King Donald’s Day at the Supreme Court

In today’s newsletter, absolute power, and then:
•John Cassidy on Joseph Stiglitz and the meaning of freedom
•The crackdown on protesters at Columbia
•Trump’s ritual humiliation in court

Donald Trump is nothingif not a dreamer. In seeking to return to the Presidency, it’s as though he has reimagined America as a kingdom and himself the king, an absolute ruler whose actions, no matter how sordid, cannot be stopped or subject to prosecution in a court of law. And yet what remains most remarkable is how far down the road to fulfilling this fantasy he now is, and how many millions of Americans he has managed to carry along with him: the Republican primary voters who, overwhelmingly, chose him again as their party’s nominee; the Republican officials, such as former Attorney General Bill Barr, who, despite condemning Trump for calling forth violence and illegality in his effort to overturn the 2020 election, are nevertheless endorsing him this year; the advocates on and off his payroll who say that a federal criminal case against him must be thrown out because, as President, he had every right to seek to overturn the election. This is the Richard Nixon theory of the executive taken to its circular and oh-so-Trumpian extreme: if the President does it, by definition, it is not illegal. “I have the right to do whatever I want as President,” Trump said when he was in the White House.

The experiences of Joseph Stiglitzduring the pandemic made him rethink the ways in which Democrats ought to be discussing economic independence. “Once you reframe freedom in this more positive sense, anything that reduces a person’s range of choices, such as poverty, joblessness, or illness, is a grave restriction on liberty,” John Cassidy writes, in his latest column. “Conversely, policies that expand people’s opportunities to make choices, such as income-support payments and subsidies for worker training or higher education, enhance freedom.”Read more »

P.S. As Donald Trump’scandidacy for President unfolds as much in courtrooms as it does on the campaign trail, it’s worth considering what the public is being denied by not being able to watch the proceedings live. AsAmy Davidson Sorkin wrotelast year, “The conduct of the trials, their fairness, and their possibly damning verdicts will be at the center of the election. Transparency is crucial.”