Justice Sotomayor - The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law...
"When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."
SCOTUS: POTUS can’t forgive student debt
SCOTUS: women don’t have autonomy over their bodies
SCOTUS: EPA can’t regulate the water
SCOTUS: POTUS can assassinate his political opponent
Washington Post - The Supreme Court says presidents have “absolute” immunity for clearly official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts. Former president and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump faces four federal felony counts in D.C. for allegedly trying to undo Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. The high court’s 6-3 ruling sends the case back to the lower court to determine when and whether Trump will go to trial. The ruling capped a term marked by new conservative limits on the power of regulatory agencies and by a fresh round of ethics scandals for the justices, whose public approval ratings remain at historic lows.
NPR - The court sent the case back to the trial judge to determine which, if any of Trump actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution. That part of the court’s decision likely ensures that the case against Trump won’t be tried before the election, and then only if he is not re-elected. If he is re-elected, Trump could order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him, or he might try to pardon himself in the two pending federal cases
Independent UK - The liberal wing of the court, joined by conservative Justice Barrett, raised concerns about future presidents being “emboldened to commit crimes” in office knowing they have protections against prosecution. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning against the conservative court’s dangerous precedent for democracy. “Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.” She said the majority’s decision relied on “little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President.”
Mother Jones - “Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
The case arose out of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal charges against Trump for trying to subvert the election. As a defense, Trump argued that he is immune from prosecution for official acts made while in the White House—a sweeping theory without a basis in the Constitution. The framers, who were adamant that the presidency not resemble the monarchy they had just fought a revolutionary war to escape, purposefully left presidential immunity out of the Constitution. They were explicit that presidents would not be above the law, an assumption that had continued until today: Indeed, President Gerald Ford famously pardoned former President Richard Nixon—a result of the understanding that without doing so, Nixon might face criminal charges.
Before the case reached the Supreme Court, the district court and court of appeals had both rebuffed Trump’s claims. But at oral argument before the high court, several Republican-appointed justices were preoccupied with the idea that ex-presidents would be under siege from prosecutors waging backward-looking, politically motivated cases unless the court granted presidents new levels of immunity. Monday’s decision relies on a related idea that presidents need immunity in order to effectively govern: the framers, the majority argued, envisioned a vigorous executive and immunity would ensure the office’s strength.
...In her dissent, Sotomayor argued that majority goes so far as to create not a robust executive but, essentially, a monarch. “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” she wrote. In a separate dissent, Jackson warned that the gift of immunity would not engender benevolence: “The seeds of absolute power for Presidents have been planted,” she wrote. “And, without a doubt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
...The opinion further insulates the president by finding that a president’s official and protected conduct, even when criminal, cannot be introduced as evidence at a trial taking place for prosecutable conduct. The result is that even where this sweeping immunity does not touch, a finding of guilt will be made more difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment