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 faces trial on charges of trying to sabotage the 2020 election. But whatever the decision, each judge indicated, it will shape the future of American democracy. Judge Neil Gorsuch said, ‘We are writing judgments for an era.
‘
The case was heard in a special session a day after the arguments scheduled by the court. It was based primarily on Trump’s claim that he deserves immunity from any criminal charges while serving as president. According to Trump, this immunity will protect him from the charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith. His trial will be stayed until this impunity issue is resolved.
The matter is expected to be settled in June.
The question raised by the judges in this regard 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, which may delay the retrial process.
Their questions reveal, too, that both the conservative majority and the liberal minority—both 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 bring up President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal in the 1960s and John F. Kennedy’s pardoning of Operation Mongoose (the intelligence operation against Fidel Castro).
Conservatives believe former US presidents should have some immunity. Still, the justices were wary of Trump’s lawyer’s argument in the case, Dean John Saue, who said a former president is “almost immune” from the judicial process. Sauer was cross-examined by 9 judges on this defense.
Elena Kagan, one of the three liberal justices, asked, ‘What if the president calls in the military to stage a coup?’ 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, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, known as a liberal, also expressed concern, saying that former presidents can obey the law if they are out of 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.”
Conservative justices also pressed Sauer on what was meant by an ‘official act or governmental act’ performed as part of the president’s work and personal activities. Samuel Alito, one of the court’s most conservative judges, asked, “My question is, is the vast scope of impunity that you are talking about necessary?”
However, the representative of the US government, Michael Driben, also faced similar questions. Because the judges also thought, what would happen to an expiring president without some safeguards? Justice Clarence Thomas wants to know what happens if a president orders a violent attack on foreign soil, can he be prosecuted later?
Driben said there are several levels of protection from criminal liability for one’s work, including activities conducted on foreign soil.
Justice Alito also expressed concern about another possible outcome, the president’s exposure to partisan attacks, either by his successor or after he leaves office at the end of his term. The judge, who played the main role in the second stage of the hearing, said, “It can destroy the presidency.”
Conservative judges did not express the same position. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was appointed by Trump. He seemed a little skeptical about whether the President was entitled to full immunity.
Driben said there is “no completely question-free approach” to dealing with the president’s faults. Justice Barrett said, he also agreed on this.
But a split ruling or direction not entirely in favor of Trump’s lawyers or the Special Counsel could send a lower court to decide that 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.
Source: BBC
