Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts

Monday, October 12, 2026

The Pardon Is the Crime Scene: How America Ends Impunity for Good

On September 8, 1974, Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon "to heal the nation." He healed nothing. He wrote an instruction manual, and its lesson has been absorbed by every aspiring authoritarian since: rise high enough and the law stops at your door.

I'll say outright, NO human being, not just American citizens within the confines of our borders, should be illegally harmed or even detained. I'll ignore for the moment all those who have been and will continue to be illegally harmed and/or confined by this President, Donald Trump.

Donald Trump read that manual cover to cover. If we fail to act now, the next one will have memorized it.

The Record

This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of evidence, much of it in Trump's own voice.

He called Georgia's Secretary of State and pressed him to "find" 11,780 votes. He organized slates of fake electors in seven states. His own attorney general, Bill Barr, told him the fraud claims were baseless. His own vice president refused to overturn the count. Trump summoned a crowd to Washington, sent it to the Capitol, and for 187 minutes did nothing while it attacked the building and hunted Mike Pence. 

He took classified documents to Mar-a-Lago and obstructed their return. On tape, he admitted he wanted to "play down" a virus he knew was deadly. His own coronavirus response coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx, later said most American COVID deaths after the first 100,000 could have been mitigated or substantially reduced.

A New York jury convicted him on 34 felony counts. Federal grand juries indicted him twice. Much of the key testimony came from Republicans who served him.

The Escape

Then the system failed, one piece at a time.

The Supreme Court handed him immunity. The federal cases evaporated when he won back the White House. And on his first day back in office, he pardoned or commuted the sentences of roughly 1,500 people charged over January 6, including leaders convicted by juries of seditious conspiracy.

Read that again. Men convicted of conspiring to overthrow the United States government walked free on one man's signature. That isn't a loophole. It's a recruitment pitch. Every future would-be autocrat now knows he can raise a loyal army with a single promise: do what I ask, and I will erase your crimes.

Severity Isn't the Problem. Impunity Is.

Many Americans, furious and exhausted, want the harshest punishment imaginable. History shows what actually fails. South Korea sentenced former dictator Chun Doo-hwan to death in 1996 for his coup and the Gwangju massacre. He was pardoned in 1997. The harshest sentence on earth meant nothing because it could be undone.

Now look at the democracies that got it right. Brazil convicted Jair Bolsonaro for plotting to overturn his election and sentenced him to 27 years. Peru imprisoned Alberto Fujimori. South Korea imprisoned two more former presidents. France sent Nicolas Sarkozy to a cell. Each proved what America has never once proved: a head of state can walk into a courtroom a powerful man and walk out a prisoner.

Criminologists have said it for decades. Certainty of punishment deters. Severity adds little. The autocrat's calculation is never "twenty years or worse?" It's "will anything happen to me at all?" In America the answer has always been no. That's what has to change.

Why This Moment Is Singular

Nixon resigned in disgrace, abandoned by his own party. Trump survived two impeachments, a felony conviction, and four indictments, and came back stronger. That has never happened before in American history. MaGA isn't a policy platform. It's a loyalty structure built on the belief that its leader stands above the law, and every escape confirms that belief.

The next version will be smarter. Deadlier.

He'll be disciplined where Trump was chaotic. Consider if it had been Steve Bannon, not Trump, elected.

Whoever it is, he'll arrive with AI tools that can produce propaganda at industrial scale, target every voter individually, and flood the information space faster than any fact-checker can respond. He'll have studied which guardrails bent and which broke. If the lesson he learns is that pardons and immunity will protect him, we won't get another chance to teach a different one.

The Court That Built the Shield

In July 2024, six justices did something no Congress and no founder ever did. They invented presidential immunity from criminal law. Trump v. United States grants absolute immunity for a president's "core" constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts. It even bars prosecutors from using official acts as evidence of other crimes.

The word "immunity" appears nowhere in the Constitution. The framers debated shielding the executive and rejected it. They had just fought a war against a king who couldn't be prosecuted.

Justice Sotomayor's dissent spelled out the consequence. Under this ruling, a president who orders the military to assassinate a political rival may be immune. She closed with five words every American should know: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

The Court that issued this ruling isn't beyond the reach of the people. The Constitution gives us every tool we need.

