The essence of the debate is whether the president can be held responsible for decisions and actions taken during his term of office, especially if he did it for personal gain. The proceedings began with questions from the chief judges. Most tips say they will allow the Capitol trial to proceed, but not quickly.
A quick decision is not expected, because the constitution did not take into account that the president might commit crimes during his term of office
AD
The case can fundamentally influence the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, because it does not matter whether one of the candidates runs as a convicted person or is convicted after becoming president.
In yesterday’s debate of the supreme judicial body (SCOTUS), this very question was the main character, because the judges want to protect the integrity of the presidential office, but they cannot find constitutional handholds or previous precedents. In other words, this has never happened before and no one thought it could happen.
Justices on Thursday expressed skepticism about claims by Trump’s lawyers that presidential immunity could extend to an attempted coup or the assassination of a political rival. At the same time, they seemed willing to offer the former president some protection from criminal prosecution.
John Sauer, former Missouri attorney general and now Donald Trump’s attorney general, began his argument yesterday by saying, “You can’t have a presidency without immunity.” When asked by Chief Justice Thomas what the source of the immunity was, Sauer said that the executive delegation clause includes all of the president’s powers.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the president’s official actions — such as ordering a drone strike — should be separated from when he acts for personal gain, such as seeking re-election or trying to prevent a victorious opponent from taking office.
Conservative and liberal justices both agreed and disagreed
SCOTUS justices have repeatedly urged lawyers to focus not on the facts of Trump’s case, but on how the Supreme Court’s decisions will affect future administrations and the relationship of the people.
The conservative Clarence Thomas was looking for an answer to what is meant by the president’s immunity and where the legal regulations for it can be found.
Judge Neil Gorsuch put it as “we must write a rule for the future”, that is, we must not only take into account the facts of the past.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh warned that their decision “should not be used to attack the office of the president. The case could have a huge impact on the presidency, the future of the presidency and the future of the country,” Kavanaugh said. (The latter two judges were nominated to the panel by Donald Trump.)
Justice Samuel Alito suggested that finding that former presidents do not have immunity would prompt them to pardon themselves in their final days in office.
“If an incumbent president who loses a very close and heated election and knows that leaving office is not a peaceful retirement but a bitter criminal trial, doesn’t that lead us into a cycle that destabilizes our country’s functioning as a democracy? ?” Alito asked.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether a president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe to appoint someone to an ambassadorship. And liberal judge Elena Kagan wondered if a president who sells nuclear secrets has immunity?
Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal fellow justice, asked whether “fundamentally evil” actions, such as deploying the military to eliminate a political rival, are protected by presidential immunity.
Lawyer Sauer replied that in most hypothetical cases – presumably – the president’s immunity applies.
We are expanding our article
Tags: Doubts Supreme Courts immunity Trump important case table
