On Thursday, Trump attorneys and the DOJ legal team argued the presidential immunity case before the Supreme Court.
How the court will ultimately decide will likely be announced in June, but the questions the justices asked raised a lot of alarm on the left.
Talking Points…
- Arguments before the court
- Trump responds to Supreme Court arguments
- Analysis
This was a really interesting day, and it did not go nearly how I thought it would. The court's questions seemed to discuss presidential immunity overall rather than concentrating on only Trump's actions regarding his claim of presidential immunity. I thought the court would answer that question, but it simply touched on the "precedent" of opening up any president to charges for any acts committed, even within their presidential duties. For instance, Justice Samuel Alito would destabilize the country, stating:
"If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?
"And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail."
Justice Gorsuch also looked at the big picture rather than simply looking at the Trump case, stating, "We're writing a rule for the ages." John Shu, a constitutional scholar and former official in both Bush administrations, attacked the same angle, stating:
"It's a very important issue and the Biden administration set a very bad precedent to go after not only a former president, but one who also is challenging Biden's re-election.
"What the Biden administration has done here gives the terrible appearance of vindictiveness, and on an international or foreign policy level, it makes us look like just another banana republic that we generally criticize for prosecuting or trying to jail their political opponents."
After Trump's day in court for the hush-money case, he was asked about the day his attorneys had at the Supreme Court hearing. Trump seemed very excited, responding:
"The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity.
"And I think it was made clear, I hope it is very clear that a president has to have immunity."
Fox News contributor and constitutional expert Jonathan Turley also appeared to believe that the justices were hammering the DOJ's stance on this…
...Roberts just slammed the lower court "a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has acted in defiance of the laws."...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 25, 2024
This was truly a day of arguing extremes, as liberal justices kept pushing the issue of a president ordering a coup or committing obvious heinous crimes as president. Conservative justices were looking to protect the office of the presidency, not looking specifically at the charges that Trump is facing.
I have poured over everything here, including the commentary by numerous political experts. I tend to think that the court is going to kick this back down to the appeals court to rule on whether Trump's actions were considered part of his presidential duties or that of a candidate (something I thought the court would settle while answering this question).
Based on previous decisions, I do not see the court giving anyone blanket immunity, but they will protect official acts committed as president. If not, you are opening the door to prosecutions of virtually every president still alive for various orders, given that obviously fell under the purview of the president's office. If I am right on this, and the court kicks the issue back to the appellate court, there is simply no way Jack Smith's cases come to trial before the election, which is a dream scenario for Donald Trump.