Fix the Court, and the Reversal Follows

The Supreme Court is the only federal court with no binding code of ethics, and it shows. Justice Thomas accepted years of undisclosed luxury travel and gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow. He refused to recuse himself from January 6 cases even though his wife, Ginni Thomas, had pressed the White House chief of staff to fight the election results. Justice Alito's homes flew flags associated with the Stop the Steal movement.

Congress must pass a binding, enforceable ethics code for the justices. Where the documented conduct warrants it, the House must use its impeachment power. Impeachment exists precisely for judges who place themselves above the rules every other federal judge obeys.

Congress must also restructure the Court. The Constitution doesn't fix it at nine seats. Congress set that number by statute in 1869, and it has ranged from six to ten. Staggered 18-year term limits would give every president two appointments per term and end the lottery of lifetime seats. Expansion remains on the table. A Court reformed and accountable to ethics law is a Court that will revisit Trump v. United States, and a ruling this indefensible won't survive honest review.

The People Have the Final Word

We don't have to wait for the Court. When the Supreme Court gets the Constitution wrong, the people can correct it, and we've done it before. The Eleventh Amendment reversed Chisholm v. Georgia. The Fourteenth buried Dred Scott. The Sixteenth overturned a ruling that struck down the income tax. The Twenty-Sixth passed in about three months after the Court divided over the voting age.

Trump v. United States belongs on that list.

What Accountability Must Mean

  1. Prosecution without exceptions. When legal barriers fall, every provable crime committed by Trump and those who conspired with him must be charged and tried in open court, with the full evidentiary record placed before the public.
  2. Maximum lawful sentences, served in full. No plea deals trading prison for a quiet exit. No "healing the nation." We tried healing in 1974, and it brought us 2021.
    1. Capital Punishment - While it won't stop the next Trump, it will forewarn and help to wake up the body politic about what they are doing, who they are liking, and for a change where this has previously led.
  3. A constitutional amendment that closes every escape hatch:
    • No president is immune from criminal prosecution for violating federal law.
    • No president may pardon himself, his family, or anyone for offenses connected to an election, the transfer of power, or crimes committed at his direction.
    • The statute of limitations for federal crimes is suspended while the offender holds office.
    • Anyone convicted of insurrection, seditious conspiracy, or election subversion is permanently barred from federal office.
  4. A reformed Court: binding ethics, term limits, impeachment where conduct demands it.
  5. A permanent public record. Germany didn't reject Nazism because of a few verdicts in 1946. Most Germans at first dismissed Nuremberg as victors' justice. What changed the nation was decades of confronting the documented record in courts, classrooms, and law. America needs its own permanent record of what happened, taught and preserved, so no future generation can be told it was a hoax.

What They'll Say, and the Answer

"It's a witch hunt." The evidence came from grand juries, Republican-appointed judges, a New York jury, and Trump's own attorney general, vice president, and White House staff. A witch hunt doesn't produce sworn testimony from the accused's own people.

"Prosecuting presidents will start a cycle of revenge." The cycle has already started, and it was started from the Oval Office. In 2025 Trump's Justice Department indicted former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, officials whose offense was investigating him. Meanwhile Brazil, South Korea, Peru, and France prosecuted former leaders through courts, and their democracies are still standing. The threat to democracy isn't prosecution under law. It's a president who can't be prosecuted at all.

"Presidents need immunity to do the job." For 235 years, no president had criminal immunity, and every president but one managed to govern without trying to overturn an election. Ford's pardon of Nixon only made sense because everyone, Nixon included, understood a former president could be prosecuted.

"He won the election. The people have spoken." Nixon won 49 states in 1972. Winning an election has never erased a crime. Votes grant power. They don't grant pardons for what was done to seize it.

"A constitutional amendment is a fantasy." The Twenty-Sixth Amendment went from Congress to ratification in about three months. Amendments seem impossible right up until the public demands them. Our job is to make the demand undeniable.

"Court reform is court-packing." Congress has changed the Court's size seven times. Term limits are supported by majorities across party lines. The only thing radical here is a Court that invented a king's immunity and answers to no ethics code at all.

The Hard Choice

Extreme times demand extreme resolve, and this is a singular moment. 

The most extreme thing America could do is also the one thing it has never done: make a former president answer to the law, and make that answer permanent. 

