U.S. Public Doesn't Agree With Presidential Immunity

 

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between November 23rd and 26th of a nationwide sample of 1,590 adults (including 1,412 registered voters). The margin of error is 3.2 points for adults and 3.3 points for registered voters.

The Public Believes The SC Immunity Decision Makes It Likely Future Presidents Will Commit Crimes

 

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 7th and 9th of a nationwide sample of 1,620 adults (including 1,443 registered voters). The margin of error was 3.2 points for adults and 3.1 points for registered voters.

Most Oppose Legal Immunity For Presidents

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between June 16th and 18th of a nationwide sample of 1,600 adults (including 1,396 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 3.2 points, and for registered voters is 3.1 points. 

47% Of Trump Supporters Like Immunity For Presidents

The chart above is from the Economist / YouGov Poll - done between April 28th and 30th of a nationwide sample of 1,755 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

Public Opposes Presidential Immunity And Political Violence

 

The charts above are from the newest NPR / PBS NewsHour / Marist Poll -- done between March 25th and 28th of a nationwide sample of 1,305 adults, with a 3.5 point margin of error.

Voters Overwhelmingly Oppose Trump's Immunity Claim

The chart above reflects the results of the new Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between March 21st and 25th of a nationwide sample of 1,407 registered voters, with a 2.6 point margin of error. 

Biased Court Makes A Political Move To Help Trump & GOP

For most of our nation's history, the Supreme Court has acted to make sure that the Constitution is upheld, and it has done so in a political-neutral way. Unfortunately, that no longer seems to be true. The current Court is a very political one. Instead of making sure actions and laws are consistent with the Constitution, they are interpreting the Constitution to fit the agenda of right-wing Republicans.

This week they made the rather shocking decision to hear Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity. Most had thought the Court wouldn't take this case. It seems obvious that a finding of presidential immunity would put the president above the law. That would be unimaginable in a nation built on the idea of equality under Constitutional law. One of our most sacred beliefs is that no one is above the law.

Putting the president above the law would be tantamount to giving him/her dictatorial power (since he/she could not be charged with a crime - no matter how egregious an action taken). He/she could imprison, or even kill, political opponents, take action to censor or ban the media, sell access to the White House and decisions made by the president, etc.

I don't think the court's right-wingers would go that far. Giving a president immunity from the law would also apply to Democratic presidents - and they certainly don't want to allow that!

So, why did they decide to hear the case - a case they are extremely unlikely to uphold. It was purely a political decision - not a constitutional one. It was to give Donald Trump and the Republican Party a delay of the trials Trump faces.

They won't hear the case until late in April, and won't announce a decision until probably late in June. The federal trials cannot go forward until their decision is announced, and a late June announcement would mean the trials probably couldn't be held before the November elections.

That is what Trump and the Republicans wanted. If they could delay the trials until after the election, and then Trump win that election, the cases would probably go away. A Trump Justice Department could simply drop the charges. Or Trump could pardon himself (since the Constitution gives the president pardon power, but doesn't say he can't use it on himself).

This was a political move by the most political Supreme Court in U.S. history!

Most Say Trump Should NOT Have Immunity

The chart above reflects the results of a new ABC News / Ipsos Poll -- done on February 9th and 10th of a nationwide sample of 528 adults, with a 4.5 point margin of error. 

64% Of Voters Oppose Immunity For Trump

 

The chart above is from the PBS NewsHour / NPR / Marist Poll -- done between January 29th and February 1st of a nationwide sample of 1,441 registered voters, with a 3.6 point margin of error.

Excerpts From Appeals Court Decision Denying Immunity

Cartoon is by Gary Huck at huckkonopackicartoons.com.

On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals unanimously denied Trump's claim of immunity. Below are some excerpts from the court's decision:

For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.

Former President Trump argues that criminal liability for former Presidents risks chilling Presidential action while in office and opening the floodgates to meritless and harassing prosecution. These risks do not overcome “the public interest in fair and accurate judicial proceedings,” which “is at its height in the criminal setting.”

[F]ormer President Trump’s “predictive judgment” of a torrent of politically motivated prosecutions “finds little support in either history or the relatively narrow compass of the issues raised in this particular case,” see Clinton, 520 U.S. at 702, as former President Trump acknowledges that this is the first time since the Founding that a former President has been federally indicted. Weighing these factors, we conclude that the risk that former Presidents will be unduly harassed by meritless federal criminal prosecutions appears slight.

It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity.

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.

At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. 

