The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to hear Donald Trump’s appeal and claim that he has absolute immunity from prosecution for alleged crimes, election interference and classified documents. The D.C. trial court and unanimous opinion of the appeal court ruled he did not have immunity. With the hearing scheduled for late April, it may not be possible for these issues to come to trial before the 2024 election.
To me, this always seemed like a slam-dunk loss for Trump. We are all equal under the law. Presidents are not Kings. A sitting President cannot overturn an election in order to remain in office.
The randomness and unpredictability of life terms and presidential appointments has tended to keep the court ideologically centered in past. That ended when Mitch McConnell refused to allow President Obama a replacement appointment and pushed through three appointments by Donald Trump. McConnell has always been the ultimate partisan, power over principle.
By delaying this immunity ruling the Supreme Court may have denied the people the right to know about Donald Trumps election interference and hoarding of classified documents. In multiple decisions, this court seems to me more and more distant from where people live. Overturning Roe vs Wade, but some women have made this choice for thousands of years. The EPA cannot regulate carbon emissions, an obvious air pollutant. The court struggled yesterday to see that bump stocks modify a rifle into a machine gun although 50 people were killed by one individual using that device. The Court seems ready to overturn the Chevron deference and open to challenge thousands of government decisions regarding consumer protections, public health and the environment. This court, rather than balanced caution, is on an ideological crusade.
The concept of “originalism”, what exactly did the founding fathers mean by their words in the Constitution is an important concept. It is also an esoteric and egotistical exercise ….. who can be the most originalist! But we cannot view today’s world from 250 years ago. The Supreme Court needs to consider how their decisions effect ordinary people.
