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. 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 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.
But 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. Source: BBC.
