Raw Story

Former President Donald Trump fired off a more than slightly incoherent rant aimed at President Joe Biden on Monday morning, just hours before the Supreme Court was expected to rule on whether he should be afforded immunity for criminal acts he has been accused of committing.

Taking to his Truth Social platform, the now-convicted felon ex-president continued to obsess over last Thursday's debate on CNN by first ranting, "Only three things could have been the reason that Crooked Joe Biden, the worst President in the history of the United States, failed so badly at the debate on Thursday night."

With that, he proceeded in his normal manner by using arbitrary quotation marks, bursts of punctuation and random capitalization by writing, "THEY WERE: 1) 'TRUMP WAS REALLY GREAT!' In all fairness, and I say in complete and total modesty, many, on both sides of the political spectrum, have said it was the greatest single debate performance in the long and storied history of Presidential Debates. Thank you! 2) CROOKED JOE 'CHOKED' LIKE A DOG. 3) JOE IS A COGNITIVE MESS!

"It could be combinations of all three, but ask yourself this question, as a proud citizen of the United States of America (which no longer means a thing, to many, as millions of people flow into our Country, totally unchecked and unvetted!), would you rather have a President who is a CHOKER, or a President who is a COGNITIVE MESS???"

ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene buys condo in 'crime ridden hell hole'

He then added, "Also, did my Debate Performance play a role in Joe’s total 'disembowelment' before the World? Our Fake Historians over at CNN & MSDNC would like to know???"

Americans are gearing up to celebrate the Fourth of July, and their thoughts are most likely on how many hot dogs to buy for the cookout and whether a family member needs to go stake out a good spot to watch the parade and fireworks.

While the holiday is focused on revelry, July Fourth actually commemorates a solemn moment in the country’s history, when it declared independence from the colonial power Great Britain. The institutions of government imagined by the founders and their successors over the following decades – among them the presidency, Congress, the departments of State and Treasury, the Supreme Court – have retained their authority and legitimacy for more than 200 years, weathering challenges from wars both internal and abroad and massive economic, political and social upheaval.

But now, the Supreme Court, in the wake of a series of highly controversial rulings and ethical questions about some justices, is experiencing historically low public standing. And that has prompted a national conversation about the court’s legitimacy. It’s even drawn rare public comment from three sitting Supreme Court justices.

What’s referred to by experts as the problem of “judicial legitimacy” may seem abstract, but the court’s faltering public support is about more than popularity.

Eroding legitimacy means that government officials and ordinary people become increasingly unlikely to accept public policies with which they disagree. And Americans need only look to the relatively recent past to understand the stakes of the court’s growing legitimacy problem.

Cost ‘paid in blood’

The Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education shined a light on many white Americans’ tenuous loyalty to the authority of the federal judiciary.

In Brown, the court unanimously held that racial segregation in public education violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The justices were abundantly aware that their decision would evoke strong emotions. So Chief Justice Earl Warren worked tirelessly to ensure that the court issued a unanimous, short and readable opinion designed to calm the anticipated popular opposition.

Warren’s efforts were in vain. Rather than recognizing the court’s authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, many white Americans participated in an extended, violent campaign of resistance to the desegregation ruling.

Resistance in the South to the Supreme Court’s school desegregation order was strong and often violent. This billboard urged impeachment of the court’s then-chief justice, Earl Warren.

AP photo

The integration of the University of Mississippi in 1962 provides a pointed example of this resistance.

The Supreme Court had backed a lower federal court that ordered the university to admit James Meredith, a Black Air Force veteran. But Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett led a wide-ranging effort to stop Meredith from enrolling at Ole Miss, including deploying state and local police to prevent Meredith from entering campus.

On Sunday, Sept. 30, 1962, Meredith nevertheless arrived on the university’s campus, guarded by dozens of federal marshals, to register and begin classes the next day. A crowd of 2,000 to 3,000 people gathered on campus and broke into a riot. Meredith and the marshals were attacked with Molotov cocktails and gunfire. The marshals fired tear gas in return.

In response, President John F. Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 and ordered the U.S. Army onto campus to restore order and protect Meredith. Overnight, thousands of troops arrived, battling rioters.

President John F. Kennedy called in federal troops to quell the violence against James Meredith’s enrollment in the University of Mississippi in 1962.

