Today in Supreme Court History: October 20, 1973

10/20/1973: The Saturday Night Massacre occurs.

President Richard Nixon

Comments

[Martinned2]

Unitary Executive FTW!

[Mr. Bumble]

Could you be a little more specific?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I can't say specifically what M2 was saying, but Nixon misused his powers to fire the prosecutor (Cox) who was investigating him. It did Nixon no good, since the next prosecutor (Jaworski) pursued Nixon just as hard...all the way out of office.

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of like William Juffuhsun Clinton firing FBI Director William Sessions 1 day before Vince Foster gave himself a 38 caliber Lobotomy?

[Malika the Maiz]

guy Who can’t work Shift Key has Theories!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I would argue that the President using his power to fire executive-branch employees can be impeachable IF the motive is obstruction of justice.

[Riva]

Uh no. That would entail an impermissible review of presidential motives by some DOJ prosecutor and court. No more Smiths please. And the judiciary has no place questioning presidential discretion in this context, although I’m sure there are more than a few Chutkans out there salivating at the prospect, at least before the immunity decision.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I was specifically talking about impeachment. So using a “DOJ prosecutor and court” is quite different from what I suggested.

[Riva]

My error, I misread your comment.

[Malika]

Didn’t you mean “My 404 Error?”

[David Nieporent]

Of course, but since anything is impeachable if Congress says it is, that doesn't add much. Bizarrely, though, under the insane Trump v. U.S. decision, this hypothetical president would be immune from prosecution for this clear obstruction of justice, even after he left or was removed from office.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Of course, but since anything is impeachable if Congress says it is, that doesn’t add much."

Just as anything is a constitutional right if the Supreme Court says it is. But its still important to discuss when Congress or the Supreme Court would be wrong and when they'd be right, in a variety of situations.

[Michael Ejercito]

What does it mean to obstruct justice?

[Malika the Maiz]

If that happened with Trump his supporters would just argue Cox was a “Deep State Enemy Within” who ate dogs (or ducks) and deserved the firing.

[Riva]

Executive Vesting Clause FTW!

[Frank Drackman]

What Bullshit, more people died in Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile (Asphyxiated, not Drowned, there’s a difference) than in this so called “Massacre”.
You know what else happed in October 1973? a real Massacre when the A-rabs attacked Israel on Yom Kippur (I always thought that’ll never happen again, Not!) You know who helped save Israel’s Bacon?(See what I did there?)
Richard Milhouse, (Operation Nickle Grass) who in a Drackman Universe would be on Mount Rushmore(which would be in Atlanta so people would actually see it) with Ronaldus Maximus, “45/47”, and yes, Honest Abe (and a token DemoKKKrat, Andrew Jackson)

Frank

[Krychek_2]

And you know where no one has ever been allowed to die? Inside your head. Once someone is inside your head, they just keep living there forever. Why, Ted Kennedy has been living there rent free for more than 50 years now, despite having been dead for more than ten of them.

[Frank Drackman]

and the subject of “Today in Surpreme Court History” Milhouse Nixon's "Massacre" (in which nobody died, by drowning or asphyxiation) has been out of orifice for more than 50 years, has been dead for more than 30 years, you should sue your parents for not teaching you to play Chess, then you wouldn’t leave yourself open to such a devastating counter punch.

[Krychek_2]

You think that was a devastating counter punch? Any time I think you couldn’t possibly say anything more stupid, you prove me wrong.

A generic column about this day in history is published for a very different reason than your repeated invoking of Chappaquiddick. I’m sure if you think about it long enough , how they are different will occur to you. Or maybe not.

[Frank Drackman]

I told you how they were different, nobody died (Asphyxiated, not Drowned, there's a difference) in Milhouse's "Massacre", somebody did in Edward Moore Kennedy's "Incident", funny how no Autopsy was done on Mary Jo, could it have been that a "Ed Kennedy III" was percolating in MJK's Uterus? An illegitimate child would have thrown quite the Monkey Wrench into Teddy's Presidential plans (His Alcoholism turned out to be enough)

Frank

[Malika]

"“Massacre”, somebody did in Edward Moore Kennedy’s “Incident”, funny how no Autopsy"

Lol, MAGA populism! Who needs those Deep State english Teacher "Rules" ,.(?

