The Daily Blast: Trump Rages Wildly at SCOTUS Losses as Plot to Rig Midterms Collapses

Really? I'm excited about my story, total.

Steuja, how do you feel? The Steuja is really cool. Yes, I've been watching over 1000 euros. You've just got a connection. No, just like Steuja. Wow! And that's just a bit...

Sure, the macht fast, all is automatic. It's definitely not so exciting for me. Hold your money, Ty from a Span with like Steuja. More money, more intrigue than that.

“The absolute macht is the only way to live.”

Your life is unbezzling with your money. Steam, the new station, House of the Dragon, 22nd June, with Wow. Freudig, also, the station, for one and two of the next series, and another highlight.

That's what kind of two people are going to give. They're going to sell their money. The best price, for the best price. Now, for two or eight or nine months. Gear of Worte for the E.

Streaming was still not so great. This is the daily blast from the new Republic, produced and presented by the DSR network. I'm your host, Greg Sargent. [Music]

Donald Trump lost a few big cases at the Supreme Court on Monday. He also won a big one.

“But judging by the extended eruption of rage that followed after those losses,”

those are the cases he really cared about. And you can see why. In one of those losses, the court allowed states to continue counting ballots that arrived after election day. And that probably cuts off one of the pathways he was eyeing to help steal

the midterms. Yet at the same time, his one victory was pretty substantial and underscore it again, the long-term crisis that the Supreme Court has thrust us into by continually expanding the power of this president. We're getting into all of it with Lisa Graves, former counsel for the

Senate Judiciary Committee who writes about the Supreme Court. Lisa, good to have you on. Greg, thank you so much for inviting me. So let's start with Trump's losses.

The Supreme Court rejected his appeal of a $5 million verdict in favor of

E.G. and Carol, after a jury found he'd abused her. It blocked him from firing federal reserve, Governor Lisa Cook, without cause. And in the biggest loss of all, the court upheld a Mississippi provision that counts mail in ballots that arrived late, which will deliver a real

blow to Trump and Republican efforts to invalidate mail ballots in this false midterms and many other states. Lisa, what's your basic reading on that last one? Well, the Watson case is one where had the Roberts Court ruled in favor of Trump, it would have caused further chaos for the elections.

We're already seeing some of the chaos the Roberts Court has caused through the collated decision and related rulings this spring into May around the maps and the redrawing of maps in the former Confederate states. But in this instance, the Roberts Court said no to the effort of the

RNC and Trump to block the counting of ballots that are postmarked by election day, but that arrived after. And obviously, people don't have any control over how long it takes for the mail to be delivered and it's been increasingly slow in recent years.

And the related pieces in the law in a numerous other ways, the postmark is the thing that counts is the thing that can't be altered. And so it's a really reliable indicator of whether a ballot is on

time based on the postmark and the reality is that even though the

press cover is election night in the sort of horse race coverage of who won and who lost, those are projections because in reality in many counties across the country, particularly in cities, it takes days to actually count and verify those ballots. And also, there's an opportunity for people to cure their ballots if they

cast provisional ballots come in later that week with their ID if they didn't have one with these new ID restrictions. And so it's not unusual at all for the counting of ballots that are marked as postmarked by election day and the ballots that are cast on election day to be counted in the days after election.

“Trump, as you point out, was I think trying counting on the court”

citing with him in the RNC to try to disrupt the counting of those ballots. This loss really triggered Trump's anger more than anything else. He exploded in an extended rant on truth social. He said this quote, "In light of the tremendous loss in the Supreme Court today concerning voters' rights and the fact that people's

votes are allowed to be counted long after an election is over. It is more important than ever to pass the Save America Act." It's very rare that Donald Trump admits that he lost, but there, he admitted that. And I also thought it was useful that he said straight out that he

That's very helpful.

“I think that's a really, very clear window into how he saw this.”

Yeah, that's right. Those in the law would be called admissions against interest that he confessed those things. And this idea that he's concerned about voters intent. He would try to ensure that those votes get counted when people

mailed them on honor before election day. But of course, as you point out, he also used this to pivot to his pressure campaign to try to get the SAVE Act pass, which is really about trying to save his presidency by making it harder for millions of Americans to vote. A lot of women not me took their husband's names when they married.

And so their first certificate is not the same as their driver's license. And the SAVE Act would make it harder for millions of American women to vote if they can't show at that time or in registration that they are who they are. Even if they've been voting for years or decades using either their driver's license or their residents, you know, regular voters.

And so that SAVE pressure point is something Trump has been obsessed with over the

“last few days in particular, because I think again, he sees this as a way to”

try to control the outcome of the election, even though millions of Republican voters would also be affected by this deeply misguided and reckless SAVE Act. This ruling, what it does is provisions like this one that allow the counting of mail ballots that arrive after election day will now remain in place in many states, including ones with big elections in this fall.

And this is the critical point.

