good morning. I'm Paul Thornton. Today is Saturday, April 27, 2024. Here's what's happening at Opinion.
To hold Donald Trump as accountable as anyone else since he emerged as a presidential candidate nearly a decade ago, and to continue the tradition and civility that have made this country's politics possible. There was a strange tension between waiting for him and allowing him to go wild. And someday we will all be able to get back to normal. We have long expected the former president to start respecting democratic “norms.”
Now, in hindsight, it appears that all that was done was impeding the enforcement of a law that he clearly violated. Thursday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing on President Trump's absurd claim of presidential immunity bears that out.
First of all, we shouldn't be here. There is no need to note that a federal law prohibiting the assassination of political opponents applies to the president, for example, because our constitutional system is subordinate. everyone To the law. Mr. Trump may be constitutionally protected from prosecution while he is in office (debatable), but once he leaves office, he will be a citizen like you and me. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made that very point in early 2021 when justifying his vote to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial.
But President Trump appeared to have a sympathetic audience at the Supreme Court on Thursday, with many of the justices during oral arguments questioning which acts of his presidency are “official” and which are “personal.” He expressed a desire to define how many people he despised. The most fundamental aspect of our democracy, the implementation of election results, can be prosecuted. The indictment of the former president by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith clearly demonstrates how Trump's actions after the 2020 election violated certain U.S. laws. Based on Thursday's oral arguments, there was no real discussion of the specific allegations made in Mr. Smith's indictment.
But because of Trump's character, the justices could allow him to avoid prosecution on some charges altogether or effectively postpone his Jan. 6 trial until after the election. be. That's unusual. Op-ed columnist Harry Littman, a veteran of the U.S. Department of Justice, summed up the hearings and noted their harsh implications for our nation's constitutional system:
“The key question heading into Thursday's showdown was whether the court's opinion would allow the trial to proceed without further proceedings. Following the arguments, that seems more likely than ever. Indeed, the court's inquiry raised the even more alarming prospect of granting broad presidential immunity that would further weaken the constitutional principle that the president is not the king.
Anti-abortion countries should not deny emergency medical care to pregnant women. The first sentence of the Times editorial also captures the chaotic state of affairs at the Supreme Court. “It's ridiculous that in the 21st century, the Supreme Court is debating how close a pregnant woman must be to death before a doctor can perform a medically necessary abortion.” But by overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, the court opened a Pandora's box, and earlier this week made it illegal to make all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or an imminent threat to the mother's life. He heard arguments regarding the Idaho state law. The editorial board reminded the judges that women are not childcare workers.
Criminalizing homelessness is unconscionable, but is it unconstitutional? In more Supreme Court news, the justices this week heard a case in Grants Pass, Oregon, regarding a law banning public sleeping. This topic was brought up by my colleague Kelly Kavanaugh in Wednesday's newsletter. Op-ed columnist Robin Abkyrian said the lawsuit illustrates a sad fact of modern America: “We continue to ignore the homeless people who live among us, and we continue to ignore the homeless people who live among us, and we continue to ignore the homeless people who live among us. “A single court's decision does not solve the fundamental problem.”
America's “big glass” dominance hinges on the fate of two powerful new telescopes. If you're feeling bleak about the state of the planet, this op-ed by Eric D. Isaacs and Thomas F. Rosenbaum, presidents of Carnegie Science and California Institute of Technology, respectively, will make you feel better when you look up at the sky. There isn't. They warn that the United States risks relinquishing global leadership in large telescope construction.
Enjoy this newsletter? Consider subscribing to the Los Angeles Times
Your support allows us to bring you the news that matters most. Become a subscriber.
Many people lie to their doctors.His father did so, but with tragic results.. Paul Culler's father really wanted to drive, but was so keen to withhold information from doctors about the severity of his epilepsy that he could prove he was healthy enough to get a license. Ta. Carrere says it ended in the worst possible way. “In 1998, at the age of 67, my father had his final seizure while driving. He caused an accident, killing the driver of the other car and himself. A woman who was a passenger in his car. He was seriously injured, hospitalized for several months, and died. It was all shocking, unnecessary, and horrific.”
California law requires police to correct these bad policies. So why didn't we do that? Six years ago, the state enacted a law requiring police to end questionable eyewitness identification practices. Todd Freese, an attorney who directs the Northern California Innocence Project, said his group has since found that law enforcement has largely failed to implement reforms to prevent the convictions of innocent people. Ta.
Other thoughts this week
From the columnist
- Jonah Goldberg: Republicans can still do the rational and right thing.this is the proof
- Jackie Calmes: MAGA Mike sings “Kumbaya” with the Democrats, but how long is it?
From the editorial desk
From the editorial committee
letter to the editor
