By News Corpse
Community
After a needless delay of several weeks, the Supreme Court has finally assembled to hear arguments over whether Donald Trump can be held accountable for the crimes he committed while occupying the White House. He is asserting that an imaginary doctrine of "presidential immunity" relieves him of any responsibility for his overtly anti-democratic actions.
Trump has been extraordinarily anxious about this case. He has spent weeks posting dozens of comments on his floundering social media scam, Truth Social, regurgitating ad infinitum the same complaints that without immunity a president would be subject to legal consequences for unlawful behavior. Which, to Trump's dismay, is exactly what the Constitution requires, and the American people overwhelmingly support.
MORE HERE: Felonious Punk Trump Demands ‘TOTAL IMMUNITY’ – Even for Acts that ‘CROSS THE LINE’
On Thursday the Supreme Court heard the case and engaged in a lively debate with the lawyers representing Trump and special counsel Jack Smith. What follows are a few of the notable questions by the Justices. The answers provided by Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, are so patently preposterous that they require no further commentary.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can give immunity?
Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.
Justice Elena Kagan: How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?
Sauer: If one adopted the test we advanced, that might well be an official act.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor: What is plausible about the president assisting in creating a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates? Is that plausible that would be within his right to do?
Sauer: Absolutely.
Justice Elena Kagan: If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?
Sauer: If it's structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.
And there you have it. The official position of Donald Trump is that he has a right to assassinate his opponents or judges, or journalists; to stage coups against the U.S. government; to undermine democracy by manufacturing slates of fake electors; and to sell nuclear secrets to Russia or any other unfriendly entity. And he believes he should be able to do all of that and more without any consequences, legally or otherwise.
That's a position for which there is no justification in the Constitution. Moreover, it is also contrary to the long held doctrine that no one in America is above the law. It would effectively make any president who invokes it an untouchable dictator. Which is, of course, precisely why Trump is pursuing it.
Any of the Justices who might be entertaining a finding in Trump's favor should be careful. Although that would relieve Trump of his current legal problems. It would also give him unprecedented and dangerous powers were he to be reelected. However, it would give President Biden those powers right now.
Are they sure that they want that? Biden, of course, would never consider any of the abhorrent actions that Trump's lawyer asserts would be permitted. But Biden could find some other less controversial measures to undertake in the defense of democracy that Trump and his conservative justices would find objectionable, including replacing those Justices. Just the prospect of that should lead them to a proper, constitutional conclusion. We'll see.
No comments:
Post a Comment