[ad_1]
But so far, courts have flatly rejected President Trump’s innovative claims, with significant implications for future developments.
1. My decision was all in
Ruling against Trump is another thing. It is another thing to do so as firmly as a unanimous judge did. By repeatedly rejecting his immunity claims, they signaled that it was not a particularly close call.
The justices rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that allowing criminal charges against the former president would dampen the actions of future presidents who are always concerned about their own indictments. They rejected the idea that impeachment is a substitute for, or a necessary precursor to, criminal prosecution of the president. And perhaps most notably, President Trump has cast the idea of immunity as a potentially dangerous precedent.
“In sum, former President Trump’s stance undermines the separation of powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches,” the justices wrote, adding, “Former President Trump’s It is unacceptable to place the government above the authority of the state.” This law will continue to apply from then on. ”
They later added: “If the president, who is given a constitutional duty to “see that the laws are faithfully executed,” is the only official who can violate those laws with impunity, then That would be a striking contradiction.”
They said there was no “functional justification” to find Trump immune.
The justices found that Trump was effectively saying that he should have “carte blanche to violate the right of individual citizens to vote or vote count.”
And more than that, they pointed out, President Trump’s attempt to cling to power illustrates exactly the case where such immunity could go very wrong.
“We cannot accept former President Trump’s argument that the president has unlimited power to commit crimes that would nullify the most basic checks on executive power: the certification and enforcement of election results,” the justices wrote. Stated.
2. He used Trump and his lawyers’ own words against him.
In their rulings, the justices repeatedly pointed to words from President Trump and his own lawyers.
Just hours before the sentencing, President Trump argued Monday night that without immunity, “every outgoing president would be immediately indicted by the opposition.” In their rulings, the justices regularly noted that Trump’s own indictments as a former president were unprecedented, raising concerns that post-presidential indictments could become routine. suggested that it was imaginary, or at least exaggerated.
(Nevertheless, the Trump campaign reiterated this claim in a statement after the verdict.)
The justices noted that despite Trump’s claims of absolute immunity, the president’s own lawyers have effectively acknowledged that the president does not have absolute immunity. The lawyer told a judge last month that as long as the former president is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, he could actually be indicted.
They noted that Trump’s own impeachment lawyers acknowledged that he could still face criminal charges even if acquitted by the Senate. One of those lawyers said criminal court was actually a more appropriate venue, given that Trump was a former president at the time.
And finally, the justices advanced the idea that this very argument may have actually helped acquit Trump of impeachment.
“The 43 senators who voted to acquit him were based on a variety of concerns, many of which had nothing to do with whether he committed the crimes he was charged with,” the judge wrote. He wrote and added: The acquittal depended, at least in part, on the belief that the Senate lacked the power to convict a former president. ”
In essence, the justices accused President Trump of denying technical arguments that could have resulted in his impeachment acquittal.
3. Obstruct President Trump’s efforts to delay
It always seemed unlikely that Mr. Trump would win with a novel, comprehensive argument. But the decision and its timing also have practical implications.
For one, he could face an uphill battle if he requests an “en banc” review (a review involving the entire appellate court) or even looks to the more conservative-leaning Supreme Court. That means there is. That decision was extremely detrimental to him.
But perhaps the bigger question is how this ruling will affect his trial schedule. Part of the motivation for pursuing this immunity claim appears to be the delay in the trial, which was originally scheduled for next month. (Trump has made it clear that he does not want to go to trial during the 2024 campaign.)
But the judges are currently holding him back to some extent. They put the ruling on hold until Monday, and it will only remain on hold if President Trump appeals to the Supreme Court. This effectively means he can first request an extensive review by the entire Court of Appeals, but it does not prevent Judge Tanya Chutkan from moving forward.
If President Trump’s strategy has slowed, one tactic has slowed down.
The Trump campaign quickly signaled that it would appeal the ruling, but did not say when or where it would do so.
4. Impacting President Trump’s second term
While Trump’s legal defense will be most immediately affected, the ruling will also have a major impact on his return to the presidency if he is elected.
President Trump has indicated he intends to pursue a more authoritarian vision during his term, and the judicial system has so far indicated that he is not free to pursue it.
The justices were not content to simply reject Trump’s claims based on constitutional provisions or historical precedent, and repeatedly pointed to the practical considerations that go into granting such broad immunity to a president. .
They cited how the president has a “blank slate” to violate people’s rights and how such a thing would “break down the separation of powers” and that the president has no right to this immunity. He suggested that it is possible to even use this to cling to power. break the law.
It all makes sense. But the way the judge ruled revealed just how much power the former president, and perhaps future presidents, really wanted.
[ad_2]
Source link