Lynn Pelham/Getty Images

The violence finally ended after 15 hours, leaving two civilians dead – both killed by rioters – and dozens of wounded marshals and soldiers in addition to hundreds of injuries among the insurgent mob.

The next day, Oct. 1, Meredith enrolled in the university and attended his first class, but thousands of troops remained in Mississippi for months afterward to preserve order.

What some call “the Battle of Oxford” was fueled by white racism and segregation, but it played out against the backdrop of weak judicial legitimacy. Federal courts did not command enough respect among state officials or ordinary white Mississippians to protect the constitutional rights of Black Mississippians. Neither Gov. Barnett nor the thousands of Oxford rioters were willing to follow the court order for Meredith to enroll at the university.

In the end, the Constitution and the federal courts prevailed only because Kennedy backed them with the Army. But the cost of weak judicial legitimacy was paid in blood.

Legitimacy leads to acceptance

In contrast, when people believe in the legitimacy of their governing institutions, they are more likely to accept, respect and abide by the rules the government – including the courts – ask them to live under, even when the stakes are high and the consequences are far-reaching.

For example, two decades ago, the Supreme Court resolved a disputed presidential election in Bush v. Gore, centered on the counting of ballots in Florida. This time, the court was deeply divided along ideological lines, and its long, complicated and fragmented opinion was based on questionable legal reasoning.

Clashes between riot police and Donald Trump supporters near the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington.

Shay Horse/NurPhoto via Getty Images

But in 2000, the court enjoyed more robust legitimacy among the public than it does today. As a consequence, Florida officials ceased recounting disputed ballots. Vice President Al Gore conceded the election to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, specifically accepting the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling.

No Democratic senator challenged the validity of Florida’s disputed Electoral College votes for Bush. Congress certified the Electoral College’s vote, and Bush was inaugurated.

Democrats were surely disappointed, and some protested. But the court was viewed as sufficiently legitimate to produce enough acceptance by enough people to ensure a peaceful transition of power. There was no violent riot; there was no open resistance.

Indeed, on the very night that Gore conceded, the chants of his supporters gathered outside tacitly accepted the outcome: “Gore in four!” – as if to say, “We’ll get you next time, because we believe there will be a next time.”

Risks ahead

But what happens when institutions fail to retain citizens’ loyalty?

The Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection showcased the consequences of broken legitimacy. The rioters who stormed the Capitol had lost faith in systems that undergird American democracy: counting presidential votes in the states, tallying Electoral College ballots and settling disputes over election law in the courts.

The men and women who stormed the Capitol may have believed their country was being stolen, even if such beliefs were baseless. So, they rebelled in the face of a result they didn’t like.

The threat of further unrest is real. Polls show the 2024 presidential election between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will be a close call, and it is likely that election results in several states will be challenged in federal courts. Some of these claims may raise good-faith questions about the administration of elections, while others advance more spurious claims intended to undermine faith in the election’s outcome.

In the end, Americans’ faith in the timely resolution of those cases and their peaceful acceptance of the presidential election’s result will hinge on whether the losing candidate’s supporters accept the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the judiciary more broadly.

Nothing is certain in politics, but the specter of constitutional crisis looms over the United States. It’s dangerously unclear whether the Supreme Court retains enough legitimacy to ensure acceptance of decisions addressing the upcoming election among those who find themselves on the losing side. If it doesn’t, the court’s abstract legitimacy problem could once again lead to violence and insurrection.

This story is an updated version of a story that was originally published on Oct. 31, 2022.

Matthew Hall, Professor of Constitutional Studies, Political Science and Law, University of Notre Dame and Joseph Daniel Ura, Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department of Political Science, Clemson University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

President Joe Biden has faced calls to drop from the 2024 race, but a recent poll showing most Democrats want him to stay put is being celebrated on social media.

Recently, reports have suggested that Biden, who has been criticized for running for a second term despite being in his 80s, has been speaking with family members about whether to bow out. On Sunday, the New York Times reported that Biden's family encouraged him to keep running at the gathering.

The YouGov poll showed that, of registered Democrats, 55% think Biden should keep running, while 45% say he should "step aside."

ALSO READ: Rep. Byron Donalds, his gigantic Jim Crow myth and a forgotten fact about Black voters

Former MSNBC personality Keith Olbermann said, "Today's YouGov/CBS Poll: Should Biden stay in the race? YES, 55%-45% Should TRUMP stay in the race? NO, 54-46% That says it all."

