Official acts
Is there any room at all to say that Brynn Tannehill at The New Republic is exaggerating?
When Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Donald Trump’s lawyer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?”, he replied, “It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that would well be an official act.”
Based on that one line of questioning, Trump’s argument should be going down in flames 9-0. A democracy cannot survive when its supreme leader can arbitrarily decide that it’s in the nation’s best interest to rub out his opponents, and then leave it to some future court to decide whether it was an official act, because he’ll get away with it as long as there aren’t 67 votes in the Senate to impeach. And given that it will have been established that the president can put out a contract on political foes, how many senators are going to vote to impeach?
But the justices did not laugh this argument out of court. Quite the contrary: At least five of the justices seemed to buy into the Trump team’s arguments that the power of the office of the president must be protected from malicious and politicized litigation. They were uninterested in the actual case at hand or its consequences. Elie Mystal, justice correspondent at The Nation, perhaps captured my response to the Supreme Court’s arguments best: “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S. Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”
At a minimum, it appears the court will send all of the federal cases back down to lower courts to reconsider whether Trump’s crimes were “official acts.” It’s also likely that their new definition of “official acts” is likely to be far broader than anyone should be comfortable with, or at least broad enough to give Trump a pass. This delay all but guarantees that Trump will not stand trial for anything besides the current hush-money case before the 2024 election.
This is catastrophic in so many ways. The first is that it increases the already high chances that the United States ends up with a dictator who will attempt to rapidly disassemble democracy in pursuit of becoming President for Life. It simultaneously increases the chances that yes, he will go ahead and violate the civil and human rights of political opponents and classes of people he calls Communists, Marxists, and fascists.
And so on.
We’re doomed. We have at best eight or nine months before we slide into the pit.
Very well put. As’ ‘Tricky Dick’ Nixon discovered durin the 1972 Watergate scandal, nobody can be above the law in a genuine democracy. In some shoky banana republic ruled over by some sleazy tin-pot dictator maybe, but not the USA, if its people are to have any pride in either their country or themselves.
Trump is more like ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier of Haiti maybe, but not fit for President of the country of Lincoln, Jefferson.and Marttin Luther King. Not for President; not even for the local street-sweeper.
The hypothetical question should have been couched as What if the President believed that one or more Supreme Court justices were corrupt, could he have them killed with no criminal accountability.
That would have made things interesting.
Well there you go Uncle Joe, the Court thinks you’ve possibly got carte blanche to official act Trump into no longer being a problem; why leave anything up to chance? /s
They haven’t thought this through, have they.