests, are responsible for the court consistently upholding the Republican agenda through the influence of funded groups and Amici Curiae briefs.
The critical importance of presidential and Senate elections in determining Supreme Court appointments
O'Donnell states that the appointing of Supreme Court justices by Republican Presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump is deeply rooted in the outcomes of presidential and Senate elections. The selection of justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito fostered a conservative dominance which continues to shape American law.
How past elections of Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Trump gave Republicans Supreme Court control
The nominations made by Presidents Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Trump were instrumental in creating the current conservative majority in the court, a reality that manifested in pivotal rulings like the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The enduring impact of Supreme Court justices long after a president leaves office
Katyal emphasizes the long-lasting implications that Supreme Court appointments have due to lifelong tenures. He claims Democrats have not given the courts the same priority as Republicans, which has allowed the latter to secure a strong hold in the judiciary. Baldwin underlines the importance of voting, tying it to legislative initiatives such as the Women's Health Protection Act, and signaling how President Biden's appointment of justices like Katanji Brown Jackson could similarly have lasting effects.
The importance of recognizing the enduring influence of presidential elections on the judicial branch is clearly underlined, as these past votes were consequential in setting the stage for significant decisions like the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Donald Trump falsely claiming presidential immunity from criminal prosecution
A cohort of historians and legal scholars have presented a 34-page brief to the Supreme Court, expressly opposing Donald Trump's assertion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, as it lacks constitutional merit.
Trump violating democratic norms by trying to overturn election results
The brief emphasizes that the framers of the Constitution aimed to create an executive distinct from monarchical power, ensuring the president possessed no role in elections or power transitions. There were clear assurances that the president would not be an elected monarch and democratic norms and peaceful power transfers should be upheld.
Founding fathers intent to limit executive power and presidential immunity
The historical account shows no evidence that the framers intended a former president to be immune from prosecution. To support Trump's immunity claim would disrupt the constitutional balance, allowing a president to subvert the will of the people. Neal Katyal underscores that the Constitution doesn't put the president above the law, and even Trump's lawyer has conceded that a president could face indictment after leaving office.
The brief asserts that the founding generation did not envision an ex-president to retain a special status after their term. Stanford history professor Jack Rakove stresses the importance of conveying the framers' intent to limit executive power based on British and American political thought at the time. It was crucial to balance granting power to the executive while ensuring checks were in place. Rakove contrasts this historical dedication to constraining executive power with the recent false claims of broad presidential immunity.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The Federalist Society is a conservative legal organization that plays a significant role in vetting and recommending judicial nominees to align with conservative principles and goals. It has been influential in shaping the selection of judges at various levels of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The Society's involvement ensures that nominees are aligned with conservative legal philosophies and interpretations of the Constitution. Through its network and influence, the Federalist Society has helped advance a more conservative judiciary in the United States.
- Amici Curiae briefs are legal documents filed by non-parties to provide additional information or perspectives to the court on a case. They allow external parties, such as interest groups, experts, or individuals, to offer insights that could influence the court's decision-making process. These briefs are not binding but can help educate the court on various implications and considerations related to the case at hand. Amici Curiae briefs play a significant role in shaping the legal arguments and broader context surrounding Supreme Court cases.
- Right-wing billionaires influence Republican Party decisions, including Supreme Court nominations, by providing significant financial support to candidates and causes aligned with their interests. This financial backing can sway party priorities and influence the selection of judicial nominees who align with conservative ideologies. Through donations, lobbying efforts, and support for advocacy groups, these billionaires can exert considerable influence on the party's decision-making processes. Their contributions can impact various aspects of the political landscape, including the composition of the judiciary and the direction of legal decisions.
- The overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court means that the landmark decision legalizing abortion nationwide is reversed. This decision has significant implications for abortion rights in the United States, potentially allowing states to restrict or ban abortion. The process involves a new case reaching the Supreme Court, where the justices reconsider and potentially reverse the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. This decision can have long-lasting effects on reproductive rights and legal precedents in the country.
- Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is a concept that involves whether a sitting or former president can be charged with a crime while in office or after leaving. The idea of immunity is not explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution, leading to debates on the extent of a president's legal protection. This issue intersects with the balance of power between the executive branch and the rule of law, with historical perspectives emphasizing the importance of not granting the president unchecked authority. Recent discussions, such as those involving Donald Trump, have brought this topic to the forefront, highlighting the ongoing relevance and complexity of presidential immunity in American governance.
