Tuesday, February 06, 2024

More Reasons Why The Supreme Court Is Unlikely To Take Trump’s Immunity Appeal

It’s a really well-written opinion.
"... former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that would have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution."
We don’t have monarchs.
"Former President Trump misreads Marbury and its progeny. Properly understood, the separation of powers doctrine may immunize lawful discretionary acts but does not bar federal criminal prosecution of a former president for every criminal act."
Because we don’t have monarchs.
The court then stated that holding presidents accountable criminally after they leave office for crimes committed while president is a benefit to the country, because past presidents have been restrained in their conduct by the belief that they could be prosecuted when their term ends, and if presidents ever felt that they had blanket immunity that would lead to some of the worst possible abuses of power.
Monarchs.
"Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process where the president has no role - the counting and certifying of Electoral College votes - thereby undermining constitutionally established principles and the will of Congress."
"This is a very bad situation and the arguments for dismissal don’t cut it.”

And: no monarchs. 🀴

No comments:

Post a Comment