My colleague Brad Schneider—who has been the leading advocate for hostages in Congress—had his office vandalized, with posters of the hostages torn down. If you’re tearing down the posters of hostages, you’re not “pro-Palestinian.” You’re pro-Hamas. You’re not just Anti-Israel. You’re Antisemitic. There’s a special place in hell for those who vandalize posters of the kidnapped.
My colleague Brad Schneider—who has been the leading advocate for hostages in Congress—had his office vandalized, with posters of the hostages torn down. If you’re tearing down the posters of hostages, you’re not “pro-Palestinian.” You’re pro-Hamas. You’re not just Anti-Israel. You’re Antisemitic. There’s a special place in hell for those who vandalize posters of the kidnapped.
College administrators dripping with contempt for their own Jewish students cannot be trusted to combat antisemitism on college campuses. Columbia University: Fire them.
Administrators from Columbia University accused their Jewish students of “privilege” simply for daring to complain about antisemitism. Weaponizing the word ‘privilege’ against Jews is both insidious and invidious. College Administrators are ascribing to Jews a “privileged status” that invalidates their lived experience with antisemitism and denies them even right to complain about it. The lack of empathy for the plight of Jewish students is not a bug but a feature of a wider worldview—a deeper dehumanization of Jews—that has corrupted the far left.
Mohamed Hadid, who continues to demonize me for speaking out against antisemitism, has been caught promoting a Neo-Nazi tirade against “the Jewish Problem.” Hadid is not only an antisemite who amplifies Neo-Nazis but also a racist who once said to me: “dress as KKK to hide that grey-colored face of yours.” Hadid is as heinous as the hate in his heart.
Never be in the closet about your Zionism. Never be ashamed of it. Be proud of your Zionism!
The hyperbolic and hysterical demonization of Israel has led to a global outbreak of antisemitic violence, vandalism, and vitriol. Nowhere has the crisis been more pronounced than in NYC, which in June saw a 137% surge in antisemitic hate crimes vs. same period in 2023. More hate crimes against Jews than against everyone else—combined.
Hezbollah fires hundreds of rockets at Israel. Yet Israel is the one that is portrayed as the aggressor. Expect no demonstrations against Hezbollah for attempting the mass murder of Israelis.
Most people, who possess moral common sense, see October 7 for what it is: barbarism and terrorism. Anti-Israel academics and activists—who live in an ivory tower that robs them of moral common sense—see October 7 as “resistance,” “liberation,” and “decolonization.” The chasm between the real world and the ivory tower has never been wider.
Columbia University has three college administrators who promise to provide a safe space for everyone—except Jews; who promise to validate the lived experiences of everyone—except Jews; who promise to be sensitive to and inclusive of everyone—except Jews. The erasure and exclusion of Jews—the practice of “except Jews”—is antisemitism.
The right-wing transformation of ‘DEI’ into an epithet that denigrates people of color is deeply offensive. Kamala Harris is the Vice President of the United States. The Biden-Harris ticket was voted into office by a majority of the American electorate. The insinuation that she did not earn the position, simply because she’s a Black woman, is not only factually wrong—it is profoundly racist.
Happy July 4th to the United States of America, the greatest experiment in multi-racial multi-ethnic democracy the world has ever known. E Pluribus Unum. Out of Many One. The story of America is full of triumphs and tragedies, setbacks and comebacks, but the long arc of the American experiment bends toward progress. Perfecting our more perfect union is our collective civic duty as Americans.
When a President orders a subordinate to do anything he wishes—no matter how unethical or illegal—the President can invariably claim to be exercising a “core constitutional power,” thus rendering himself immune from criminal prosecution. If the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity is not an open invitation to the abuse of presidential power, then I am not sure what would be.
If the President orders the military to assassinate a political rival, he can claim to be exercising his “core constitutional authority” as Commander-in-Chief. If the President orders the AG to open a criminal investigation into a political rival, he can claim to be exercising his “core constitutional authority” as the unitary executive. If the President receives a bribe for pardoning a political ally, he can claim to be exercising his “core constitutional authority.” The possibilities for presidential crìminality and corruption are endless.
Regardless of where one stands on the question of President Biden’s political future, the intra-party mixed messaging strikes me as deeply self-destructive. Those publicly calling on President Biden to withdraw should ask themselves a simple question: what if the President becomes the Democratic nominee? The drip, drip, drip of public statements of no confidence only serve to weaken a President who has been weakened not only by the debate but also by the debate about the debate. Weakening a weakened nominee seems like a losing strategy for a presidential election. The piling-on is not so much solving a problem as much as it is creating and compounding one. The process by which we decide how to move forward matters as much as the decision itself.
For all the talk of textualism and originalism from the right wing of the Supreme Court, nowhere in the US Constitution is there an explicit mention of presidential immunity. The Founders were no strangers to the concept of immunity. If the Founders had originally intended to grant the President immunity, it would have done so explicitly in the text of the Constitution, just as it did so for Members of Congress via the Speech and Debate Clause. Selective textualism and originalism is the modus operandi of the Supreme Court.
No one is above the law—except the President. Criminal law applies to all—except the President. Not only is the President above the law, he is broadly empowered to weaponize the law as he sees fit. Legislators, courts, and prosecutors have been rendered powerless to stop him.
The Supreme Court went too far in granting the President absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within his “conclusive and preclusive authority.” Presumptive immunity would have been sufficient to protect the proper functioning of the Presidency without putting the President himself above the law. The Roberts Court, as usual, chose to go farther than it needed to. So much for deciding cases on “the narrowest possible grounds” with an eye toward unanimity.
Even John Yoo, a conservative lawyer, concedes that the Supreme Court’s opinion suggests that “the President can give out pardons for money.” Concerns about the decision cannot be dismissed as “hysteria” when even conservatives themselves are conceding those concerns.
Even John Yoo, a conservative lawyer, concedes that the Supreme Court’s opinion suggests that “the President can give out pardons for money.” Concerns about the decision cannot be dismissed as “hysteria” when even conservatives themselves are conceding those concerns.
The Supreme Court has held that the President enjoys “absolute immunity” for officials acts within his “core constitutional powers” or “conclusive and preclusive authority”; “presumptive immunity” for remaining official acts; and no immunity for unofficial acts. In assessing the nature and scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, lower courts will have to (a) distinguish official acts from unofficial acts and (b) distinguish official acts that fall within the President’s “conclusive and preclusive authority” from official acts that fall outside of it.
It is one thing to assert that agencies should not decide major questions without the clear authorization of Congress (i.e. the Major Questions Doctrine). It is something else to assert that agencies cannot even decide the most minor technical questions without second-guessing from the courts (i.e. the reversal of the Chevron Doctrine). The loss of the Chevron-Doctrine—even more so than the Major Questions Doctrine—is a power grab by the Judiciary, which according to Alexander Hamilton, is supposed to be “the least dangerous branch.”
The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity has implications not only for official but also unofficial crimes. Not only has the Supreme Court crippled the prosecution of official crimes. It has all but crippled the prosecution of unofficial crimes that depend on the admission of official acts as evidence. The official acts of a President have been deemed by the Supreme Court to be inadmissible as evidence.
The Supreme Court held the following: If a President acts pursuant to his constitutional authority, he enjoys absolute immunity; pursuant to his statutory authority, presumptive authority. Where in the text of the Constitution does it say that? A question for the “textualists” of the Supreme Court.