He asked, "Any effing questions?"

Journalist Rachel Janfaza added that, "Compared to all other age groups - young voters are the most supportive of a Biden run and the least supportive of a Trump run."

@PrezLives2022 chimed in, "YouGov/CBS poll says Biden should stay in 55/45 while same poll says Trump should drop out 54/46. I’d say Biden is in better shape than Trump at this point. 33 million raised since Thursday….stay strong Team Biden"

@BernBoomer had this interpretation: "YouGov/CBS Poll: Biden should stay in. Trump should drop out."

Others pointed out that the Trump bow out question was asked to registered voters, while the Biden question was posed to Democrats.

The same poll found that 72% of respondents do not believe Biden has the mental and cognitive health to serve as U.S. President for another term, which also prompted celebration from skeptics of Biden.

Conservative Charlie Sykes said, "Dem Xitter is assuring me that this won't be a problem and that we should stop talking about it."

"CBS POLL: ****72 Percent ***** Say Biden doesn't have cognitive health to serve as president," he added.

Sitting at a hospital bedside in northeast Nigeria, Aishatu Usman watches over her son, still unconscious after her family were caught in a rare suicide attack on a weekend wedding.

At least 18 people were killed in Saturday’s attack by three female suicide bombers in Gwoza, Borno State, the heart of a conflict in northeast Nigeria that has killed 40,000 people and displaced 2 million since 2009.

The conflict has ebbed since armed forces pushed jihadists back from territory they held at the height of the fighting. But militants still carry out sporadic attacks and ambushes in remote areas. Saturday was a rare urban assault.

“What can I say? My son is unconscious,” she said, talking of the victims. “I pray that God grant them speedy recovery and to the perpetrators of this heinous act, may God guide them to the right path.”

Gwoza was the scene of four almost simultaneous suicide attacks on Saturday, including at least three perpetrated by female bombers, leaving at least 18 dead, according to local emergency services. Dozens more were injured.

No group has claimed the attacks, but they were a painful reminder of the threat posed by the Boko Haram jihadist group and its rival Islamic State West Africa Province in the region.

Suicide attacks have always been part of their armed struggle to establish a caliphate in the northeast of Africa’s most populous country.

Militants still carry out ambushes, roadside bombings and kidnappings from their rural hideouts, but suicide bombings, especially with multiple attackers, have become rarer.

Boko Haram seized Gwoza in 2014 after taking over parts of Borno State.

The town was retaken by the Nigerian army with the help of Chadian forces in 2015, but jihadists still launch attacks from the mountains overlooking the town on the border with Cameroon.

Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu “strongly condemned the bomb attacks” in a statement on Sunday, saying the assault was “a clear manifestation of pressure mounted against terrorists and the success in degrading their capacity.”

“These cowardly attacks are only but an isolated episode,” Tinubu said.

Jihadists in the northeast are one of several security threats facing Nigeria’s armed forces, including heavily armed criminal gangs who carry out mass kidnappings for ransom in the northwest and separatist movements in the southeast.

When he came to power a year ago, Tinubu made the fight against insecurity a priority of his mandate.

Back to 2014

Saturday’s first attack took place during a wedding ceremony, around 3 pm, when a suicide bomber set off explosives among the guests, officials said.

As funeral prayers for the victims of the wedding attack were ongoing, another female suicide bomber detonated her device, according to Barkindo Saidu, head of the local emergency services (SEMA), in a report seen by AFP.

A few minutes later, an explosion of another device by a teenage girl detonated around the city’s general hospital, the report said.

A member of the anti-jihadist militia who work with the army in the city, told AFP that a fourth suicide attack had targeted a security post, killing three people including a soldier.

That has not yet been confirmed by officials.

“This has taken me back to memory lane of 2014 when Gwoza was raided by these terrorists group,” Baba Shehu Saidu, a relative of some of the victims said.

SEMA’s Saidu gave a provisional toll of 18 dead and around forty injured to AFP on Saturday evening.

Fatima Musa, secretary of the Gwoza local government, said she could not quantify the number of victims because “a bomb blast is something that spreads dead bodies.” Bodies were still being found, she said.

