Call for Peace USA Politics
Messages to Look for Peace
Is Supreme Court
Of
USA is Super Power
Brothers and Sisters!
Assalam o Alleyykum
[Peace
be Upon You]
Brothers and Sisters!
The Supreme Court of USA
Just gave Presidents of USA a Superpower.
Here’s its explanation
·
With its Immunity ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court granted former
President Donald Trump’s wish of all but guaranteeing that his criminal trial
for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election will not go to trial before
the 2024 election in November.
·
It also granted presidents in general
a definitive “absolute immunity” from prosecution for core official acts and
said presidents should be presumed immune for a much more expansive list of
acts.
·
In the view of the majority comprised
of the six conservative justices on the court, the decision does not place
presidents in general, and Trump in particular, above the law. But the three
liberals dissented with a warning about how elevating a president will affect
American democracy.
·
The decision has the near-term result of delaying Trump’s trial while a
court in Washington, DC, considers which criminal activity that Trump is
accused of can be considered “unofficial.” It also has the long-term effect of
placing presidents in a different system of justice than other Americans.
Here
are key lines from a landmark ruling:
What is
this new immunity?
· Chief Justice John Roberts explains it in the
majority opinion as including absolute immunity for some actions and a
presumption of immunity for others.
We conclude that under our constitutional structure
of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former
President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during
his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his
core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his
remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current
stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether
that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is
sufficient.
Why
Does A President need this Immunity?
·
So that he can act boldly as
president and take actions without fear of later prosecution clouding his
judgement, according to the court. Here’s Roberts:
Potential criminal liability, and the peculiar
public opprobrium that attaches to criminal proceedings, are plainly more
likely to distort Presidential decision making than the potential payment of
civil damages.
The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly
that might result when a President is making decisions under “a pall of
potential prosecution,” … raises “unique risks to the effective functioning of
government.”
What does
it say in the Constitution about Presidents getting Special Immunity?
· Nothing. But that’s no problem, according to
Roberts.
True, there is no “Presidential immunity clause” in
the Constitution. But there is no “‘separation of powers clause’” either. … Yet
that doctrine is undoubtedly carved into the Constitution’s text by its three
articles separating powers and vesting the Executive power solely in the
President.
How far
does this Immunity Extend?
· A president gets “at least a presumptive
immunity” even for acts “within the outer perimeter of his official
responsibility,” according to the court. But it’s careful to add that he gets
no immunity for “unofficial acts” – and despite the broad reach of the
immunity, the court argues presidents are still accountable.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial
acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not
above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in
carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the
Constitution.
Are any of
the things Trump is accused of in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Indictment
outside this Blanket of immunity?
· During
oral arguments in the case back in April, Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, told
Justice Amy Coney Barrett that multiple elements of the indictment would indeed
be “private,” or unofficial, acts. These include, for instance, getting an
outside attorney to organize slates of false electors.
· Barrett, in a concurring opinion on Monday,
said she would make clear in the decision what was official versus unofficial.
But the majority takes no position and wants the trial court to go through the
allegations individually. Trump can then appeal whatever the trial court
decides. Here’s Roberts:
… the current stage of the proceedings in this case
does not require us to decide whether this immunity is presumptive or absolute.
… Because we need not decide that question today, we do not decide it.
Does the
Majority tell the Trial Court what might be Official or not?
· The majority gives quite a bit of detail.
·
Trump has “absolute
immunity” for any instructions or pressure he
exerted on his acting attorney general, for instance. Plus, the court won’t
allow as evidence any interviews with people who worked in the administration
(nullifying much of the evidence gathered by the House select committee that
investigated the January 6, 2021, events). And it also won’t let a court
consider a president’s motives for taking an action.
Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most
obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere
allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests
that immunity seeks to protect.
· It’s an open question for the lower court to
decide if Trump’s pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to disregard the
2020 election results involved “official conduct,” but the Supreme Court put
that pressure in the “presumptively immune” category.
We accordingly remand to the District Court to
determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether
Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.
