The Latest from the Prospect ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??
View this email in your browser
**MAY 16, 2024**
On the Prospect website
Why Auto Insurance Rates Are Out of Control
The factors are partly structural, but also have to do with a corporate drive for profits and use of technology to precision-target customers. BY DAVID DAYEN
The Real Entitlement Crisis: Good Reporting Is in Short Supply
The preferred journals of the power elite peddle the myth of pending Social Security catastrophe, which is catastrophically wrong. BY MAX MORAN
New Mexico Loophole May Allow Record Methane Releases
Despite efforts to rein in emissions, state is unlikely to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals, group says. BY JERRY REDFERN
Meyerson on TAP
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
**** This Week on 'Ask the Supremes': Do Menendez and Cuellar Have Congressional Immunity?
If there's presidential immunity, why not congressional?
Let's assume that the same considerations the Republican Supreme Court justices voiced when Donald Trump's request for blanket immunity came before them might also affect their considerations of immunity for any crimes that New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez and Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar (both now indicted for bribery) may have committed.
We'll begin by noting that during the Trump oral arguments, these justices sought to make distinctions between crimes committed
**as**president-and hence protected because it involves acting in an official capacity-and crimes committed
**while**president, like stealing from the collection plate in church (unless, of course, those funds were then used to close the budget deficit, which would then become a crime
**as**, rather than a crime
**while**).
By this standard, Menendez and Cuellar have a strong case that their (allegedly) accepting bribes was clearly a crime
**as**. After all, were they not members of Congress, those (alleged) bribes would not have been tendered. And after all, their subsequent actions to promote the policy results they'd pledged to help along in return for their (allegedly) taking those bribes were clearly undertaken
**as** members of Congress.
If that's not dispositive enough for these Supremes, consider their comments during the oral arguments in the Trump case that the laws Trump is alleged to have broken didn't specifically reference the president as being subject to them. The same logic clearly applies to Menendez and Cuellar. Do the bribery statutes specifically single out members of Congress as subject to their strictures? And even if they do, do they specifically apply to members of Congress from New Jersey, or the border regions of Texas? No? Case closed!
[link removed]
But wait-there's more! The justices also entertained arguments that even if convicted of a crime, the laws under which Trump would be found guilty weren't "self-executing," and thereby required additional congressional action to be put into effect. Surely, the same requirements must apply to sitting members of Congress. Even should Cuellar and Menendez be convicted and sentenced to jail, those sentences should be stayed, then, until Congress passes enabling legislation. Perhaps Congress may wish to appoint a committee of senators and representatives to escort C&M to prison, much as they appoint senators and representatives to escort presidents to the dais before State of the Union addresses. One wouldn't want to leave such matters to the unelected bureaucrats of an overreaching administrative state.
But there are weightier issues in play here, as the Republican justices noted in considering Trump's pleas for immunity. "We're writing a rule for the ages," Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch noted during oral arguments, then proceeding to bypass the particulars of Trump's case (the January 6th attack on the Capitol, the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and so on) to the more fundamental issues of whether future presidents might be held accountable for offenses, even on the flimsiest of charges.
By the same token, the consequences of
**not**granting C&M immunity could result in future members of Congress shunning the input of their constituents, not to mention a marked decline in the campaign finances that power our government. Who's to say where this could end? Such a ruling could deter future members of Congress from, say, accepting commemorative quilts or hearty handshakes of praise for their actions. Democracy itself might tremble in the face of such discouragements to popular feedback.
Finally, Congress is the subject of Article I of the Constitution, while the president is the subject of Article II. Originalists, take note!
There are, to be sure, some differences the Court might want to consider should C&M ask it to grant them the same kind of immunity that Trump sought. Trump, after all, appointed Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, while Menendez, like virtually all Senate Democrats, voted against their confirmations, and Cuellar didn't vote at all, as judicial confirmations don't come before the House. I don't think the justices would actually weigh such distinctions, but I note it here as a theoretical possibility.
~ HAROLD MEYERSON
Follow Harold Meyerson on Twitter
[link removed]
To receive this newsletter directly in your inbox, click here to subscribe.??
Click to Share this Newsletter
[link removed]
??
[link removed]
??
[link removed]
??
[link removed]
??
[link removed]
YOUR TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION SUPPORTS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The American Prospect, Inc., 1225 I Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC xxxxxx, United States
Copyright (c) 2024 The American Prospect. All rights reserved.
To opt out of American Prospect membership messaging, click here .
To manage your newsletter preferences, click here .
To unsubscribe from all American Prospect emails, including newsletters, click here .