[Krychek_2]

Ok so you don’t actually know the difference between a generic “this day in history “ column vs repeatedly invoking Chappaquiddick whether it has anything to do with what we’re talking about or not. Color me shocked.

By the way, since you’ve openly acknowledged being a racist, it strikes me that if today’s Democratic Party actually were the party of the KKK you’d be voting for it. That you’re not tells me that even you know that’s a false claim.

[Frank Drackman]

Today’s DemoKKKratic party has killed/is killing millions more Afro-Amuricans than the KKK ever dreamed of, and you’re the one voting for them, not me except for Al Sharpton (in 2004 as a Goof)

[Krychek_2]

Even if I agreed with your extremist position on abortion, it’s the pregnant women and their doctors who are doing it, not the Democrats. And not because the fetuses are black.

Your inability to categorize things that are, and are not, like each other is just breathtaking. God have mercy on your patients; you’d probably say that an appendix and an aorta both begin with A so it doesn’t matter which gets removed.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, pretty hard to live without an Aorta, ask Yahya Sinwar

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (decided October 20, 1913): Congress can make laws as to Indian lands (here, a prohibition on bringing in liquor) over the head of the state involved (here, New Mexico) (contains extensive anthropological “testimony” as to Native Americans, summarized in this charming description: “Always living in separate and isolated communities, adhering to primitive modes of life, largely influenced by superstition and fetichism [sic], and chiefly governed according to the crude customs inherited from their ancestors, they are essentially a simple, uninformed, and inferior people”)

McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (decided October 20, 1924): debtor testifying in bankruptcy proceeding enjoys Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (though the rest of the experience probably wasn’t too “enjoy”able)

Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (decided October 20, 1980): warrantless search and arrest were permissible; cop was legitimately on side of car to give driver a ticket (after stopping him for speeding) and saw lug wrench and nuts on floor and in open glove compartment, and driver and his companion matched description of men wanted for stealing car parts (when they saw they were being followed, couldn’t these guys have thrown this stuff under the seat; or maybe eaten it? see this clip from “The Groove Tube”, fondly remembered from my high school days https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=zCzuiqtiWeo )

[SRG2]

Re McCarthy v. Arndstein - a cousin of mine back in England, who was a fraud and a crook - and may still be FAIK - appealed against a corporate disclosure requirement that would be - and was - held against him in a later criminal trial, on self-incrimination grounds. He lost.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Different rules In Britain. I understand that the detective has to warn you that what you say can be used against you (I know this from reading Dickens’s “Our Mutual Friend”) but probably silence can be used against you too.

Hope to visit there someday.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I’m being told this does not reference the Guardians losing in five.

On October 20, 1973, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, but both men refused and resigned their posts in protest.

Elliot Richardson accepted his nomination promising to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Watergate scandal. He promised Congress that he would not interfere with the investigation except for dereliction of duty.

This later led to his resignation. Solicitor Bork, third in line, did fire the special counsel. The controversy helped to lead to a new special counsel, Leon Jaworski.

The Nixon attorney general did not act on his own. He made an agreement with Congress, which was also investigating Watergate, including eventually having the famous televised Watergate hearings. Public pressure, influenced by media reporting, helped.

I find this a useful lesson for today. When running for president, Elizabeth Warren suggested an independent task force to investigate corruption during the Trump administration.

The Senate could also have obtained an agreement from Merrick Garland regarding a special counsel to investigate Trump.

Biden did not promise such an independent task force. He promised to protect the independence of the Justice Department, so it would be up to them. Some supported a special counsel but it was in no way the clear favorite in 2021.

The “Saturday Night Massacre” was not merely the result of the acts of one person and his deputy. He felt he had an obligation to Congress. Other political and media factors were also involved.

I think too much emphasis is put on Merrick Garland, flawed as he might be, these days. This history helps clarify the situation.