· The majority thinks Trump’s tweets encouraging
people to go to the Capitol and pressure Pence are within the “outer perimeter
of his official responsibilities,” but they’re not sure and they expect it will
be challenging for the lower court to muddle through these questions.
Why can’t
a Jury make these Decisions?
·
Juries can’t even consider official
acts in terms of a prosecution, according to the Supreme Court.
Allowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the
jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a
unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of
the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on
which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against
the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former
President.
So the
Supreme Court gave Trump Everything he Wanted?
· It certainly embraced Trump’s theory of
immunity and pretty much guaranteed the trial will not happen before the
election, although the majority says they were restrained since they rejected
his request to completely dismiss the case.
Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the
limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be
dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and
Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution.
So there
is a Special System of Justice for Presidents?
· The president is more than a person, according
to Roberts.
Like everyone else, the President is subject to
prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President
is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers
and duties. Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may
exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not
place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution
from which that law derives.
·
The majority dismisses warnings about
a president operating above the laws as “fear mongering on the basis of extreme
hypotheticals.” It’s more important to protect the president from political
prosecutions, the court says.
The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of
an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President
free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry
out his duties for fear that he may be next. … The enfeebling of the Presidency
and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is
exactly what the Framers intended to avoid.
· Roberts borrows from Trump’s attorneys when he
quotes George Washington’s farewell address, in which he warns about factions.
The problem with that particular quote, as I found earlier this year, is that
Washington also warned about elevating a person above the law.
Does the
Court mention the Politics of Today?
· Roberts says the court’s considerations are
more far-reaching than what’s happening at the moment.
This case poses a question of lasting significance:
When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his
Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing
that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we
cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.
In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound
consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic.
Did it say
Anything about Smith?
·
The majority did not weigh in on the
brewing argument among conservatives that Smith should not even have a job and
that his role as a special counsel is unconstitutional. But Justice Clarence
Thomas endorsed the idea in a concurring opinion.
In this case, there has been much discussion about
ensuring that a President “is not above the law.” But, as the Court explains,
the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. …
In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the
powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the
Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the
Special Counsel that has not been established by law.
What did
Barrett say about Alternate Electors?
· Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote her own
concurrence in which she disagreed with the majority on some key points. She
said they could easily have expressed that some of Trump’s conduct was
unofficial.
Sorting private from official conduct sometimes
will be difficult—but not always. Take the President’s alleged attempt to
organize alternative slates of electors. … In my view, that conduct is private
and therefore not entitled to protection. … a President has no legal
authority—and thus no official capacity—to influence how the States appoint
their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that
alleged conduct.
What was
in the Blistering Dissent?
· Writing for the three liberals on the court, Justice
Sonia Sotomayor blasted the majority as inventing an “atextual, ahistorical,
and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.” She said the
court makes it difficult to imagine what might be “unofficial” conduct on the
part of the president.
In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive
vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any
sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers,
until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the
majority in this case, and so it ignores them. … In fact, the majority’s
dividing line between “official” and “unofficial” conduct narrows the conduct
considered “unofficial” almost to a nullity.
·
The majority “pays lip service” to
the idea that presidents are not above the law “but it then proceeds to place
former Presidents beyond the reach of the federal criminal laws for any abuse
of official power.”
How far
does Sotomayor say Presidents can now Go?
· As far as they want, she says.
The President of the United States is the most
powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his
official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be
insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to
assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto
power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune,
immune.
… Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out,
and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between
the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of
official power, the President is now a king above the law.
Sotomayor
ends her Missive like this:
Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will
be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official
power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will
not provide a backstop.
Please Remember in Dua’as
Wass’a’lam
Naseer Aziz
Principal Call for Peace
Messages to Look for Peace
PS:
Sponsorship
Brothers and Sisters! Please read the Post: Sponsorship in the Navigation Bar as to why it is
needed to keep conveying the Messages to Look for Peace until the Day
of Resurrection and how it will be expended until the Day of Resurrection.
Wass’a’lam
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.