The chattering class spends much time arguing over the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. USA.  The decision is clearly moderate, in which the Court chose to require the lower courts to do their job and define private and official actions performed by the president in any proceedings.  The absurd argument by Justice Sotomayer that assassination would be protected misses any reasonable reading of the prerogatives of the president under Article II.  But then the three dissenters were looking to convict Donald Trump and remove him from the presidential race.  The majority was analyzing the issues for the future and recognizing the separation of powers.

Our founders created a four-part separation of powers.  In the federal government, they created an Executive with broad powers, but not unchecked.  The Legislative Branch was given the power to create laws, not the president or the Court.  The Legislature can check the president through impeachment and conviction, through hearings to analyze executive actions, or through the power of the purse at the least.  The Court was definitively given the power to check both through its rulings, affirmed by Marbury v. Madison.  In this way, the Court could rule a law unconstitutional or an executive action beyond constitutionality. 

The fourth check is contained in the power of the states under the Tenth Amendment.  Further, the states are given constitutional rights to bring actions in the Supreme Court against the federal government and other states when conflicts arise.  This sovereignty of states is the heart of federalism and is anathema to the socialist-left politicos.  “States’ rights” was used by racists to limit voting rights of blacks and continue slavery.  But because this power was abused to maintain political power in the past does not mean the arguments for it are never valid.  The left, for instance, still argues for sanctuary cities and states for illegal migrants.  The states have the right to make pollution laws more stringent than federal ones and have differing guns laws within the Second Amendment.

On Monday, following the Supreme Court ruling concerning presidential immunity, President Biden came forth to attack the.  Do not waste your time arguing that he lied about the ruling.  After all, this is his modus operandi on most thorny issues.  But he revealed a serious problem when he mentioned that the Court had helped Trump, whom he decried and who he claimed should be prosecuted before the election.

It is remembered that several presidents have criticized the Court.  Presidents Jackson, Truman, and Obama, in addition to Biden have had severe attacks when rulings were unfavorable.  Even Franklin Roosevelt wanted to pack the Court.  Joe Biden had claimed that he was neutral and uninvolved with the legal proceedings against Trump.  His statement on Monday demonstrated his involvement from his mouth.  Jack Smith was not approved under the constitutional Appointments Clause, so he operated under the power of the Justice Department.  The 1978 law he cites lapsed in 1999, so he must be under the control of the attorney general.  Now Biden has put his foot in his mouth by advocating legal procedures aimed at getting Trump.

Further, Joe Biden now understands that he cannot defeat Trump in a fair election.  Thursday’s debate confirmed any doubts that the undecided might have had, if they watched.  Further, most polls show that alternative candidates do not defeat Trump.  The battles that would ensue should he drop out will be reminiscent of the 1968 Chicago DNC.  This is complicated by the legal issues required to change the ballots in many states.  The party politicos are worried about the effects upon the down-ballot elections.

So Joe Biden gave a speech on Tuesday concerned with climate change.  He was given another defeat on this issue related to states when a district court ruled that liquefied gas exports could continue despite the administration’s restrictions.  This means that Biden will not have carte blanche to enact his green agenda.

Therefore, Joe Biden will be campaigning against the Supreme Court.  (The White House accidentally responded to this district judge as the SCOTUS, which response was removed later.)  He will campaign against the existential threat of climate change to energize younger voters.  It will fall short, as his efforts to forgive school loans for younger voters was put on hold by two other district court judges.  But a replacement for Biden can happen only if he agrees, or the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is enacted.  If that is the case, then it will occur at the last moment to minimize any scrutiny of the new candidate, especially if it is V.P. Kamala Harris. 

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.