Appeals Court Rules Trump Did NOT Have Absolute Immunity

Donald Trump tried to put himself above the law. He wanted the courts to rule that, as president, he was immune to the charges filed against him -- charges that he could not be tried for trying to subvert the 2020 election by illegally overturning the results, and also that he could not be charged for stealing documents (some of them secret).

The appeals court found his claims to be ridiculous. They ruled unanimously that he did not have immunity. Just like any other citizen, he is responsible for illegal behavior. Being president does not put him (or anyone else) above the law.

The appeals court gave Trump two weeks to appeal their decision to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court justices are smart, they will refuse to accept the case. The Constitution does not guarantee any president the right to break the law with impunity.

Trump had claimed that a president could not act without immunity -- that the other party would charge a president for actions they didn't like while he was president. That's a silly argument. All the presidents preceding Trump had not problem acting while obeying the law, and there is no reason to think that won't remain true in the future.

The United States has presidents -- not dictators. And this ruling insures that will remain true.
 

Trust Of Police Divided By Race - Most Oppose Immunity

These charts are from the recent Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between February 9th and 14th of a nationwide sample of 1,580 adults (including 1,429 registered voters). The margin of error is 2.5 points for adults and 2.6 points for registered voters.

Too Many Americans Are Still Not Sure Of Vaccine Safety

The chart above reflects the results of the latest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between February 27th and March 2nd of a national sample of 1,500 adults, with a 2.6 point margin of error. 

Now that several vaccines are becoming available to the American public, there is hope that we can soon put this pandemic behind us and return to normal. But to do that, we need at least about 75% of the public to take the vaccine. That's the figure that would establish a herd immunity, and make it hard for the virus to spread.

But if this chart is right, it's going to be hard to get to that percentage. When questioned about four vaccines, only 42% to 57% of the public was sure the vaccines were safe -- and people are not going to take a vaccine they do not believe is safe.

Trump's Insane Idea Of Herd Immunity Would Kill Millions

 

Donald Trump has badly mishandled the Coronavirus pandemic. That is beyond debate.

He delayed doing anything for a couple of months after learning about how serious the virus was. Then he placed a ban on people entering the country from China. But the ban was only a partial one, and was done after nearly 400,000 had already entered.

He could have still mitigated the damage caused by the virus, but he didn't. He has refused to act in an appropriate manner. After calling the virus a hoax, he denigrated the wearing of masks and social distancing. He then demanded states reopen their economies, even though the virus was not yet controlled. And he has demanded that schools reopen.

Now he has come up with his craziest (and most dangerous) idea yet. He has said recently that the virus will die out once herd immunity is reached. It looks like he has given up, and wants to give the virus full range.

He is right -- the virus will die out after herd immunity occurs. But he is ignoring (or refuses to admit) the price this country will pay to reach herd immunity.

What is herd immunity? That's when enough people in the country have gotten the virus and recovered (and now have immunity) so the virus has trouble finding new victims, and dies out. 

What percentage of the population must get infected with the virus to achieve herd immunity? That varies from disease to disease (depending on how contagious they are). For instance, measles is highly contagious and would require 94% of the population to be infected to arrive at herd immunity. The Coronavirus is slightly less contagious than that, but the Mayo Clinic estimates that at least 70% of the population must be infected to achieve herd immunity. 

Let's look at the numbers that it would require to achieve herd immunity in the United States.

The United States has a population of slightly more than 320,000,000 people. The means at least 224,000,000 people (about 70%) must be infected before herd immunity will occur.

How many deaths would occur? Currently, about 3% of those who get infected are dying. So, if 224,000,000 get infected, that means about 6,720,000 would die.

But let's be generous, and assume that better treatments are found and the death percentage is lowered to 1%. That would still mean about 2,240,000 people would die.

So Trump's idea of achieving herd immunity would mean between 2,240,000 and 6,720,000 would have to die to achieve that. Is that acceptable to you? I think it's an insane idea to sacrifice more than 2 million people when we know that we could save millions of lives and control the virus by wearing masks and social distancing.

Trump shows us once again that he simply doesn't care about the lives (or health) of the American people.

Immunity For Business Is Not What's Needed To Reopen

(Cartoon image is by John Darkow in the Columbia Missourian.)

The House Democrats have passed a new economic stimulus bill to help Americans in this recession, but it is opposed by Senate Majority Leader McConnell. McConnell doesn't want to help hurting Americans. He just wants to give reopening businesses immunity from lawsuits. But immunity is not going to protect businesses or workers, and it's not going to bring customers back into the businesses.