For instance, if Democrats win a couple of crucial house seats in California, their path the majority becomes easier, there are a few other states, maybe New York and Texas, where, you know, the upholding of this provision could really matter in the midterms. It's obvious Trump and Republicans were hoping to use the slow counting of mail ballots to try to steal those elections outright.

They were going to combine this end-to-counting late of arriving boats with an effort to get the postal service to slow the delivery of votes. But that's all been thwarted. That was a big chunk of their plan, wasn't it? That's a great point, Greg.

And we already saw Trump try to run this game plan in Los Angeles with the attacks on the process for counting ballots after the most recent elections in California,

“including in the mayoral race, so we know that I think he was itching to deploy that same”

tactic to discredit elections everywhere by claiming that this is somehow fraudulent or the results aren't fair if the votes are counted after election day,

even though, as you and I both know, both are almost always counted after election day

because that how long it takes to count the votes. He really hates the counting of votes. I want to dwell a little bit on his use of this moment to push the SAVE Act. It's really revealing. He responds to this loss on mail ballots by demanding again the Republicans pass voter suppression legislation. But the thing is Lisa, he has explicitly said this voter suppression legislation is

necessary to holding power in the midterms, so he's more or less confirming outright that he understood this mail ballot case as a way to block voters from delivering a negative verdict on his presidency and as a way to block voters from having their say in the midterms. It's just right out in the open that's striking how direct it is, isn't it? It really is. And it's appalling quite frankly because we've never all I guess we did in 2020,

but before Donald Trump, we never had a president who sought to attack sort of the idea of

voting. Obviously there was litigation around Bush v. Gore, and whether those recounts could continue in the southern, you know, the South Eastern counties of Florida. But that was not that was couch, not as like just hostility to counting these ballots. And the thing about this particular circumstance is that, you know, had the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. It would have cast in doubt early voting across the country because by setting

election day as a particular day, Congress wasn't intending to say that only ballots cast that day at the polling place could count. That's not been the practice of the United States for literally more than a century. The first real major mail mail ballots were during the civil war. You know, as the civil war was going on. And so this is a long-standing part of American history, but Trump doesn't care about history. What he cares about is power.

And he's been joined in this attack on voting by mail and on the potential outcome of this election by Mike Johnson, who made really clear the other day just the other day how if if Democrats were to win, there would be oversight of Donald Trump. And he and he said out loud

you from consequences, which is also really morally appalling protecting from accountability

“is what they mean. Yes. Yes. And the fact is, is that that's, that's what representative”

government is about. That's what in how selections are about every two years. We get a chance at least we're supposed to get a chance to do a course correction. And people seem to want a very real and significant course correction, but between Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, and then the Roberts Court's rulings on clay and the voting maps cases, what we see are Republican elected officials or Republican appointed officials trying to squeeze and

change the rules of the game midway to preserve Donald Trump's power despite all of the extraordinarily outrageous things that Donald Trump has done on an almost daily basis. They seem determined to protect him at any cost, even the cost of representative government itself. I hate to interrupt this thrilling podcast, but we have some exciting news at the DSR network. Our sub stack is now live. Our sub stack is going to be the new home

“for free and paid content here at the DSR network. The best way to support us over”

our new sub stack is by becoming a member. Right now, there's an early bird special until the end of the month where you'll get 30% off of a new subscription with no code required to sign up for either a free or paid subscription to our sub stack. You can go to DSR network.substack.com. That's DSR network.substack.com. We're super excited for our new sub stack and feeded join us there. We have a lot of things coming that we're thrilled to share

with you in the future. We appreciate your support and thank you for listening. Now back to the show.

Our invitation for your podcast, fresh air and snackful food from Aldi. Always good. Always

delicious. Always very happy. Cut, say fresh for Aldi. To be honest, this week mini watermelon, the kilo for only €1.29 or nectarines, the one kilo for only €1.80. In a decade now, many other vegetables in your Aldi north for years and other vegetables and vegetables and vegetables. Good for all. I'm also a little bit of a maldo-nado and I'm the founder of Yaui, a singer who is on the Kunstwerke and has a special specialised dish.

My wife is a lot of shopping, because shopping is probably the other platform I've tested with at the start of the next week. I've been waiting for all the ingredients. All tools that

“for the equipment from the market are important to be able to store the food from the store.”

Start a yet-dine kostenlosen test of Shopify.com. Absolutely, but now we have to get to the bad part. The court ruled that Trump has the power to fire independent regulators, which is really going to increase Trump's power over independent agencies and enable him and Maga to bend agencies to his corrupt will more easily. The court carved out this exception for the federal reserve, putting that aside for a

long time. It's like a new explain why this ruling on all the other agencies, such a disaster. Well, it really is a disaster, and I wrote about some of this in my book without precedent, which is describing how John Roberts, the chief justice who made an indelible image in people's minds during his confirmation process where he said he was just going to be a fair umpire calling balls and strikes. But in fact, he's used the judiciary used his post on the court

and he said, "This is one of these really fringe theories in the law." And one of those fringe theories is the unitary executive theory. It was invented during the

Reagan administration, and we know that John Roberts was a regular revolutionary.

