âThe Supreme Court has ordered the most important of former President Donald Trumpâs four criminal trials to be put on hold indefinitely. Itâs an extraordinary victory for Trump and a devastating blow to special counsel Jack Smith. The Courtâs decision also raises serious doubts about whether these justices will allow a trial to take place before the November election.
Many Court observers, including myself, were shocked by Wednesdayâs order because it appeared to rest on the flimsiest of pretexts. The ostensible reason why the Court ordered Trumpâs trial paused is so the justices could spend the next few months considering Trumpâs argument that he is immune from prosecution for any âofficial actsâ he engaged in while he was still president.
This is an exceptionally weak legal argument, with monstrous implications. Trumpâs lawyers told one of the judges who ruled against this immunity claim that a former president could not be prosecuted, even if he ordered âSEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,â unless the president was first successfully impeached and convicted (by lawmakers that, under Trumpâs argument, the president could order killed if they attempted to impeach him).
There are, of course, historical examples of the Supreme Court behaving less deferentially toward presidents who thumb their nose at the law. The most well-known is United States v. Nixon (1974), the Courtâs decision ordering President Richard Nixon to turn over tape recordings that implicated him in a crime, eventually leading to Nixonâs resignation.
The decision to halt Trumpâs trial, however, fits within a different judicial tradition, which is no less robust and no less prominent in the Supreme Courtâs history. The judiciary is a weak institution, staffed by political officials who are often reluctant to stand against popular authoritarian policies or movements. Indeed, the justices themselves often belong to those movements.â
www.vox.com
Trump committed treasonous, historic crimes: attempting to overturn a presidential election, disenfranchise millions of Americans, and disrupt peaceful transfer of power â none of which constitute âofficial acts.â
Many Court observers, including myself, were shocked by Wednesdayâs order because it appeared to rest on the flimsiest of pretexts. The ostensible reason why the Court ordered Trumpâs trial paused is so the justices could spend the next few months considering Trumpâs argument that he is immune from prosecution for any âofficial actsâ he engaged in while he was still president.
This is an exceptionally weak legal argument, with monstrous implications. Trumpâs lawyers told one of the judges who ruled against this immunity claim that a former president could not be prosecuted, even if he ordered âSEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,â unless the president was first successfully impeached and convicted (by lawmakers that, under Trumpâs argument, the president could order killed if they attempted to impeach him).
There are, of course, historical examples of the Supreme Court behaving less deferentially toward presidents who thumb their nose at the law. The most well-known is United States v. Nixon (1974), the Courtâs decision ordering President Richard Nixon to turn over tape recordings that implicated him in a crime, eventually leading to Nixonâs resignation.
The decision to halt Trumpâs trial, however, fits within a different judicial tradition, which is no less robust and no less prominent in the Supreme Courtâs history. The judiciary is a weak institution, staffed by political officials who are often reluctant to stand against popular authoritarian policies or movements. Indeed, the justices themselves often belong to those movements.â
The courts were never going to save America from Donald Trump
No one is coming to save US democracy, except for ourselves.
www.vox.com
Trump committed treasonous, historic crimes: attempting to overturn a presidential election, disenfranchise millions of Americans, and disrupt peaceful transfer of power â none of which constitute âofficial acts.â