Not a verdict someone can pardon away in a year. 

Not a sentence that evaporates with an election. 

A judgment the Constitution itself guarantees will stand.

Nixon was the warning. Trump is the proof. 

The next one will be the ending, unless we write a different one--NOW.


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.


Saturday, July 4, 2026

American Sins, 2012: What Held Up

 Happy Fourth of July, everyone! 

I hope your day is full of good food, better company, and whatever version of rest you've earned this year. 

My piece on Substack for today, The Case for Retiring Fireworks.

Historian John Meecham on current stated claims from the White House toward nationalized elections:

The Constitution, the Framers did this for a reason. They didn't want nationalized elections. They wanted...remember, the key insight of the American founding is that most of what we would want to do as human beings is wrong. Most of it's selfish...that's the insight. The reason it's so hard to get anything done in this country is because they assume that most of what we would want to do would be wrong. And so elections, moving to the states, that was part of this. I was pleased that the Republican Party is pushing back on that... - Firing Line S10E1

He also said: Patriotism and nationalism. We're in a nationalistic season. Right? Allegiance to your own kind. Patriotism (George Orwel did a great essay on this), patriotism, is allegiance to an idea.

I'll say that again: Nationalism is allegiance to oneself. One's own group. One's own party.

That is not America. Not after the second birthing of America after the Civil War, during the Reconstruction Period. We're living in America 2.0 But we're now headed into our 3rd birthing, America 3.0. We're about to revile ourselves against those in power, their ideals, to rebuild once again the nature of our better Angels, as Pres. Lincoln said.

Since it's the holiday, I want to spend today's special post somewhere a little different than usual, not on the news cycle, but on an old post of mine from 2012 called "American Sins." 

I wrote it back when nobody took blogs seriously, myself included, so it's raw and not deeply edited. But going back through it this week, three parts of it held up better than I expected, and on a day about what this country is supposed to be, it felt worth revisiting what I was already trying to say fourteen years ago.

That piece got into Citizens United, the 47%, Romney, taxes, a CenturyLink outage that kept me offline for a day. 

Fourteen years later, those three parts still hold up.

The subsistence argument. 

The piece asked why we talk about tax rates as percentages instead of asking what those percentages actually cost a person. A third of a poor family's income is food and rent. A third of a rich person's income is nothing they'll ever notice. Same number, completely different sacrifice. I didn't have the vocabulary for it then, marginal utility of money, effective burden versus nominal rate, but the instinct was right and it's still right.

The loudspeaker line. 

Writing about Citizens United and money as speech, I landed on this:

"If money is free speech to say Donald Trump, then by comparison he is speaking with a loudspeaker and I am speaking with a pillow over my face." WE are speaking with pillows over our faces, now more than ever.

That's the one line from the whole piece that has come back around to bite us in ways never expected.

The infrastructure question. 

I was annoyed that CenturyLink (I have Quantum Fiber now, having dumped Comcast entirely) had left me offline for twelve hours with no explanation, and I asked why our internet doesn't have the same redundancy the actual internet protocol was designed to have, the same way our roads are free so people can go buy things. 

That question turned out to be the net neutrality fight and the municipal broadband fight of the following decade.

The piece ended with a call to action:

"Start being Americans again, start being Heroes." 

Calling to raise the standard of living for every American citizen. Simple as that sounds, it was the same point as the tax argument above it, just stated as a demand instead of an analysis. 

I still believe it.

Fair trade, honestly. Few were watching back then, and that's probably also why the good parts, the loudspeaker line, the subsistence argument, the infrastructure question, never got sanded down either.

I bring this up now for a reason. 

I wasn't trying to be prophetic in 2012, I was just annoyed and paying attention. But look at where those threads led. 

Citizens United didn't stay theoretical. 

That loudspeaker got louder. 

The subsistence gap has gotten wider. 

None of what's happened since was hard to see coming if you were watching in 2012, it just took longer than I expected.

Today is the Fourth. Our Fourth. Not one person's, not one Party's.

I still believe we can do better than this. It looks like it will be soon. 

If two years is soon...28 months.

And that's the whole reason for putting the old post up today.