- The framers of the U.S. Constitution did not intend for a president to have immunity from criminal prosecution after leaving office. They aimed to limit executive power and prevent the president from becoming a monarch-like figure. The Constitution was designed to ensure that no individual, including the president, was above the law. This principle was crucial in maintaining the balance of power and upholding democratic norms.
Counterarguments
- The Federalist Society's role in vetting judicial nominees is a standard practice for interest groups and is mirrored by liberal organizations that recommend nominees to Democratic presidents.
- The influence of right-wing billionaires on the Republican Party and Supreme Court nominations can be seen as part of broader political lobbying that also includes wealthy donors on the left influencing Democratic agendas.
- The argument that Democrats have not prioritized the courts as much as Republicans could be countered by pointing out that the nature of the political process and the timing of vacancies have not always favored Democratic appointments.
- The claim that presidential and Senate elections determine Supreme Court appointments could be met with the perspective that the judiciary is meant to be independent, and justices once appointed can and sometimes do make decisions that go against the ideologies of the presidents who appointed them.
- The assertion that Trump violated democratic norms by trying to overturn election results could be met with the argument that challenging election results is a legal process within the democratic system, and the courts are the appropriate venue to address such disputes.
- The idea that the founding fathers intended to limit executive power and presidential immunity might be nuanced by discussing the broad powers the executive branch has historically exercised and the ongoing debate about the scope of these powers.
- The claim that the Constitution does not place the president above the law, while widely accepted, is subject to interpretation and debate, particularly regarding the timing and conditions under which a sitting or former president can be indicted or prosecuted.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The conservative Supreme Court majority overturning Roe v. Wade
Lawrence O'Donnell, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tammy Baldwin, and Neal Katyal discuss the transformative power of presidential elections on the United States Supreme Court, particularly in light of the court's overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Republicans' long-standing plan to take control of the Supreme Court
The long-term Republican plan to control the Supreme Court started taking shape with the Federalist Society vetting Republican judicial nominees, and right-wing billionaires dominating the party’s direction, including Supreme Court nominations. Sheldon Whitehouse highlights an incident during George W. Bush's presidency when under far-right and billionaire pressure, Harriet Meyers's nomination was withdrawn and replaced with Sam Alito, shaping the court decisively.
The Federalist Society vetting Republican judicial nominees
Neal Katyal specifically mentions that following the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, Republicans launched the Federalist Society and moved actively to change the courts' configuration. The justices have often been picked by the Federalist Society, aiming to fulfill the far right's objectives.
Right-wing billionaires dominating the Republican Party
Sheldon Whitehouse criticizes Republicans for letting right-wing billionaires manipulate party decisions. The Supreme Court has been continuously delivering on the Republican agenda, with direction from billionaire-funded groups and Amici Curiae brief influences.
The critical importance of presidential and Senate elections in determining Supreme Court appointments
O'Donnell articulates how the selection of Supreme Court justices by past Republican presidents such as George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump is a direct result of presidential and Senate elections. He emphasizes the enduring influence of these justices with decisions like overturning Roe v. Wade extending well beyond a president's term.
How past elections of Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Trump gave Republicans Supreme Court control
Presidents Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Trump had significant impacts on the Supreme Court's balance by nominating justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, leading to a conservative majority. These nominations have critically shaped American law, as evident in the overturn ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The conservative Supreme Court majority overturning Roe v. Wade
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The Federalist Society is a conservative legal organization in the United States that plays a significant role in vetting and recommending conservative judges and judicial nominees for positions in the federal judiciary. Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society promotes originalist and textualist interpretations of the U.S. Constitution and has been influential in shaping the conservative legal movement. The organization is known for its impact on the selection of judges who align with conservative judicial philosophies, including those who may be nominated to the Supreme Court. The Federalist Society's involvement in vetting Republican judicial nominees reflects its commitment to advancing conservative legal principles within the judiciary.
- Amici Curiae brief influences are legal documents filed by non-parties in a case to provide additional information or perspective to assist the court in making a decision. These briefs allow outside parties, such as interest groups or experts, to offer insights on the case's implications or broader context. The information presented in these briefs can influence the court's understanding of the case and potentially impact the final ruling. Such briefs are commonly used in significant or complex cases to ensure a comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors.
- Ketanji Brown Jackson i ...