Officials in Borno State, the epicenter of the conflict, have said they will close all camps for displaced people by 2026, to encourage people to return to work in the fields to help end chronic food insecurity. But many rural areas in Borno are still insecure with armed groups active.

Jack Smith has had a tough time prosecuting Donald Trump, especially considering his D.C. election subversion prosecution has been frozen pending Supreme Court action, but a former prosecutor said on Sunday that the special counsel has one more trick up his sleeve.

Trump faces charges in that case related to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, as well as related efforts to allegedly undermine the presidential election in 2020 when Joe Biden beat the former president. With the case tied up, however, analysts have suggested that it won't reach trial before the election.

Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade appeared on MSNBC over the weekend to discuss the pending case.

ALSO READ: Rep. Byron Donalds, his gigantic Jim Crow myth and a forgotten fact about Black voters

The host asked McQuade, "Which way are you expecting them to rule tomorrow? Who then gets to decide which of Trump's actions on January 6 can be subject to criminal prosecution?"

McQuade responds, saying, "Well, that is a line drawing I think we are going to see."

"I don't think it's going to be -- everything is immune or nothing is immune. I think that we will engage in some line drawing. It could be, one argument is, anything that Donald Trump did in his capacity as president is immune, and that which he did in his capacity as a candidate is not immune," she said. "If, for example, that is where they decide to draw the line, they need to have a hearing to go through all of the allegations in the indictment and decide, was Donald Trump acting in his capacity as president when he did this, or is candidate?"

She continues:

"I think much of it is no question as candidate. To me, in my mind, the one area of question is directions to the Justice Department, which, although they may have been abuse of his power, may arguably have been within his power."

Then, she says, the prosecutor could still make one more move:

"Jack Smith has one more card to play, which is to dismiss any allegations that are arguably within the scope of presidential power and proceeding with what is left, which would be a bulk of the indictment," she said. "I think ultimately, this case is going to go to trial and the allegations are going to stay, the indictment is going to be there. The question is, when will that be there?"

Watch below or click here.

Former President Donald Trump's MAGA supporters are despairing over a surprising voice of dissent in the Supreme Court's Jan. 6 ruling — a move that legal experts believe means she will rule against Trump's presidential immunity claim.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett's decision to oppose the court's ruling — which raises the bar for prosecutors to prove Jan. 6-related cases — spurred several legal experts to suggest she may rule against absolute immunity for the former president.

"One more data point for immunity," wrote Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas. "Justice Barrett does NOT sound like someone who has changed her mind in Trump's direction since oral argument."

Trump in April presented arguments to the Supreme Court that his public office protected him from prosecution in special counsel Jack Smith's federal election interference case.

READ MORE: ‘This was awful’: Congressional Dems deflated after Biden debate disaster

Smith argued Trump acted as a private citizen when he roused a mob of followers to attack the U.S. Capitol in a failed attempt to prevent President Joe Biden from taking office.

On Friday, Patrick Amoresano, a retired attorney and Republican, said Barrett, one of three justices appointed by the former president, was proving a surprise to those who believed she'd walk the conservative party line.

On Thursday, Barrett ruled in favor of a Biden administration policy and against conservative states that tried to block it.

"Barrett has become a real wildcard on the Court," wrote Amoresano. "One has to wonder how she'll vote on the issue of Trump's alleged immunity for election interference."

ALSO READ: The stunning reason Donald Trump thinks he’s going to win

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor of Law at Stetson University, highlighted a specific passage from Barrett's dissent that she argues speaks volumes.

"By atextually narrowing §1512(c)(2)," Barrett wrote, "the Court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches."

Torres-Spelliscy responded with a "wow" and added, "This could mean strange bedfellows for presidential immunity on Monday."

ALSO READ: ‘Creepy weirdos’: Senator fears Trump WH staff would destroy government from ‘inside’

Several MAGA supporters took to X Friday morning to complain of a lack of loyalty to Trump and make a similar prediction.

"Barrett is going to rule against Pres. Immunity," declared @bucksdeplorable. "Complete and total anti-Trump lib."

"Amy Coney Barrett has been awful," added @MiddleMAGA.com. "I bet she dissents in the Trump immunity ruling."

Christian Vanderbrouk, a contributor to the Bulwark and onetime administration official of former President George W. Bush, echoed the prediction but not the sentiment.

"Barrett's dissent gives me hope for Trump's presidential immunity case," Vanderbrouk wrote.