Supreme Court Delay: Trump Immunity Ruling Raises Questions
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 90 days ago
Supreme Court's delay in Trump immunity ruling raises questions
The Supreme Court's decision to delay its ruling on former President Donald Trump's immunity case has raised questions among legal experts. The case, which centers around Trump's alleged involvement in a scheme to thwart his 2020 electoral defeat and prevent the peaceful transfer of power to President Joe Biden, has been in limbo for months.
Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Harvard University, has accused the Supreme Court of deliberately delaying its ruling. "It's obvious that the court has deliberately delayed everything," he said. "It could easily have issued a ruling much sooner."
Trump's lawyers have argued that the Constitution provides him with permanent immunity from criminal liability for his definition of what constitutes a president's official acts. However, legal experts have pointed out that this argument is flawed and that the Supreme Court is unlikely to agree with it.
"There's no prospect that the court will agree that no matter what a sitting president does, even if he orders SEAL Team Six to kill an opponent, that he cannot in the future be criminally prosecuted for it, unless he was first impeached and convicted by the Senate," Tribe said.
The Supreme Court's decision to take up the case has also been criticized by legal experts, who argue that there was no legal necessity for the court to do so in the first place. "When you compare the Supreme Court's handling of similarly urgent presidential matters in the past, including Watergate and the Nixon tapes and certainly Bush v Gore, the delay that has occurred here is intentional, and it is destructive of our democratic process," said Hofstra University constitutional law professor James Sample.
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil suits for their official acts. However, it has not ruled on whether this immunity extends to criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. The question that the Supreme Court has decided to take up asks: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."
The Supreme Court's decision to frame the immunity question broadly means that the public can expect an array of potential, likely complicated options. This could include sending the case back for further hearings in the District Court, which could lead to a cascade of subsequent appeals.
Legal experts have also pointed out that the Supreme Court has an undeniable backlog of cases, with 23 of 61 cases this term remaining unresolved. This has led to concerns that the court's handling of the Trump immunity case is politically motivated.
"If you wanted something to be reasonable and rational and thoughtful and ordered, it doesn't happen quickly," said Claire Wofford, political science professor at the College of Charleston.
The Supreme Court's delay in issuing a ruling on Trump's immunity case has raised questions about the court's impartiality and its commitment to upholding the rule of law. The court's handling of the case will have far-reaching implications for the future of presidential immunity and the limits of executive power.
Sources:
salon.com
nbcnews.com
ksltv.com
The Supreme Court's decision to delay its ruling on former President Donald Trump's immunity case has raised questions among legal experts. The case, which centers around Trump's alleged involvement in a scheme to thwart his 2020 electoral defeat and prevent the peaceful transfer of power to President Joe Biden, has been in limbo for months.
Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Harvard University, has accused the Supreme Court of deliberately delaying its ruling. "It's obvious that the court has deliberately delayed everything," he said. "It could easily have issued a ruling much sooner."
Trump's lawyers have argued that the Constitution provides him with permanent immunity from criminal liability for his definition of what constitutes a president's official acts. However, legal experts have pointed out that this argument is flawed and that the Supreme Court is unlikely to agree with it.
"There's no prospect that the court will agree that no matter what a sitting president does, even if he orders SEAL Team Six to kill an opponent, that he cannot in the future be criminally prosecuted for it, unless he was first impeached and convicted by the Senate," Tribe said.
The Supreme Court's decision to take up the case has also been criticized by legal experts, who argue that there was no legal necessity for the court to do so in the first place. "When you compare the Supreme Court's handling of similarly urgent presidential matters in the past, including Watergate and the Nixon tapes and certainly Bush v Gore, the delay that has occurred here is intentional, and it is destructive of our democratic process," said Hofstra University constitutional law professor James Sample.
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil suits for their official acts. However, it has not ruled on whether this immunity extends to criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. The question that the Supreme Court has decided to take up asks: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."
The Supreme Court's decision to frame the immunity question broadly means that the public can expect an array of potential, likely complicated options. This could include sending the case back for further hearings in the District Court, which could lead to a cascade of subsequent appeals.
Legal experts have also pointed out that the Supreme Court has an undeniable backlog of cases, with 23 of 61 cases this term remaining unresolved. This has led to concerns that the court's handling of the Trump immunity case is politically motivated.
"If you wanted something to be reasonable and rational and thoughtful and ordered, it doesn't happen quickly," said Claire Wofford, political science professor at the College of Charleston.
The Supreme Court's delay in issuing a ruling on Trump's immunity case has raised questions about the court's impartiality and its commitment to upholding the rule of law. The court's handling of the case will have far-reaching implications for the future of presidential immunity and the limits of executive power.
Sources:
salon.com
nbcnews.com
ksltv.com
Latest News