He was at the top of the Justice Department at the beginning of Reagan's term. He was then the White House Council's office, then he was in the George Warrocker Bush administration as the political deputy in the S.G.s office, and back then what they were trying to do was to maximize presidential power, and now as a judge, what we're seeing is John Roberts overturning decades, nearly a century, a legal precedent, that Congress had, you know,

passed this law, saying that they wanted to make sure that they were independent agencies, that if the agency had legislative components to its work, like the Federal Trade Commission in terms of trying to implement Congress's will of protecting against these mergers, and now their mega mergers in the 21st century, that the president could not just fire someone without cause. And the thing about what Roberts has done along with his fellow

Republican appointees in the slaughter case is that it has ripped away the power of Congress to create these independent agencies. And remember, the job of the president isn't to invent the law. His job, the oath he takes, is to faithfully execute the law.

minute one, after being sworn in, he started, you know, basically asserting that he could just

change the law. But in this instance, with mergers, this is an area where, like I said, going back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Supreme Court had said, no, you cannot fire your predecessors appointees. It's just not allowed. We want these agencies to do their job to do their job, independent of who is the president. And what Roberts has done is change the law, radically dramatically change the law, to empower Trump to have more power

than almost any president in the 20th and 21st century has had. Well, let's step back for a second, really home in on that bigger point. Trump rages wildly over his losses, and he attacks the court over them. And probably the commander that's most significant in the long term, not for these

“midterms, but in the long term. And I think that kind of tension captures where we are,”

which is the Trump's expectation is so strong that he'll get his way from the Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court will continue to give him power, that he treats it as unusual and even outrageous when the court occasionally doesn't do that. But the big story is that Trump and his appointees on the Supreme Court and the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have conspired to vastly inflate the power

of the president and arguably of the court as well at the expense of Congress.

Isn't that the big story that it's just basically whittled away Congress and reduced it

and diminished it while inflating the power of the presidency and inflating the power of the court itself, they're like allied in this effort it seems to me. Well, you're exactly right. What we're seeing is both imperial president being created by an imperial court. What we have is sort of cult of judicial supremacy, where

“Roberts is basically acting like the kingmaker, right? He is the one who invented,”

you know, and orchestrated his fellow Republican appointees to come together to give Donald Trump unprecedented immunity from criminal prosecution for his so-called official acts to allow him to commit crimes. That is extraordinary. It was unprecedented and it has created the sense of entitlement of Donald Trump in this new term. So it basically pardon him when he was not in office helped sweep him back into

power by sending a signal to the American people that he did no wrong. And as this could do no wrong and then has empowered him and the book in for that is that this court through the shadow docket has ruled and Donald Trump's favor 90 percent of the time, where while the lower courts of different different presidential appointments have been ruling against him on a lot of these issues because they are

contrary to the constitution, to statutes, regulations, legal precedents, and

“contracts in many instances. And so what we see here is a Supreme Court majority”

six to three, five of them serving the executive branch. They cut their teeth trying to expand and defend presidential power. And now they're using their posts on the Supreme Court to expand presidential power from the from the bench to invent new rules and ignore longstanding precedents to do so. And in doing so, they also are carving out for themselves this notion that they are the deciders. They are the real

people in power and they are unaccountable to the American people, which is why I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, an increasing number of my colleagues are supporting an all the best strategy on court reform. Well, that is an absolutely awful occurrence. Well, we've seen happen. The big picture occurrence. I just want to be sure we don't take away from the importance of Trump losing on male

validing because we are going to need a democratic Congress to challenge the state of affairs. And with these rulings with the ruling on male ballots, it has become somewhat more likely that we get that democratic Congress, right? Yes, the fact that they cannot stop ballots from being counted that are postmarked by election day. That is a big victory for the

American voter. And it also takes place in the in the context of this court basically putting its thumb on the scale in these rejury-mandered maps in ways that may already help Trump, but it's not a done deal because Republicans have lost a number of these special elections. And the turn-out rates for Democrats versus Republicans in the primaries have been, you know,

there's been a real disparity in terms of enthusiasm for democratic candidates and lack of enthusiasm for some of these Republicans. So, no matter what the court's intervention in general, people are climbing for change. And this ruling by the Robert's court in the Watson case on male and ballots does protect the ability to have

ballots be counted as they have been year in and year out for decades before

Donald Trump became president. So, here's the bottom line then

As you put it, we're going to need Congress to discover its power.

“And if Democrats can win one chamber or both chambers, which is”

hard, but possible, they are going to have to use every last

shred of power that they can lay their hands on. Lisa Graves,

“awesome to talk to you. Thank you so much for coming on. That was just”

great stuff. Oh, that was beautifully put. Thank you so much

Greg. It's a joy to be on your show. [Music] [Music] [Music]