"It scares me when people aren't brave enough to face their own history." - Lonnie G. Bunch III, Sec. of the Smithsonian Institution

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Wednesday, January 14, 2026

Citizens United: Built By Power, Protected By Power

I just saw this meme:

"First order of business for the Blue Tsunami Congress is to eliminate Citizens United.”


Is there a good reason NOT to eliminate it? Shouldn’t we somehow hold accountable why, and who, enabled this in the first place?

Short answer: there is no strong democratic or governance reason to keep Citizens United as-is, but there are arguments raised by opponents of repeal. Here is a clear, sober breakdown.

Why many argue it SHOULD be overturned

  • Massive distortion of democracy: It allows unlimited outside money via Super PACs and dark-money groups, letting billionaires and corporations drown out ordinary voters.

  • Lack of transparency: Many donors can remain hidden, undermining trust in elections.

  • Corruption risk: Even if technically “independent,” big spenders gain disproportionate influence, access, and policy shaping.

  • Not what “free speech” was meant to protect: Critics say the ruling equates money with speech and corporations with people in a way the Founders never intended.

  • Unpopular with Americans: Polling consistently shows broad public support (across party lines) for major campaign-finance reform.

  • Destabilizes governance: Encourages extremism and performative politics because outside spending rewards outrage and division.

Arguments typically raised AGAINST overturning it

  • First Amendment concerns: Supporters argue political spending is political speech, and government regulation of it risks censorship.

  • Who regulates and how? Overturning it requires either a constitutional amendment or a fundamentally different Supreme Court; crafting limits without empowering government to silence groups is tricky.

  • Unintended consequences: Regulation could end up benefiting entrenched political parties or wealthy self-funded candidates instead of improving fairness.

  • Money will still find a way: Wealthy interests may simply pivot to other channels if Citizens United is removed, so reform must be well-designed, not symbolic.

Bottom line There is a strong democratic integrity case for eliminating or significantly reforming Citizens United, and relatively weak public-interest justification for keeping it untouched. The real challenge is how to replace it with a system that protects free speech while restoring electoral fairness and transparency.

When Citizens United is overturned or re-structured, simply “fixing the ruling” without accountability for how it happened would leave the same forces in place to do it again.

Accountability here does not necessarily mean punishment; it means exposure, record-keeping, structural correction, and deterrence.

There are several layers of “who” enabled it:

1. The Supreme Court majority that engineered it

  • The Roberts Court did not merely decide the case as presented; it expanded it far beyond its original question to open the door to unlimited corporate spending.

  • Accountability here means:

    • Historical record and public understanding of how extraordinary that judicial activism was.

    • Ongoing ethics and legitimacy scrutiny (e.g., conflicts of interest, dark money influence shaping judicial ideology).

    • Long-term judicial reform discussions (term limits, ethics rules, transparency in amicus funding).

2. Political and ideological architects Citizens United was part of a decades-long conservative legal strategy funded by:

  • Corporate lobbying networks

  • Wealthy donors and foundations

  • Organizations like Federalist Society–aligned circles shaping judicial pipelines

Accountability here means:

  • Documenting who paid for that infrastructure.

  • Transparency requirements for judicial influence operations.

  • Public understanding that Citizens United did not “just happen”; it was designed.

3. The political class that benefited—and protected it Many lawmakers loudly criticize dark money while still using it. Both parties have, at various points, embraced Super PACs when convenient. Accountability here means:

  • Mandatory disclosure rules

  • Eliminating loopholes lawmakers rely on

  • Political courage to stop benefiting from what they claim to oppose

4. The failure of Congress to act after the ruling Congress could have:

  • Passed strong disclosure laws

  • Created public election funding options

  • Tightened corruption definitions

It did not. That failure deserves to be acknowledged.

5. Media and public conditioning For years, Americans have been told:

  • “Money is speech”

  • “Corporations are people”

  • Campaign finance limits are an attack on freedom

Part of accountability is cultural: naming the propaganda effort that normalized this.

Bottom Line

Yes, democracy benefits not only from reversing bad outcomes, but from:

  • Naming who engineered them

  • Exposing the financial and ideological machinery

  • Creating structural safeguards so it cannot simply be rebuilt

Otherwise, Citizens United becomes like many other U.S. democratic failures: briefly “fixed,” then slowly rebuilt by the same interests who designed it in the first place.

Bringing America around to be for our citizens, not only the power mad, rich, autocrats.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!