The US Supreme Court is divided on whether or not to prosecute Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court spent three hours Thursday reviewing whether the country’s former president will be granted immunity from prosecution, and what that would actually mean.

The answer will determine whether former President Donald Trump will face trial on charges of trying to sway the 2020 election.

But whatever the decision, each judge indicated that it would shape America’s future democracy.

“We are writing judgments for an era,” said Judge Neil Gorsuch.

The case was heard in a special session a day after the scheduled arguments of the court. Its basis was basically Mr. Trump claims that he deserves immunity from any criminal charges while serving as president.

Mr. According to Trump, this immunity will protect him from the charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

His trial will be stayed pending the resolution of the impunity matter. The matter is expected to be settled in June.

The question posed by the judges is an indication of the division among them. As a result, a split decision is expected.

Their split may also lead to more complex decisions that may delay the retrial process.

Their questions also reveal that both the conservative majority and the liberal minority want to make decisions with an eye on history.

Would a full impunity mean that future presidents could use the military to kill their opponents?

Or if there is no impunity, the president will face trial or go to jail after the end of his term as a victim of political revenge?

They also cite the findings of President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal in the 1960s and John F Kennedy’s Operation Mongoose (the intelligence operation against Fidel Castro).

Conservatives believe former US presidents should have some immunity.

However, the judges in this case Mr. Trump lawyer Dean John Saue is wary of the argument, saying a former president is ‘almost immune’ from prosecution.

Mr. Sauer was cross-examined by nine judges on the issue of this protection.

“What if the president calls for a coup d’état,” asked Elena Kagan, one of the three liberal justices.

Mr. Sauer seemed hesitant to answer. He said ‘it will depend on the situation’.

Justice Kagan replied, ‘That doesn’t sound very good, does it?’

Later, another liberal judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, also expressed concern that former presidents might not obey the law if they were excluded from the entire criminal justice process.

“I’m trying to figure out how to discourage turning the Oval Office (the president’s office) into a crime scene,” he said.

Conservative judges also Mr. Sauer pressed on what was meant by an ‘official act or government act’ done as part of the President’s work and personal duties.

“My question is whether the broad scope of impunity that you’re talking about is necessary,” asked Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s most conservative.

But U.S. Rep. Michael Driben faced similar questions as the justices also pondered what would happen to an expiring president without some protections.

Justice Clarence Thomas wants to know what happens if a president orders a violent attack on foreign soil, and can he be prosecuted later.

Mr. Driben said there are several levels of protection from criminal liability for one’s work, including activities conducted on foreign soil.

Justice Alito also worried about another possible outcome: the president could also be subject to partisan attacks, either by his successor or after he leaves office at the end of his term.

“It could destroy the presidency,” said Justice Alito, who presided over the second phase of the hearing.

Conservative judges did not express the same position.

Justice Amy Cone appointed Barrett to Mr. Trump. He seemed somewhat skeptical as to whether the President was entitled to full impunity.

Mr. Driben said that “there is no completely question-free approach” to dealing with presidential misconduct. Justice Barrett said he also agreed.

But Mr. Trump’s lawyers could send a split ruling or instruction not entirely in favor of the special counsel to a lower court to decide the question or part of it. Then the legal battle will almost certainly be delayed and appealed, meaning the legal battle will drag on for months, if not years.