[ad_1]
CNN
—
Few of America’s key democratic institutions have escaped untainted conflict with Donald Trump.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court faces its biggest challenge yet from a former president.
Nine justices on Thursday weighed in on the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to exclude Trump from voting over the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist” clause, which could have significant implications for the 2024 election. The lawsuit will be heard. By early next week, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump’s second ruling over a lower court’s decision to deny the president’s request for absolute immunity for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election following false claims of voter fraud. The court may also consider whether to hear the appeal.
These two highly important and politically charged cases are the result of a court ruling in favor of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush over then-Vice President Al Gore in the pending 2000 election. There is a possibility that judges will be forced into presidential elections to an extent never seen before since then. The historic fallout from this new approach to campaigning may resonate even longer than the events that ended the bitter post-election period a quarter century ago. And given Mr. Trump’s habitual refusal to accept election rules or results, assuming he becomes the Republican nominee, the courts will likely face a partisan battle before or after the November presidential election. No one would be surprised if he was dragged deeper into the world.
Sensitive decisions have been made for generations on politicized issues such as slavery, voting rights, civil rights, desegregation, interracial and same-sex marriage, health care, and, most recently, abortion. Given this, the idea that the Supreme Court is above politics has been considered quite archaic. But no modern president has gone as far as Trump in daring to break with the notion that judges have a higher calling than partisan politics: to seek to uphold the rule of law.
Mr. Trump, who has faced criminal charges four times, has sought to hold him accountable, rein in his power, or rely on or discredit institutions that could contradict the alternate reality he constantly spins. I’ve been trying to do it repeatedly. He drew them into his bitterness and falsehood, and tarnished their reputation for being above the fray.
When they lose an election, they claim there was fraud. When the media reports the truth, he makes a fuss about “fake news.” When he is interrogated, he claims that this is a witch hunt. When he is indicted, he warns that grand juries are biased. When he loses a case, he accuses the entire court system of being corrupt. The slogan of victimization is now at the heart of the president’s campaign, based on the perception that he is politically persecuted, and supports his determination to dedicate his second term to revenge.
President Trump is not scheduled to attend Thursday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court, but the justices know what to expect.
During high-profile trials, the former president has worked relentlessly to undermine the legitimacy of courts and judges. For example, during a civil fraud trial in New York, he frequently clashed with the judge and regularly lashed out at the judge, the staff, and the case during breaks outside the courtroom. Mr. Trump abruptly left last month just before a jury handed him a stunning $83 million victory in a defamation lawsuit filed by author E. Jean Carroll. The former president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., announced his decision this week after a Washington, D.C., appeals court rejected President Trump’s unusual and unconstitutional claim of total immunity to overturn the 2020 election. He attacked the legitimacy of the judge who made the decision. Unanimously. “No one watching so far has been shocked by this partisan hacking effort, but let’s go. It’s time for SCOTUS to intervene,” he wrote to X. In several cases involving President Trump, judges have imposed gag orders to protect the integrity of the proceedings.
The former president’s influence over his supporters is so strong that millions of his supporters readily accept his falsehoods and believe that key government institutions are corrupt. As a result, America’s political institutions and rule of law remain more undermined than before. As a result, many voters, at least among his political base, downplay the seriousness of Trump’s criminal conduct.
A CNN poll conducted late last month found that 49% of Republicans said President Trump had done nothing wrong since the last presidential election. 40% said his actions were unethical, but only 11% said they were illegal.
Many of President Trump’s voters believe they are disappointed in their government or have lost faith in institutions, authorities, and experts. President Trump’s success in portraying his own legal woes as one giant conspiracy could feed into these sentiments and cause long-term damage to the country’s democratic institutions. A legal system that is perceived as crooked and biased cannot maintain public trust for long. The perception that law enforcement is overreaching against Trump only strengthens his supporters’ sympathy for him.
The prospect of being dragged into the highly politicized arena of a presidential election is nightmare enough for Chief Justice John Roberts, who has often sought to protect the high court from the reputational damage caused by the nation’s tumultuous politics.
But the election lawsuits involving Mr. Trump come at a time of far greater partisan outrage than the painful aftermath of the 2000 election, especially since any of the court decisions ultimately went against Mr. Trump. In this case, it may become a more serious problem. The former president is not acting according to the same moral code as Mr. Gore, who swallowed his anger and accepted his election defeat after the Bush v. Gore decision. In the past, high court rulings against Trump have drawn harsh criticism from the former president. He also suggested that it was a sign of bad faith that the three justices he nominated, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, did not do what he wanted. This stance highlights President Trump’s transactional nature and disregard for judges’ duty to the law.
“I’m not happy with the Supreme Court. They love to rule against me. I picked three people. I fought tooth and nail for them,” President Trump said. In his infamous Jan. 6, 2021, speech in Washington that launched the mob attack on the U.S. Capitol, this is the root of both cases swirling around the president and is expected to be decided in court. To the face that is. “It seems like they’re all doing everything in their power to hurt all of us and hurt our country. To hurt our country,” Trump continued, referring to the justices. .
President Trump repeated those remarks last month ahead of the Iowa caucuses as he launched an effort to reach out to the judges on the Colorado case — conservative justices on the Supreme Court. He claimed that he lamented that judges appointed by Democratic presidents were brazenly partisan and that judges chosen by Republican presidents would not follow suit. “If you’re a Republican judge and you’re appointed by, say, President Trump, they’ll go out of their way to hurt you in order to show that they’re fair and just and honorable. It’s amazing. That’s the difference.” Trump continued, “It’s a different wiring system or something. But all I want is fairness. I worked hard to get three really, really good people.” We fought against each other…The other side is doing their part, so we just hope they’re fair.”
Judges who issue verdicts that contradict Mr. Trump’s views risk becoming targets.
Roberts began seeking to insulate the judiciary from politics in 2019 after the former president’s attacks on district judges who ruled against the Trump administration in asylum cases. “We don’t have an Obama judge, we don’t have a Trump judge, we don’t have a Bush judge, we don’t have a Clinton judge,” Roberts said in an unusual statement, which clearly had Mr. Trump in mind, although he didn’t mention him by name. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges who will do their best to provide equal rights to the judges who appear before them.”
Since then, Trump’s relationship with the high court has continued to be tense, including in several cases in which justices have refused to hear or dismissed Trump’s claims about the 2020 election.
Joan Biskupic, CNN’s senior Supreme Court analyst, reported in her book “The Nine Black Robes” that Roberts has become increasingly skeptical of the Trump administration’s policies that repeatedly expand the limits of the law. For example, Biskupic wrote that Roberts opposed President Trump’s plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census form and switched votes to finalize the 5-4 ruling.
And Mr. Biskupic also discussed how Mr. Roberts could use a powerful majority to fight Mr. Trump’s attempts to hide his personal taxes and other financial records from the Manhattan District Attorney and, separately, from a U.S. House of Representatives committee. He also pointed out that he may have secretly mediated the faction.
After Trump took office, he and the high court again clashed. For example, the justices blocked President Trump’s efforts to block the release of presidential records to the House committee investigating the January 6 attack.
None of these lawsuits will affect how the court rules in the Colorado case or whether it will allow Trump to potentially appeal the exemption.
But history has shown that no matter what the courts decide, President Trump’s response will be based on his highly developed sense of unfairness, suspicion of accountable institutions, and often self-serving legislation. It will be filtered by interpretation.
[ad_2]
Source link