(BTW, I also found Rachel Maddow's book "Bag Man" on the Investigation of Vice President Agnew well written and a reassuring account of the integrity of the then Republican-led Justice Department.

https://booksinaflash.com/book-summary-bag-man-the-wild-crimes-a-brazen-crook-in-the-white-house/)

[Bob from Ohio]

"independence of the Justice Department,"

Early sign of dementia, thinking an executive department is "independent" of the chief executive.

"so it would be up to them"

Snort.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Snort"

I'm here all week. Don't eat the veal.

[Malika]

Bob longs for the spoils system of the Jacksonian era, but without some semblance of professional independence an executive justice system would essentially be the President's personal police system, something about which our Anglo-American tradition is rightfully wary.

[Bob from Ohio]

"rightfully wary"

Take it up wit the Founding Fathers. They were not "wary" enough to give prosecution authority in the Constitution to a "professional independent" party. They gave it to the president.

[Malika]

The Founders founded in an expected context of "statesmen" running the government acting in professional ways, not everything is finally solved by a narrow, literal reading of text alone.

[Michael Ejercito]

So the military can wage war independently of the President?

[Malika the Maiz]

No, but they too should have a level of professional independence.

[Michael Ejercito]

The executive justice system is honor-boind and duty-bound to obey the President's lawful orders, just like the military is honor-bound and duty-bound to do so.

[David Nieporent]

Early sign of dementia, thinking an executive department is “independent” of the chief executive.

Person who doesn’t believe in acting in good faith assumes nobody else does, either. (Thereby missing the entire point of the Saturday Night Massacre.)

[Michael Ejercito]

Is the military independent of the executive?

[Frank Drackman]

It's the "Curse of Chief Wahoo",
the "Guardians" will never win a World Series as long as they're ashamed of their Native Amurican heritage (they had a hard enough time when they honored it)

[Malika]

Frank honors Native americans by Writing
like Tonto with a Stroke .

[Frank Drackman]

How about the irony of that Rape-ist (Father) Robert Drinan serving on the “Judiciary Committee”??
He also served as a member of the American Bar Association House of Delegates until his death in 2007 and was chair of the ABA Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities. In 2004, Drinan received the ABA Medal, the organization’s highest honor for distinguished service in law. On May 10, 2006, Drinan was presented the Distinguished Service Award by then Speaker Dennis Hastert and then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on behalf of the House of Representatives. He received 21 honorary doctorates during his life.
Next time I’m in MA remind me to take a (Redacted) on his grave

Frank

[Malika]

First ted Kennedy, then Drinan, next on Old Man Franck's list: Carter giving Away the panama Canal, 1970's Cloud formations, and the difficulty of basic english rules of Capitalization!

"In 2012, five years after Drinan's death, Slate writer Emily Yoffe said that he had sexually assaulted her when she was "a teenager of 18 or 19."[17] Drinan's niece responded to the allegations by calling it "odd that anyone would come forward with this allegation decades later when our uncle is in no position to defend himself."[18]"

[Frank Drackman]

So you don't "Believe the Woman"?? Yeah, she just made up that the creepy old fuck raped her, but hey, Drinan was a Priest, glad to see he moved up from raping young boys.

[Malika the Maiz]

Weirdo is Upset when
someone doesn’t fit His Caricature!

[Michael Ejercito]

This appeara to be a case of ethically wrong, legally right.

[Malika the Maiz]

So there is a difference for you!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

United States v. Sandoval

An earlier opinion, United States v. Joseph (1876), held as a matter of statutory interpretation that the Native Americans involved were not “Indians.”

The much less tedious opinion was filled with praise on how civilized they were as compared to the average “Indian.” For instance:

“They are as intelligent as most nations or people deprived of means or facilities for education. Their names, their customs, their habits, are similar to those of the people in whose midst they reside, or in the midst of whom their pueblos are situated. The criminal records of the courts of the Territory scarcely contain the name of a pueblo Indian.”

Sandoval argued there were differences involved in the two cases but also that “other recognized sources of information” justified the analysis provided in its opinion.

I would argue white culture has its share of fetichistic (strange web of belief and unbelief) practices.