Editorials & Other Articles

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,234 posts) Thu Apr 25, 2024, 11:35 PM Apr 25

The Trump immunity case is easy. The Supreme Court shouldn't make it hard.

It would seem to go without saying that the president, tasked with faithfully executing the laws of the United States, cannot also violate any one of those laws without fear of criminal prosecution after leaving office. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court decided this question is serious enough as it relates to Donald Trump that it must deliver an answer, rather than leaving the matter to the lower courts to state the obvious. Yet Trump v. United States is an easy case; the justices should not belabor the issue more than they already have.

Thursday’s oral argument in the case revolved around whether Mr. Trump can claim absolute immunity for his conduct while president, including for the alleged crimes in Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s election fraud case. Thankfully, most of the justices appeared skeptical that the president may avoid prosecution for any action he takes on the job.

From there, however, things got complicated. Assuming a president can be prosecuted for private or personal conduct — committing perjury to cover up an affair, say — can he be prosecuted for official conduct? What even counts as “official”? The court decided in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that ex-presidents have immunity from civil suits for anything within the “outer perimeter” of their duties. This generous standard enables the commander in chief to do the job without fear of countless frivolous lawsuits.

There are more guards against frivolous prosecutions than frivolous lawsuits, so the level of protection the executive needs from post-presidency criminal proceedings should be correspondingly lower — though, most of the justices seemed persuaded, not nonexistent. Even the Justice Department concedes that presidents can’t be criminally liable for certain “core conduct” listed in Article II of the Constitution. The justices contemplated President Barack Obama being dragged before judge and jury for conducting a drone strike against a terrorist.

-more-

https://wapo.st/4a9PptD

This is a gifted article.

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Trump immunity case is easy. The Supreme Court shouldn't make it hard. (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 25 OP

Why would the SC Traildogbob Apr 25 #1

Very true - a SC Justice can be convicted of a crime and continue to be a SC Justice. walkingman Apr 26 #2

Except they can't be. Igel Apr 26 #3

I'm not sure I understand your Statement? walkingman Apr 26 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author walkingman Apr 26 #4

He should be subject to the law while IN office, too. tclambert Apr 26 #6

Having read the transcript, they are making it very hard bhikkhu Apr 26 #7

Traildogbob

(8,827 posts)

1. Why would the SC

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2024, 11:55 PM

Apr 25

Rule against complete immunity for trump, when they enjoy total immunity themselves. Completely untouchable for a life time appointment. And just smuggly shove it in our faces.

walkingman

(7,669 posts)

2. Very true - a SC Justice can be convicted of a crime and continue to be a SC Justice.

Reply to Traildogbob (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 26, 2024, 01:14 AM

Apr 26

Only impeachment and conviction can remove a SC Justice. Or Death.

Igel

(35,359 posts)

3. Except they can't be.

Reply to walkingman (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 26, 2024, 06:26 PM

Apr 26

They enforce nothing. What actions do you punish them for?

At the same time, they (as a justice pointed out, to nobody's gainsaying) enjoy no immunity. The context was that if they can be both arrested and charged and prosecuted independent of any impeachment and removal from office, why should a president?

Then again, SCOTUS is a kind of corporation. Ultimately, it's authority is invested in a majority of the justices hearing a case. It is not, per the US Constitution, the case that "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Strictly speaking, SCOTUS is set up, by Our Democracy, as a conspiracy. (And SCOTUS packers just want our conspirators to outnumber their conspirators.)

walkingman

(7,669 posts)

5. I'm not sure I understand your Statement?

Reply to Igel (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 26, 2024, 07:30 PM

Apr 26

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2024, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)

They enforce nothing. What actions do you punish them for?

As examples -
Justice Thomas took trips almost every year for 20 years, provided a home for his Mom, paid tuition for a child Thomas raised , from a mega-donor. His politically active wife was paid 10's of thousands by the head of a politically influential group (Federalist Society).

Chief Justice Robert's wife made millions of dollars recruiting lawyers to prominent law firms, many of which had business directly before SCOTUS.

Other allegations involved Justice Gorsuch, Justice Alito and the left leaning justices could also have issues - we just don't know.

None of these justices recused themselves in instances where there were likely conflicts of interests.

They should, at a minimum have ethical standards that govern the lower federal court judges. Without that they have the very real danger of losing the public's trust and thereby their legitimacy.

Also if they committed a criminal act (private) the idea that they could continue as a justice seems wrong.

While some of this might seem far fetched - after witnessing just the last few years - it is absolutely reality.

What if a corrupt POTUS nominated a totally corrupt individual and was confirmed (I am convinced it could happen) what is the recourse? Impeachment? recent precedent shows that will not happen in a wildly partisan atmosphere.

Judicial being one of the 3 branches of government - it is Democracy's interest to ensure they are ethical and not criminals involved......IMO.

I have lost faith in the Robert's court as well as the Chief Justice.

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

walkingman This message was self-deleted by its author.

tclambert

(11,087 posts)

6. He should be subject to the law while IN office, too.

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2024, 08:43 PM

Apr 26

i think the idea of not having to answer to the law while in office came from Richard Nixon.

bhikkhu

(10,724 posts)

7. Having read the transcript, they are making it very hard

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2024, 08:53 PM

Apr 26

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f2qg.pdf is the link to the transcript, in case anyone enjoys inflicting punishment upon themselves. It's hard to read, and Trump's lawyer's arguments are completely absurd. How he doesn't get thrown out is beyond me, but I guess he is required to make some kind of case, pathetic as it might be. Benjamin Franklin wrote a sentence once, which he is taking as a primary justification for the Founding Father's having intended presidential immunity, for instance. In spite of virtually every other indication to the contrary, in the constitution and Madison's notes on the constitutional convention. It honestly makes me question the intelligence of the justices themselves.

Reply to this discussion