Here's what the editorial board of The New York Times says about McConnell's idea:

The economy needs Americans to get back to work, but workplaces need employees and customers to feel that coming back won’t endanger their health or their lives.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, seems to be concerned primarily with the first half. The biggest obstacle, as he sees it, is not a deadly disease but rapacious trial lawyers, capitalizing on the virus to chase ambulances and bankrupt American businesses. . . .

As Congress gears up for the next installment of its stimulus package, Mr. McConnell has drawn a line: No more money for anyone until businesses get immunity from liability during the pandemic. The demands being debated include making it harder to claim that a business is at fault for a worker’s or customer’s infection, protecting businesses that are making personal protective equipment like masks for the first time, and protecting employers against privacy lawsuits if they disclose a worker’s infection.

The problem is that immunity doesn’t just shield the worst actors; it also punishes the best, by giving a competitive advantage to the businesses that decide to cut corners at the expense of worker and customer health and safety.

Consider what happened in Utah, which passed a bill immunizing businesses from pandemic-related litigation in most cases and issued only advisory guidelines. The next day, the Utah Press Herald reported that two businesses had told their employees to disregard the guidelines, and even ordered those who had tested positive for the coronavirus to report to work. At one of the businesses, nearly half of all employees tested positive. . . .

Demands for more corporate immunity have always been at odds with the facts on the ground. But in the coronavirus era, the Republican Party’s push has turned reality upside down.

First, there is no tsunami of litigation coming to engulf the country. As a matter of law, it’s already extremely difficult for workers or consumers to succeed with tort claims. In most states, as long as a business shows that it followed regulations or guidelines, or even just took common-sense precautions, it will usually prevail. Mr. McConnell has said he doesn’t want to grant immunity to businesses that are grossly negligent or engage in willful misconduct, but that’s a very high bar to clear.

Some business groups say this is cold comfort: Even if they would eventually win a case, they are still forced to spend time and money defending against, and often settling, frivolous lawsuits by workers or customers who blame them for getting sick. But trial lawyers work on contingency, which means they get paid only if they win. That gives them a strong incentive not to bring lawsuits that are sure losers. This is all the more true in the case of the coronavirus, because its relatively long incubation period means it is nearly impossible to prove where someone caught it. . . .

Second, tort law is the province of the states, which can help incentivize good behavior by allowing people to sue when they are harmed by a business’s negligence or wrongdoing. Any immunity provision passed by Congress would pre-empt these state laws, making it virtually impossible for them to protect their own citizens. Such a provision might even violate the Constitution, said David Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown who testified before the Senate last Tuesday.

Everybody wins when businesses follow clear, science-based guidelines to protect health and safety: Workers and customers are less likely to get exposed to the virus, and businesses are less likely to get exposed to litigation. So where are those guidelines? In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proposed a 63-page list of safe reopening guidelines for businesses across the board: schools and day care centers, restaurants and bars, churches and mass-transit systems. But the Trump administration refused to release the list, saying it was too prescriptive and would make it harder for the economy to fully reopen. (On Thursday, the C.D.C. released an abbreviated version of the list.) . . .

It’s no surprise that many businesses are confused about what they should do, and fearful of what might happen if they don’t do it. The answer is to give them good, clear and mandatory guidelines, not immunity from liability. Until those guidelines are in place, it’s premature to talk about granting even more immunity to businesses.

Everyone wants the American economy to reopen. The point here isn’t to punish businesses in that process, it’s to incentivize them to protect their workers and customers. This, more than any immunity, will ensure that millions of Americans can get back to work as safely and as quickly as possible.

Those Believing Rural Areas Are Not In Danger Are Wrong

The governors of several mainly rural states have refused to issue stay-at-home orders and closed non-essential businesses. Donald Trump has said that several states may be ready to reopen for business even before his ridiculous May 1st date. And some right-wing websites and groups say the nation should reopen in many places.

The idea behind that is that rural settings in many states, because the virus has been slow in coming there, will not experience the pain that other areas have had to endure. That they are somehow immune to the Coronavirus epidemic in this country. That is shortsighted and wrong! And it could cause rural communities, many of which already have inadequate hospital facilities, to become sitting ducks for the virus.

The following is part of an article by Megan McArdle in The Washington Post about the danger the virus poses to rural America.


There is something to the rural exceptionalism story, some reason to believe that covid-19 might spread more slowly in rural areas than it does in dense cities. People who live in large, well-ventilated homes with more than one room per person, shop in airy grocery stores with mile-wide lanes, and drive to work in a private vehicle rather than crowding onto public transit with hundreds of strangers might well have fewer opportunities for exposure than your typical New Yorker does.

