By TheCriticalMind
Community
If the Supreme Court thinks former presidents have, or do not have, some or absolute immunity against criminal prosecution, why not just say so now? Why would it take months?
Do they have something better to do? Are there other priorities on their to-do list? They may need some time for discussions. And clerks will have to type the decision up and proofread it. However, previous Courts were capable of making important decisions affecting presidents without dawdling.
In 1974, SCOTUS ruled that Nixon had no right to withhold the Oval Office tapes from Congress. It took them 99 days from April 16, when Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski served a subpoena for the tapes, until July 24, when they decided 8-0 to deny Nixon his claimed executive privilege to withhold evidence. Note: The 9th Justice, William Rehnquist, recused himself because of a conflict of interest (he had worked in Nixon’s White House). Are you paying attention, Clarence Thomas?
In 2000, SCOTUS took only three days to decide George W. Bush was the election winner. The Court had stayed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to allow a recount on December 9. They heard oral arguments on December 11. They gave Bush his win on December 12.
In 2024, SCOTUS is lollygagging. Trump’s legal team floated the immunity claim in November 2023. Federal District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan denied it. And her words resonate today. In her opinion, she wrote:
“Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”
She added that Trump’s “four-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens.”
Trump appealed. The DC Appeals Court upheld Chutkan on February 6, 2024. At the time, Jack Smith, sensitive to the election calendar, had requested that SCOTUS — if they were going to take the case on appeal from the DC Court anyway — cut out the middleman and take it up then. SCOTUS declined.
When SCOTUS did decide to hear Trump’s appeal — which they knew they would — they designated April 25 as the date for oral arguments — 144 days after the original claim of immunity. God only knows when they will issue a decision — if they do. There is already scuttlebutt that Chief Justice John Roberts might send the issue back to the lower courts for some more time wasting.
Why the hold-up? Is it possible that between bribes and being in the tank for Trump, five of the Justices are willing to dawdle long enough to see the 2020 loser reelected? What else would explain a delay?
Either their interpretation of the Constitution, case law, tradition, commentary and precedent allows for an unaccountable president — or it does not.
None of them are novices. The youngest Justice, Amy Coney Barrett (52), is 27 years removed from law school. The oldest, Clarence Thomas (75), has been practicing law for 50 years. And between the lot of them, they have over 30 clerks.
If they wanted to get it done, they could. Despite the importance of the ruling, it is not a complex case.
To help them arrive at an appropriate conclusion, they should ask themselves this question: Where is the evidence that the framers of the Constitution intended a President to be free to commit treason, order political assassinations, and take bribes — while an unelected court of lifetime appointees signed off on his criminality?
The Supremes know that the president cannot have carte blanche immunity. They also know that voters should be entitled to know if their prospective president is a crook. The only reason to slow-play the decision is to allow Trump time to win the election. And thus blow up the federal and Georgia cases. And I doubt he is facing jail time in the Manhattan documents case.
Trump will not care about a non-custodial conviction. It will give him more Mandela cred without the incarceration inconvenience. Imagine the merch the MAGAs will vacuum up. It will not even dim his career prospects. He is not applying for a job at Home Depot, where criminals face an uphill struggle. He is asking for a job that has no prohibition on felons.
Had the founders had foresight, they would have tightened up the qualifications for elected office. It is absurd that Trump could be in a position to win an election he might not be allowed to vote in. However, it did not occur to them that people would willingly vote for an attempted election fixer, document thief, serial bankrupt, and sexual abuser.
Worse, they did not anticipate a major political party would line up behind a felon. Or that major media outlets would unashamedly lie to promote his candidacy. Or that the Supreme Court would sacrifice its honor and reputation to grease a criminal’s skids.
When Sarah Palin called her 2009 autobiography “Going Rogue”, people thought it smacked of small-minded self-congratulation. Who knew it would also be an apt title for a history of the Trump Supreme Court?
No comments:
Post a Comment