Legal wonks clash over 'hysterical' Sotomayor dissent: 'That sounds pretty sexist to me'

Two titans of the American legal system had very different takeaways after Monday's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.

Former Trump White House counsel Ty Cobb appeared on CNN to undermine Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent for being big on "hysterical... screaming" — but dry on substance.

The court’s conservative majority ruled 6-3 — three justices were Trump-appointed — to allow for official acts to remain immune from prosecution. They left open the possibility that private acts could be prosecutable.

The decision called into question which acts are deemed official, as the 45th president has claimed in his defense of some of his criminal allegations; specifically the attempt to subvert the 2020 election.

Sotomayor's dissent wrote that the decision by the high court armed the president with monarchy powers to order the elimination of a political rival, a military coup or sell bribes to bidders: "Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

ALSO READ: Why I'm sticking with Joe Biden

"Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done," she 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.”

Cobb forcefully disagreed.

"Her dissent was a little hysterical and it really offered no analysis," he said. "A lot of a lot of screaming, no analysis. And I think that was unfortunate."

Instead, he openly wished Justice Elena Kagan would have taken on pen duties and written the document.

Harvard University constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe came down like a stack of legal tomes on Cobb for the Sotomayor slight.

"I'm afraid much as I respect Ty Cobb — I couldn't disagree more with his characterization of the dissents as 'hysterical,'" he said in a separate setting outside of the company of Cobb. "That sounds pretty sexist to me. There was plenty of analysis, much more analysis."

Tribe proceeded to grade the dissenting opinions with Sotomayor and fellow liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson an A+ and A, though he didn't say who earned which grade.

In a separate dissent, Jackson wrote that she wanted to lay out the “theoretical nuts and bolts of what, exactly, the majority has done today to alter the paradigm of accountability for Presidents of the United States.”

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Tribe's former student, opposed the dissents and went as far as to accuse the three liberal justices of having misinterpreted the majority's opinion and engaging in "fear mongering."

Roberts wrote that they sought to "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."

And he wrote that "like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity."

Watch the clip below or at this link.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

The Senate committee chaired by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Thursday voted to refer former chief White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci to be held in contempt.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a contempt resolution in a party-line 8-5 vote, with two additional "no" votes by proxy, The Hill is reporting.

The vote followed Fauci's hearing last week during which he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights 111 times, declining to answer any questions posed by the panel about COVID-19 pandemic responses, which infuriated Republican lawmakers.

Paul gave opening remarks.

"Holding a witness in contempt is a serious thing, and it should be rare," he said. "But the contempt power exists for precisely this circumstance. Oversight is not a courtesy. This committee extends or a favor a former official grants us. It is a constitutional obligation."

Committee referrals typically proceed to a full Senate vote. However, Paul indicated he plans to send the referral directly to the Department of Justice to avoid delays, the report notes before adding the DOJ will ultimately decide whether to pursue the referral and that the referral is not binding on the department.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

Obviously, this is not our first warning; indeed, Donald Trump's response to the Michigan Democratic primary fits a pattern that goes back years and will certainly progress through the general election this Fall. But hearing him rail away in theory doesn't shake the spine like seeing it in practice. And for real, it appears as though Trump is putting in serious practice time in Michigan and elsewhere, ready for gameday this fall.

As has been noted here for months, voters are furious over the state of the nation, and that goes for both Left and Right, though most on the Right can't bring themselves to lay their anger at the feet of the man almost solely responsible for the inflation, wars, and healthcare cuts fertilizing that anger. The Reds are most certainly willing to oust incumbents, witness Cornyn, Massie, among others.

Of course, the same is happening on the Left with the rise of outsiders and the Democratic Socialists (who one wishes would simply call themselves FDR Democrats, keeping the commitment, ditching the name; it would achieve everything they're looking for while reminding the country what Democrats are supposed to support and say). The latest example of blue populism is Dr. Abdul El-Sayed from already mentioned Michigan, who beat out comfy party insider Rep. Haley Stevens in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate.

Now, Trump can't even spell MENSA, never mind read a question, but he has a genius nose for political trouble. He needs MI GOP Senator Mike Rogers in office next January like he needs his Big Mac for lunch. But he also knows that El-Sayed's victory, while not definitive, negates a predictable Rogers versus Stevens race. It also signals voter anger, and that anger may finally clip Trump.

So what's a president like Trump to do in the face of a healthy democratic challenge? Well, a sick attempt to cancel the vote, of course. He's done it before, but that was to save his own immediate skin. What he has not done before is broaden his "rigged" claims to... well, save his own skin from investigations, less direct than tossing him from office.

In the face of El-Sayed's win, Trump tweeted:

“Wayne County (Detroit) in Michigan is one of the most corrupt voting areas in the United States, if not the World. It is strictly Third World!... “The Radical Left Socialist has a real shot, and don’t discount all of those fake mail-in ballots that will ‘surprisingly’ show up at the last moment."

Note that Trump nearly always reserves words like "third world," or "s---holes" for predominantly Black communities — and yes, the MAGAs love him for it. But he wasn't done; indeed, he saved his most dangerous clause:

“Get ready for another Rigged Election. In November we must VOTE FOR MIKE ROGERS, and make Michigan TOO BIG TO RIG. God Bless America!"

Whatever else Michigan might be, it will not be a landslide election either way. But, as everyone knows, to Trump, it's not the margin of victory; it's who wins. We heard nothing about his victory in 2024, narrow as it was in Michigan, Musk satellites beaming ballot counts back and forth and all. As clean as an election can be from his point of view.

This result amply demonstrates Trump's obsession with the Save Act, which — despite their protests — goes far beyond requiring voter ID; it essentially federalizes elections. But take little comfort in states retaining control of election results because Trump can nullify wins in many other ways. It just takes genius deviousness.