That said, a slow-motion disaster is still a disaster. And human beings are geniuses at inventing false reasons to feel secure.

At every stage of this pandemic, people have come up with dozens of plausible reasons that the areas overwhelmed by covid-19 were different from their own, happily still secure neighborhoods: more air pollution or smokers, more mass transit or elevators, more cheek-kissing or multi-generational homes. Then as the virus moved on, they came up with reasons that that new place, too, was full of people who are Not Like Us.

Some of those reasons were no doubt true. They just weren’t true enough. It turns out that as long as you have human lungs, the virus likes your flavor just fine, no matter where you live. And unless we take strenuous measures to stop it, eventually the virus will spread to where you live and do its best to kill you.

While rural areas may not have a mass transit system for the virus to move through, they have plenty of churches, high school football games and Rotary pancake breakfasts. As we have already seen, without lockdowns, those can do the job just fine. South Dakota, Nebraska and Arkansas, three states that had looked relatively immune, are all now dealing with serious outbreaks.

In fact, rural areas have some distinct disadvantages compared with big cities. In the large cities where covid-19 first took hold, it took the handful of initial cases months to double and redouble until the sheer number of infections started to overwhelm hospitals. But in a county of 20,000, a disease that is doubling every three to five days would take less than two months to infect 100 percent of the population. By the time doctors even recognized that the disease had arrived in the area, it might well already be too late to stop the disaster.

Those areas don’t have so many of the professional jobs that allow people to work from home, so once the disease does get going, it will be very hard to stamp out. . . .

The hospital systems in rural areas have nothing like the capacity they would need to cope with that sort of outbreak on a wider scale. More than half of all counties in the United States have no intensive care beds. Yet the citizens of those counties tend to be older and sicker than people in urban areas, meaning that if they contract covid-19, they are more likely to need intensive care.

So one can tell a very different story about the nationwide lockdowns, almost the opposite of the one in which less dense areas are being forced to #canceleverything in order to protect New York. In that story, New York’s experience is protecting them by serving as an early warning while they still have time to avoid that city’s fate — or possibly an even worse one — by shutting down now, and then building up the test-trace-quarantine infrastructure that can keep their region covid-free even when restrictions are lifted.

But for this story to have its happy ending, they’ll have to abandon that other narrative and face the unpleasant reality that New Yorkers have belatedly acknowledged: No person or place is really that different from you, and no law of nature will keep this virus in far-off places, killing people you’ve never met.

Could You Be Immune To Swine Flu ?

In 1918, the Spanish flu raged around the world, killing many millions of people. That pandemic was caused by a strain of the flu virus called H1N1. A few days ago, the H1N1 virus popped up again. This time it was called Swine flu. Although it was believed to have started in Mexico (that's where the largest number of patients and deaths are so far), it spread quickly and in just a few days has shown up in several countries on several continents.

When the deaths began to pile up, and most of those affected were young healthy people, just like the Spanish flu, it is easy to see how the World Health Organization (WHO) was afraid they might be looking at another deadly flu pandemic -- just like the one 91 years ago.

The WHO, the USCDC (Center for Disease Control) and state health departments have quickly taken action to try and head off the feared new pandemic. People with any flu symptoms are urged not to go to work or school. Drugstores are selling out of face masks. Events have been cancelled and schools have been closed. News of the new flu have been covered extensively by all types of media.

These may be reasonable actions or may be overreactions. No one knows yet. But scientists who have been studying the new H1N1 virus think the new flu may be more benign than was previously believed. They have found some small differences between the current version of H1N1 and the 1918 H1N1.

One of these differences is the absence of an amino acid in the current version. This amino acid helped the 1918 virus to replicate itself very rapidly once it entered the lungs. This made the virus extremely deadly. The absence of this amino acid could be why the current version of H1N1 is not as virulent.

This does not mean the virus is not dangerous. It obviously has killed. But it may turn out to be no more deadly than more common strains of flu (which can kill 30,000 to 40,000 people each year in the United States). That is a tragic figure, but nowhere near the death toll racked up by the 1918 Spanish flu.

Another oddity of this new Swine flu is that it is not striking the elderly. Normally, the elderly and children are the groups most likely to die from the flu. Why is this virus different?

The scientists think they may know. There was a flu pandemic in 1957 that killed around 2 million people. It is believed that those who were exposed to the 1957 flu may have an immunity to the current H1N1 virus. That would basically cover those in their mid-fifties and older.

Other than gaining a bit of wisdom, there aren't a lot of advantages to growing old. But it looks like this could be one of those few advantages.