Counterarguments
- The Federalist Society's role in vetting judicial nominees is a standard practice for interest groups and not unique to Republicans; liberal counterparts also recommend nominees aligned with their values.
- The influence of wealthy donors on political processes is not exclusive to the Republican Party; both parties have influential donors who seek to shape policy and judicial appointments.
- The assertion that Republicans have a long-standing plan to control the Supreme Court could be seen as a strategic prioritization of judicial appointments, similar to how other parties prioritize their policy goals.
- The impact of presidential and Senate elections on Supreme Court appointments is a constitutional mechanism, and the power to appoint justices is not inherently partisan.
- The argument that Democrats have not prioritized the courts as much as Republicans could be contested by pointing out instances where Democrats have focused on judicial appointments and court-related issues.
- The suggestion that votes in past elections unintentionally endorsed Supreme Court nominations could be countered by the idea that voters support candidates based on a wide range of issu ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Donald Trump falsely claiming presidential immunity from criminal prosecution
Historians and scholars, including Stanford history professor Jack Rakove, have filed a 34-page brief with the Supreme Court opposing Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, stating it appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Trump violating democratic norms by trying to overturn election results
The historian's brief makes several key points, stressing that early Americans possessed a deep antipathy to executive power. It points out that the founders at the Constitutional Convention sought to create an executive without the powers and privileges of a king. The brief highlights that the framers never intended for the president to have a role in elections or the transfer of power. Moreover, it is emphasized that the few privileges granted to constitutional offices were intentionally limited.
Advocates for the new Constitution assured states ratifying the document that the new president would not resemble an elected monarch, seeking to preserve democratic norms and the peaceful transfer of power free from executive overreach.
Founding fathers intent to limit executive power and presidential immunity
The historical record does not show any evidence that framers believed a former president should be immune from criminal prosecution; such a belief would be in direct contradiction with the intentions and experiences of the founding generation. Granting Trump immunity for the alleged crimes would be considered abhorrent to the framers, as it would disrupt the constitutional balance and aid a president in overriding the will of the people.
Neal Katyal, referring to Trump's claim of being above the law, states that this notion goes against the Constitution. He mentions that even Trump's own lawyer acknowledged a president could be criminally indicted after leaving office, which means that the president is not above the law.
The brief to the Supreme Court clarifies that the founding generation intended for the president to return to civilian life without any special status after his term, much like any other citizen, reinforcing that the concept of the presidency was not designed to mimic kingship.
Rakove elaborates on the framers' specific ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Donald Trump falsely claiming presidential immunity from criminal prosecution
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Donald Trump claimed presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, arguing that as president, he was shielded from facing criminal charges. This claim was contested by historians and scholars who argued that such immunity is not supported by the Constitution and goes against the principles of accountability and the rule of law. Trump's legal team's assertion that a president could be indicted after leaving office suggests that the claim of immunity while in office is not absolute. The debate revolves around the balance between executive power and accountability within the framework of the U.S. Constitution.
- The Constitutional Convention took place in 1787 in Philadelphia, where delegates from the 13 states gathered to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and create a new framework for the U.S. government. The framers aimed to balance power between the federal government and the states, leading to debates on the structure of the executive branch and the limitations of presidential authority. Their discussions focused on creating a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, reflecting their concerns about tyranny and the abuse of power. The resulting Constitution established a government with separate branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—each with defined powers and responsibilities to ensure a system of government that would protect individual liberties and prevent authoritarian rule.
- Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The founding fathers intended to limit executive power to p ...
Counterarguments
- The Constitution's ambiguity on certain aspects of executive power and immunity may leave room for interpretation, and some legal scholars might argue that the lack of explicit prohibition of presidential immunity could imply its existence under certain circumstances.
- The principle of separation of powers could be interpreted to suggest that a sitting president should not be subject to criminal prosecution, as it might interfere with the executive branch's functioning, although this does not necessarily apply to a former president.
- The concept of executive privilege, while not directly equating to immunity, has been used to protect certain presidential communications and actions from judicial and legislative scrutiny, which could be argued as a form of limited immunity.
- The historical context and intentions of the framers, while important, may not always provide clear guidance for contemporary issues, as the modern political and legal landscape has evolved significantly since the 18th century.
- The Supreme Court has, in the past, recognized a certain degree of immunity for public officials in their official capacity to prevent litigation from deterring the performance of their duties, which some might argue should extend to the president to some extent.
- The ar ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