So it's hard to foresee exactly how Trump and company would nullify those wins, but one can imagine the military moving in to package up ballots for a "fair" recount, all the way to simply declaring that he refuses to recognize the newly seated Congress because it was all rigged. He can say he will write his own laws, not allow a Cabinet member to testify in front of a Democratically controlled committee, or ignore an impeachment. Just spitballing — unfortunately, this column lacks MENSA membership also.

It is beyond cavil that Donald Trump has done more to threaten this democratic republic by casting doubt on the election process than every Republican before him, and that's even after demanding nationalized gerrymandering to a degree that has Karl Rove popping Klonopin chased by whiskey.

Trump's doing it again, getting in earlier, softening the battlefield — no real surprise there. The real trouble comes from the dynamic mentioned above. Voters tired of incumbency rightly expect their hard-earned victories to be recognized, to do something. And just as surely as McConnell refused to have the Senate "do something" in the face of an Obama Supreme Court appointment, expect Trump — having possibly lost the Senate and House, to be prepared to refuse to "do anything" to recognize Congress's powers because "they were all RIGGED" and thus "unfair" (He hilariously tosses around the word "unfair," unaware that his own fairness appeals to him as much as spinach salad.)

But those angry voters damn sure want fairness, and they want it every bit as badly as they wanted and deserved to have Joe Biden sworn in as president. A furious wind will whip us up. We have seen that trouble manifest in the past, and it will only get worse. Except Trump has two advantages this time: First, he's had practice now. Second, as someone who is, in Constitutional theory, on his way out, he may look through his big bag of ducks and find nothing quacking.

Trouble.

Or, more accurately, more trouble. After all, in the same way the country had no experience dealing with a president who refused to leave, there might be even less for a president who refuses to participate. He has spent every minute of his political life trying to be more like his heroes, Putin, Mohhamed Bin-Salam, Xi Jinping, leaders for life, answering to no one. What better way to cap his career than going it alone without Congress. Make up his own laws, his own budget, his own foreign deals, all of it.

What? The SCOTUS is going to stop him? Pffft. He declares a national emergency, and they back out, "It's a political question."

No. That leaves us on a bit of an island, and as sincere as our beliefs, as strong as our fortitude, and as solid as our conviction, never more pure, violence becomes too possible (not the first we've seen of that before, either, but not like this). Violence is different now, mutual assured destruction without nukes. A gun may not be fired. But cell towers and satellites may go offline, power grids shut down, net inaccessible, highways closed. Federal aid is definitely off the table. It's possible to "prevent violence."

The situation has been unsustainable for a while. But in response to Trump's inaction, some states may have no choice but to act in kind. Don't seat or recognize our senators? We hope Trump doesn't miss the money we won't send in. Some have even bandied about the idea of HI, CA, OR, WA, joining BC — "Pacifica" — in an EU-Type relationship with Canada. It won't happen next year. Doesn't mean it can't happen next generation. It would start somewhere.

Anyway.

Back to Michigan. Their candidate has not even lost yet, not Rogers, nor plenty of other worthy candidates. But our more liberal proto-politicians, ones bringing a stronger anti-establishment agenda, are sending a signal that Trump can't ignore. Thus it's started already. God only knows where it finishes. One thing we mortals can know: Donald Trump won't play "fair."

The salad days in which elections settled things definitively may be as far in the past as presidents with MENSA membership.

Jason Miciak is a Raw Story Columnist, a former editor at Occupy Democrats, author, attorney, political consultant, and single parent girldad. Please follow on Bluesky, and he can be reached at jasonmiciak@gmail.com


A last-minute White House push to delay a federal ban on hemp-derived intoxicating products is fueling suspicion on Capitol Hill that the administration is protecting the business interests of a top aide's family.

As lawmakers rush to finish a stopgap funding bill before August recess, Republicans and Democrats alike are questioning why the White House reversed course after initially backing the ban signed into law by President Donald Trump, MS NOW reported Thursday.

"Increasingly, lawmakers and aides are discussing who stands to benefit from the delay," the network reported. "And one name keeps coming up in those conversations: White House chief of staff Susie Wiles."

Her new son-in-law, Bret Worley, runs MC Nutraceuticals, a major hemp products company that has urged industry allies to lobby lawmakers for a delay.

White House spokesman Kush Desai denied any involvement by Wiles, saying she has "never lobbied in favor of this or any other position on hemp with Capitol Hill." Neither Wiles nor Worley responded to requests for comment.

The stopgap bill would push the ban's implementation from Nov. 12 to Dec. 11, but Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) is pushing an amendment to strip that delay, calling the White House's position baffling since the president signed the legislation last November.

"I tried to track down the origins, but I think this is absolutely ridiculous," Budd said, adding the administration has had nine months to act.

The dispute boiled over Wednesday when Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) confronted White House legislative director James Braid during a private GOP lunch, calling the products "gas station marijuana candy," and Braid reportedly promised no further delays.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) called the exchange a "big blow up," while Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) mocked colleagues' alarm, comparing it to "Reefer Madness" hysteria and vowing to push legislation letting states regulate hemp themselves.

Democratic aides say cannabis industry representatives pushing to keep restrictions in place have also raised questions about the Wiles family connection. A New York Times report Wednesday noted MC Nutraceuticals told prospective customers the industry now has "a seat at the table" after the delay was added to the funding bill.

Most Republicans say they'll accept the short delay despite the murky rationale. Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) said he opposes hemp products generally but has no issue with "a three- or four-week delay."

Sen. Pete Ricketts(R-NE) who is co-sponsoring Budd's amendment, admitted he couldn't explain the White House's reasoning: "You'll have to ask the White House."

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}