Despite Donald Trump's constant claims that Jack Smith is deranged, it is clear the Smith outmaneuvered Trump and his legal team again, this time by requesting that the Supreme Court rule if a president is immune from criminal prosecution from acts committed while he/she is in office.
I say outmaneuvered because anyone following any of the four criminal cases that are ongoing against Trump know that his main focus is to delay as much as possible until after the November 2024 election. What is curious about this tactic is that it assumes that should Trump win the next presidential election, he will be able to either pardon himself should he is convicted of anything, or squelch any ongoing federal investigation by commanding his attorney general to do so.
In other words, he will pervert our judicial and executive branches because, well, because that is what a king or dictator or whatever word he would prefer to use, does.
Whether the Supreme Court might stand against him will become apparent in the next few weeks once they decide on this immunity case.
I recently expressed my opinion on Trump's First Amendment defense. Here is a link to that post.
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/08/trump-and-first-amendment.html
To return to my initial assertion about Jack Smith, he knew that should the Court of Appeals rule against Trump, he would immediately file an appeal to the Supreme Court, so jumping right to that august body was extremely clever. While it remains to be seen if the March 4th trial date is viable, at least this temporary pause to allow SCOTUS to weigh in, should enable the trial to take place sometime close to March 4th, as this should be the last vestige of hope for anymore delays.
As for what the nine members of the Supreme Court will decide, I truly believe that they will act as a strong guardrail for democracy, and reject the notion that a president is immune from criminal prosecution for acts committed while serving the people.
I use the phrase "serving the people" because this is the concept that eludes Trump. A president is our most important public servant. His duty above all, is to uphold the constitution. More than anyone we elect, his actions should be for the good of the country, never for himself. It is a concept that Trump has flouted over and over again, both before, during and after his term as president. He is as completely self centered as anyone you will meet, which is blatantly obvious in as simple a thing as his propensity to take credit for anything good, and deflect blame for anything that doesn't work out.
However, that reasoning is not based on the law. If it were as obvious to the millions of Americas who continue to support Trump as it is to me, this post would not be required, as Trump would have already slithered off to some balmy tropical island somewhere to live out his life in disgrace. Sadly, that is not the case.
So legally, how will SCOTUS adjudicate this situation.
If precedent is any indicator, the SCOTUS decision during the Nixon presidency which forced then president Nixon to release the tapes that provided proof of his complicity in the Watergate scandal, provides some insight. Of course, this current iteration of SCOTUS has already shown some inclination to reject precedent (see Dobbs decsion).
Still, I find it almost unfathomable to believe that the nine most important judges of the United States of America, will rule that a president can break any law he/she wants and be immune from prosecution. And I especially believe that these particular nine judges, a number of whom claim to be constitutional originalists, will decide that the founding fathers thought that an American President should not, cannot, be granted the powers of a king, immune from the ramifications of any criminal activity. Those signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights didn't think King George should be granted such power, so certainly didn't think any future president of America would be empowered in such a way either.
Remember, the Supreme Court justices are not deciding guilt or innocence of the charges, just that it is constitutional to bring those charges because a sitting president can not do anything they like, such as being free to "shoot someone on Fifth Avenue " without ramifications.
Frankly, I believe that SCOTUS should rule 9-0 in this instance, and allow the judicial process to play out. Perhaps it is enough that Trump thought he was acting as president to actively plot to subvert the peaceful transition of power because he truly thought the election had been stolen, an assertion that I discuss in the already alluded to post above, but that is the reason for a trial. To lay out the facts of his guilt and to allow a defense of why he is not guilty. Short circuiting this process by ruling that Trump shouldn't even be put on trial, denies the foundations of our twin tenets, that no one is above the law, and that American democracy is our country's most important trait.
That being said, I have no doubt that justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson will vote to allow the trial. I also believe that the three justices that Trump appointed, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will not bend the knee, as Trump believes they should, and will also vote to allow the process to play out. And, I firmly believe that Chief Justice Roberts will also side with the idea that no man is above the law.
As for Justice Thomas, I would prefer that he not recuse himself as many Democrats have requested. I would like him to prove to the American people that he is able to make a legal decision based on the oath he took to uphold the constitution, and not kowtow to the whims of his wife, or the influence of the billionaires who have illegally lined his pockets with gifts and privileges. Of course, there is a chance he will agree but file a side opinion that softens his vote, or even that he will file a dissenting opinion and vote to allow Trump to act above the law in the past (and then, most certainly in the future), but it is a chance I am willing to take.
As for Justice Alito, I have no real positive belief that he will vote with his colleagues to call the bluff of someone trying to be the first American dictator, but again, prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt that he values our democracy. More importantly, I have to think that he might value his legacy as a respected jurist, more so than his recent tendency to jettison any interpretation of our founding documents that is not rooted in white male dominance and superiority.
Should however, my opinion be proven wrong, and the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, rule that Donald Trump, as president, is immune to criminal prosecution for anything he did while president, then we may be lost.
I already know that Trump will claim victory next November regardless of how the electorate votes, and that Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House will do everything in his power to subvert the counting of the electors per Trump's bidding, but should SCOTUS rule that Trump, as president, is king, then any future challenge to the next attempt to steal the presidential election will be mute.
Let's hope that respect for the law, respect for our democracy, and respect for the founders and the documents they created, win the day, at least for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment