Notices by Heidi Li Feldman (heidilifeldman@mastodon.social), page 12

“Because we are here in North Carolina, I think it is crucially important for people to recognize, not only is what I’ve just said about the danger that Trump poses, something that should prevent people from voting for him,” she said. But I don’t believe that we have the luxury of writing in candidates’s names, particularly in swing states.” - Liz Cheney today in North Carolina. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/04/liz-cheney-endorsement-kamala-harris-election/

Good evening, friends! As @tchambers has explained, finishing the month strong on fundraising is critical for the Harris-Walz campaign. A strong month, both total amount raised and number of donors, can boost additional fundraising for September. So, if you have even $5 to spare, now is a key time to donate to the Mastodon for Harris fundraiser. All contributions go straight to Harris for President. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mastodon-for-harris

Government has two legitimate purposes, in my view. First, to protect public safety so as to create minimal conditions for each of us to pursue our own goals. Second, to provide as much interpersonal justice to each of us so that social cooperation affords each of us a fair shot at success in achieving our goals. 2/

Who knows precisely why some of us care deeply about justice, fairness, rule of law, and the ideal of a wholly pluralistic democracy? For me, commitments to all of those connects with a deep respect for the dignity of persons. Nobody should be treated as a means to somebody else’s ends. Nobody should be considered the instrument of somebody else’s wealth or power. Each of us should be treated as an agent, somebody with the capacity to author their own ends.1/

The Mastodon for Harris fundraiser has raised at least $1000 a day every day this week. This is fantastic. Today, to celebrate the #Harris #Walz swing through #Georgia, which was the fourth state to ratify the U.S. Constitution, https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ga-html/, I’m seeking as many $4.44 and $44.44 contributions as possible, $444.44 if you are feeling flush! Or any contribution whose combined digits add up to 4! Gotta keep things lively…. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mastodon-for-harris

In preparation for watching the CNN interview, I’m watching g the c-span recording of Harris speaking in Savannah today. The crowd’s enthusiasm is terrific! https://www.c-span.org/video/?538024-1/vice-president-harris-campaigns-savannah-georgia

Hello friends at @KamalaHarrisWin. Are you looking forward to the full CNN interview tonight?

As gross as Trump is on Truth Social, we still have to keep track of what he does there. It is his ongoing and continuous venue for misogyny, conspiracy theorizing, and racism. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-fascism-qanon-truth-social-posting-spree-1235089984/

Well, I’m already tired of the post Democratic Convention behavior of Trump and Vance and the mostly both-sides news coverage. It is going to be a long autumn.

No wonder a federal trial court judge like Cannon felt free to ignore established law. She may believe, and be right, that this rogue Supreme Court will be only too happy to be handed a lower court decision that has already ignored existing precedent to insulate Donald Trump from criminal prosecution. 5/5

However, the current Supreme Court seems to have no trouble with at least some judges and some presidents casting the law beneath them. The current Supreme Court has been willing to radically change the law on gun control and reproductive freedom, disregarding its own established precedents along the way. It has broadened presidential immunity to grotesque and farcical proportions. 4/

I’m no defender of blind obedience to precedent. Sometimes a prior court gets an issue wrong, and a later court should overrule that earlier decision. But for a system of courts to function as legal decisionmakers rather than personal arbiters, only a high court should overrule high court precedent and then only on convincing evidence that the prior decision was wrong. 2/

I just wrote a lengthy thread explaining why Judge Aileen Cannon and today’s Republican Party want to pretend that U.S. v. Nixon doesn’t settle the question of the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment as special prosecutor in the federal investigations of Trump’s criminal wrongdoing. This question may yet reach the current U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has disregarded its own precedents so often, it will be interesting to see whether and how it holds that lower courts are to be bound by them. 1/

Judge Aileen Cannon is a district court judge, who is supposed to conduct trials according to established legal rules, including Supreme Court precedent. She is not empowered to decide questions of law however she pleases. When she ignores the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Nixon, she puts herself above the law as surely as Trump has tried to put himself above the law. 3/

Mastodon for Harris, early evening update, 8/26 - hoping to cross $550,000 before #Harris rally in #Savannah, #Georgia on Thursday. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mastodon-for-harris

Funds raised as of this post: $548,632.00
# of contributions: 6305
# of recurring contributions: 305

I’m so amazed that we have over 6300 contributions so far. That is real grassroots fundraising!

The indictment was won by a special prosecutor (the term then used for the special counsel in the case). To continue the pre-trial investigation, the special prosecutor subpoenaed materials from Nixon, notably Oval Office tape recordings, which contained evidence of what the co-conspirators had discussed about the break-in and cover-up. 4/

As a result of their effort to steal materials from the office of the Democratic National Committee, and their subsequent attempt to cover this up, Richard Nixon and officials in his administration were investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice. A grand jury indicted Nixon administration officials and named Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator in an effort to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice. 3/

The first Republican President who tried to escape federal prosecution for criminal conduct was Richard Nixon. To understand Jack Smith’s rebuttal of Aileen Cannon, you have to understand the fight in U.S. v. Nixon and the significance of Judge Cannon’s refusal to treat it as precedent for permitting the U.S. Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate and prosecute a President for criminal conduct. 2/

Note the implications of Nixon’s position. If the President is the final arbiter of the reach of a DOJ special counsel’s investigation of the President, the special counsel has no independence from the President. The President can simply decide he is not answerable to a criminal investigation or trial conducted by the DOJ. 7/

To use a technical term, Nixon argued that the fight between the special prosecutor and him was not “justiciable,” not the sort of conflict federal courts could properly hear. A justiciability challenge is threshold. If Nixon was correct, the trial court would have to dismiss the subpoena, regardless of the merits of its propriety: the court would simply have had no authority to consider how the President responded to a special prosecutor. 6/