Trump’s embarrassments may show his limits

In chess, the king is one of the weakest pieces in the game. He can move only one step in each direction, unlike even his pawns at times. And he depends on others for protection even as he lords his crown over them.

Might that become a metaphor for Donald J. Trump, soon to be inaugurated as the nation’s first felon-in-chief? Might his overheated all-powerful image as the man who won all branches of government just a couple months ago now be facing a chillier reality?

In October, editorialists at The Wall Street Journal attacked the “fascist meme” that Democrats were invoking to try to defeat Trump. This was the idea that the then-candidate would subvert democracy much as tyrants around the world have. “We have confidence that American institutions—the Supreme Court, the military, Congress—would resist any attempt to subvert the Constitution,” the editorialists argued.

A month later, in a WSJ piece headlined “Trump Tests the Constitution’s Limits,” opinion writer William Galston of Brookings lambasted Trump for trying to avoid the Senate, short-circuiting the advise-and-consent process in a rush to get his dubious Cabinet nominees approved. “Mr. Trump appears poised to sidestep the Constitution, and we’ll soon find out whether the other branches of government are prepared to go along with him,” Galston wrote.

Nowadays, the once seemingly invincible Trump is getting some answers from some of those branches that he doesn’t much like.

Most notable, of course, is the 5-4 Supreme Court decision forcing him to face sentencing in his seamy hush-money coverup conviction by a jury in New York state court. This involved the 34 felony counts based on a $130,000 payment he made to a porn star to stay mum about their dalliance. The would-be-puppetmaster here got his comeuppance, it seems:

Instead of toeing the line for Trump, the majority, including Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett, upheld the rule of law. The group outvoted Trump toadies Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch, along with right-wing ideologues Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas. While Trump will appeal that 34-count conviction, a jury has already further underlined his lack of personal morality and his disrespect for the law, and for now most of the court sided with those jurors.

The justices’s decision follows a string of rulings they’ve made against Trump, both during and after his first term. In his first administration, The New York Times reported, he or his agencies prevailed only 42 percent of the time in cases before the court, the lowest rate since at least Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration.

While he was out of office, the court repeatedly rebuffed him. As NBC News reported, when Trump tried to prevent prosecutors from obtaining his financial records, the court rejected his request. Likewise, when Trump tried to stop a congressional committee from accessing White House documents from his administration, the court set him back.

It did so, too, when he asked for a special master to review classified documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago residence. And when Trump sought to stop his tax returns being disclosed to House Democrats, the court refused to intervene.

The self-styled dealmaker-in-chief may have thought he had bought the court with his three appointees, but his purchase clearly wasn’t complete. “I’m not happy with the Supreme Court,” he said on Jan. 6, 2021, during his speech near the White House. “They love to rule against me.” He suggested his appointees were ingrates. “I picked three people,” he said. “I fought like hell for them.”

And then there was that recalcitrant Congress. Thirty-eight Republicans last month refused to give Trump his way with a debt-limit increase, forcing the leadership to strip that demand out of a bill that avoided a pre-Christmas government shutdown. It was quite the humiliation for the president-elect, who now faces the need to twist arms anew in a new Congress.

As for his efforts to get his Cabinet members through without the normal hearings – hearings that would further shine a light on their lack of qualifications – Trump appears to have lost that battle too. Those sessions are slated to begin next week with the especially inappropriate Defense Department secretary nominee Pete Hegseth teeing them off. Trump was kicked in the teeth with the loss of the disgraced Matt Gaetz, his absurd and morally vile choice for Attorney General, but it would be surprising if Trump doesn’t prevail on his other picks.

But will he ram his agenda through, nonetheless? Most likely, he will get his tax cuts, border security measures, money to deport immigrants, tariffs and efforts to boost oil and gas energy production. But, will he get backing for his designs on Greenland and the Panama Canal, his suggestions for using the military to carry those out? Will he garner support for using “economic force” in his ludicrous talk of absorbing Canada?

Of course, he is doing his best, with a series of private meetings at Mar-A-Lago, to bring legislators in line. Certainly, the obsequious House Speaker Mike Johnson – whose job Trump managed to save – has said he sees his job as the quarterback who carries out the plays his president calls.

During President Jimmy Carter’s touching funeral, there were many suggestions for our leaders to work for peace and harmony, to bring unity to our polarized country. The example of former foes Carter and President Ford becoming dear friends was compelling. Of course, the reminders by President Biden of the importance of character in a president resounded throughout the National Cathedral, perhaps even ringing in Trump’s ears a bit.

Still, it’s doubtful that such admonitions will have any effect on our most narcissistic once-and-future president. He’s been impervious to embarrassment in the past and seems to prefer conflict to conflict-resolution. The thrive-married philanderer, sexual abuser and business cheat long flaunted his immorality and, at 78, he’s hardly likely to change.

But maybe there is reason for hope that the many other chess pieces in this important game will show their value.

Maybe there is reason to hope that the checks and balances the WSJ thinks so fondly of will work, that some guardrails will keep the incoming president from having the full hand he’d like. With the Supreme Court showing the way, we may see a bit more independence, a bit less fealty than the once and future president would like. The spectacle could be redeeming and surely will be worth watching.