Posted on 04/28/2024 9:11:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
During Thursday’s deliberations at the U.S. Supreme Court on former President Donald Trump’s immunity claim, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that a decision in the case has future implications for whether future presidents are shielded from vicious cycles of malicious prosecution that could effectively end the presidency as we know it.
In the course of two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments on April 25, justices on the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of a ruling by a federal appeals court that rejected President Trump’s claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges based on his official acts as president.
President Trump was indicted by special counsel Jack Smith in August 2023 on charges of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Pleading not guilty, the former president has argued that he should receive absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts that fell within the scope of his official duties. The exception to this immunity, he has argued, is if Congress impeaches and convicts him on charges.
A federal appeals court rejected that argument, claiming that presidents must face prosecution for alleged criminal wrongdoing.
The question that is now before the Supreme Court is: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”
During Thursday’s deliberations, the justices weighed the claim of absolute immunity that, if adopted, would stop Mr. Smith’s prosecution of the former president dead in its tracks.
Several conservative justices suggested they favor imposing limits on the prosecution of former presidents, while highlighting the importance of the case for the future.
Justice Kavanaugh said that when presidents are subject to prosecution, history shows that it’s not going to stop.
“It’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president ... and the next president and the next president after that.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who said that the court is “writing a rule for the ages,” along with Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Kavanaugh all said that their concern was not so much the case against President Trump, but rather the effect of the ruling on future presidencies.
“This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” Justice Kavanaugh said.
Former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, who argued for Mr. Smith, said that the framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law.
Mr. Dreeben also said that the crimes President Trump is charged with—including allegedly participating in a scheme to enlist dueling electors in battleground states won by President Joe Biden to cast alternate slates of electoral votes for him—weren’t a part of the president’s official duties.
Attorney D. John Sauer, who argued for President Trump, told the justices that without presidential immunity from criminal charges, the “presidency as we know it” will be changed, contending that the looming threat is that a decision to deny immunity would “destroy” presidential decisionmaking at a time in the nation’s history when it needs to be bold.
Mr. Sauer argued that the impact of the case would have implications far beyond the question at hand, raising the hypothetical prospect of President Biden facing charges of encouraging illegal immigration with his border policies.
Justice Kavanaugh expressed concern about the future implications of the case, warning of the prospect of a vicious cycle of malicious prosecutions that could hamper presidents for years to come.
Mr. Drebeen contended that the laws currently on the books have not shown they are prone to abuse, telling the high court that “we’ve lived from Watergate through the present, through the independent counsel era with all of its flaws, without these prosecutions having gone off on a runaway train.”
Justice Kavanaugh argued that the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton presidencies were all “hampered” by investigations, while suggesting that holding a president accountable is less important than protecting the functioning of the presidency.
He raised the question of the “risk” of a “creative prosecutor” using “vague” statutes against a commander-in-chief, telling Mr. Dreeben that this case has “huge implications” for the presidency, and that he was “very concerned about the future.”
Justice Kavanaugh cited the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, as “one of the Court’s biggest mistakes” because it “hampered” presidential administrations. He argued that when former presidents are subjected to prosecution, this risks triggering a vicious cycle of vindictive prosecutions.
“What would the reaction be if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person?” he asked.
“Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as picking the man and then searching the law books or putting investigators to work to pin some offense on him?”
In other words... A dictatorship!!!!
I think we should prosecute the Malicious Muslim Bammy O’Musloid for his murderin’ ways.
The Supreme Court has stood by idly as the election was stolen, and as Trump has been hunted illegally and on ethically for 3 1/2 years. If the Supreme Court does not find a way to rain in this bull crap very hard, they lose all credibility.
My opinion, this country is already lost. Our debt is out of control and nothing will change that. The Deep State will reign supreme no matter who is elected. If Trump wins he’s nothing but a stop gap. We are in for some dark dark days.........
A banana republic. With a revolving door of unstable "leaders" who answer to either the oligarchs in their gated compounds or to mobs in the streets.
A vicious cycle? That requires _two_ antagonists.
The Beer Guy [note that I am a serious fan of IPAs [ales]] needs to step up his game.
“Our debt is out of control and nothing will change that”
Hyper Inflation can fix that.
In other words:
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
-- Soviet secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria
This persecution of Trump has gone full commie. You never go full commie.
As much as we would love to see those who damaged this country and its people prosecuted and jailed for thier crimes it sets a president where no one of any right mind will want the job and if so the decisions made by the commander and chief in perilous and dangerous times will be later put in trial because of it, not good
We may be looking at the sworn enemies of the USA destroying our criminal American leadership via all-out war.
These enemies will not hesitate to go after our bureaucracy and deep state in a world war. They know the weakness and wickedness inside the U.S. government and will show no mercy.
If financial ruin does not finish this republic, our vengeful enemies have a good shot at it.
The need for some degree of presidential immunity is obvious to anyone who’s objective and wishes our republic to survive in the way it was intended. But from a legal point of view, the Constitution is somewhat ambiguous. The principle of presidential immunity has been accepted up until now, due less to any clear Constitutional prerogative and more to common law.
Now SCOTUS is put in the less than ideal position of having to legislate from the bench. While it’s tempting to want SCOTUS to give a sweeping decision that addresses all possible scenarios, I believe the more restrained, limited ruling they seem inclined to make, makes more sense. From a practical point of view, even a more limited SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity is likely going to delay any court proceedings against Trump till after the election, at which point the cases may end up being dropped.
The runaway train is now way off the tracks.
What do you think ALL of Trump’s impeachments and cases are/have been.
My thought is...if a President is convicted by the Senate and removed, he can be tried for Crimes. But they must be actual. Then again, he has been already tried....seems like they can try him 10 years...15 years...later...whatever is politically expedient.
can they bring in O-bozo for testimony as an expert witness? Ask him if President’s have immunity. that would be tons of fun!
Also the fact that Smith being appointed special council is a fraud,smith was never appointed as a government attorney and has no authority as a special council
Sheeesh.
the moment Trump is convicted, Biden can be literally dragged from the White House and placed in jail pending trials
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.