Trump has no immunity from Jan. 6 prosecution, appeals court rulesA federal appeals court has unanimously ruled that Donald Trump can be put on trial for trying to stay in power after losing the 2020 election, rejecting Trump’s sweeping claim of presidential immunity as dangerous and unsupported by the U.S. Constitution. In their opinion Tuesday, they say it is Trump’s own alleged crimes — “an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government” — that threaten democracy if left beyond the reach of criminal prosecution.
“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
The panel wrote “per curiam,” meaning they are “speaking with one voice,” in a 57-page opinion addressing all of the arguments Trump’s attorneys made during arguments before the appellate court in January. “This opinion is as strong an argument against Supreme Court intervention as there could have been,” said Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “Whether it’s strong enough is up to the justices.”
Five justices would have to agree to keep the trial on hold for Trump’s appeal. Vladeck predicted that the Court would either take the case quickly and decide it before the term ends in late June or early July or not take it at all. “They don’t want to be seen as running out the clock,” he said. “If they want to step in, I think they would want to step in this term.”
The lone Republican appointee on the panel, Karen L. Henderson, has historically been sympathetic to broad presidential power. But during the oral argument she called it “paradoxical” that a president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws would allow him to violate them. That characterization is reflected in the final opinion, which calls Trump’s position “a striking paradox.” It also suggests that some fear of future prosecution serves an important purpose: “to deter possible abuses of power and criminal behavior.”
The court quoted Chutkan’s earlier ruling: “Every President will face difficult decisions; whether to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one of them.”
The above are selected and edited excerpts from a current report in The Washington Post.
Comments
Dick Nixon!
Before he dicks you!
(bumper sticker from the period.)
The one referenced in this thread:
Q: Is the president of the United States "absolutely immune" from prosecution for any/all crimes that he/she may feel like committing?
A: A Federal Court of Appeals just said: No way, Dude.
That ruling will now be appealed to the Supremes, but the appeal has not yet been filed. This whole charade is regarded by many legal experts to be nothing more than an attempt to delay a final ruling until after the elections later this year.
The other one, now being considered by the Supremes:
Q: Did then-president Trump lead or participate in an insurrection against the United States government on January 6, 2021?
A: To be determined.
Background: After the Civil War it was desired to prevent certain Southern politicians from resuming their political careers with the Federal Government. Congress then passed a law disqualifying anyone guilty of "insurrection" from further participation in the Federal Government. That particular law has never been used or tested at the federal level since then.
Colorado recently determined that Trump was in fact guilty of insurrection on 1/6/21, and is therefore ineligible for the presidential election in 2024, and will not appear on that state's ballots. Other states have also considered this question, and determined that the insurrection law dos not apply here.
The Supremes now have to decide who's right.
I'm betting that they say "Insurrection? What insurrection?"
I’d say the case now under consideration would have significant ramifications with the electorate if decided in the affirmative. Holly creepers .. where would the judicial system go next following such a determination? Honestly, (hate to say) but I would not expect the court to rule against Trump on this one. (I’m only right about 50% of the time.)
a current report in The Guardian:
US supreme court appears skeptical of Colorado ruling removing Trump from ballot
The US supreme court appeared skeptical of a Colorado decision removing Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot during nearly two hours of oral arguments on Thursday. It seems poised to rule Trump is not constitutionally disqualified from running for president.
The case is perhaps the most high-stakes legal dispute to arrive at the court this century and thrusts the court to the center of a politically charged election. A majority of justices, including some from the court’s liberal wing, voiced concern about the chaos that would ensue if they allowed states to decide whether to disqualify candidates from the ballot.
“What do you do with the, what would seem to be, the big plain consequences of your position? If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed,” the chief justice, John Roberts, asked Jason Murray, the lawyer who argued on behalf of the Colorado voters.
“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Roberts added.
Justice Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court’s liberal justices, echoed Roberts’ line of questioning. While the constitution grants states an enormous amount of power, Kagan said to Murray, there are some national questions where states are not the “responsitory of authority. “What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?,” she said.
Much of Thursday’s argument focused on whether states have the power to enforce section 3 on their own and exclude a candidate from the ballot without Congress first passing a statute with an enforcement mechanism.
The case marks the court’s most direct intervention in a presidential election since its controversial decision in Bush v Gore in 2000. Seeking to preserve its reputation as an apolitical body, the court is usually hesitant to get involved in heated political disputes, but the arrival of the Trump case makes the court’s intervention in the most controversial of political cases unavoidable. It comes as public confidence in the court continues to decline amid a series of ethics scandals and politically charged decisions.
At this point no one has actually asked the Supreme Court to decide if Trump committed anything.
The only question before the court at this time is whether or not it is within the purview of a state to disallow a person from running for president within that state because that state believes that person has violated a federal law. The Supreme Court has indicated that it is skeptical of that premise, and for very good reasons.
If individual states are allowed to decide who can or cannot run for president then the entire presidential electoral system is dead.
It would seem that it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court has to decide exactly what Trump did or did not do, and what price he may be required to pay or not pay, but that time is not now.
If Trump is reelected possibly that time may never come. That is what we should be worried about.
The only question before the court at this time is whether or not it is within the purview of a state to disallow a person from running for president within that state because that state believes that person has violated a federal law.
The Electoral Bullshit System makes our national election for President actually a 50-state circus of SEPARATE elections. So, it looks like some people want the federalism, but not when it's inconvenient. The elections are all administered at the STATE level. Colorado is a State. Colorado doesn't want the Orange Douche Nozzle on their ballot.
The arguments I'm hearing all are about political considerations, not constitutional ones. That sucks month-old bedsheets. "If CO can do this, then Red States will disqualify the Dems." We are being held hostage AGAIN.
If the Orange Sludge Pile is reelected, the long downward slope we're already on will get much steeper, much quicker. It will become a gang-ocracy: Trumpster and his tong of amoral scumbags.
Attaboy @Old_Joe ! Can I get a double amen!
d