Has the Supreme Court gone rogue?
If the Supreme Court thinks former presidents have, or do not have, some or absolute immunity against criminal prosecution, why not just say so now? Why would it take months? Do they have something better to do? Are there other priorities on their to-do list? They may need some time for discussions. And clerks will have to type the decision up and proofread it. However, previous Courts were capable of making important decisions affecting presidents without dawdling.
In 1974, SCOTUS ruled that Nixon had no right to withhold the Oval Office tapes from Congress. It took them 99 days from April 16, when Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski served a subpoena for the tapes, until July 24, when they decided 8-0 to deny Nixon his claimed executive privilege to withhold evidence. Note: The 9th Justice, William Rehnquist, recused himself because of a conflict of interest (he had worked in Nixons White House). Are you paying attention, Clarence Thomas?
In 2000, SCOTUS took only three days to decide George W. Bush was the election winner. The Court had stayed the Florida Supreme Courts decision to allow a recount on December 9. They heard oral arguments on December 11. They gave Bush his win on December 12.
In 2024, SCOTUS is lollygagging. Trumps legal team floated the immunity claim in November 2023. Federal District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan denied it. And her words resonate today. In her opinion, she wrote:
Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong get-out-of-jail-free pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/4/25/2237274/-Has-the-Supreme-Court-already-gone-rogue
bucolic_frolic
(46,292 posts)No. And that says a lot.
Irish_Dem
(55,825 posts)It has been downhill since then.
sanatanadharma
(4,045 posts)Judicial review of laws is not a granted power in the Constitution. The court was set up as a court of last appeal, applying the facts and laws to case issues and disputes, no more.
GoreWon2000
(834 posts)There's no better example of the SCOTUS shredding the constitution and ignoring the actual facts than the 2000 Bush vs Gore decision. Had that decision actually been based on the facts and the law, all of the uncounted votes would've been counted as Florida law clearly required. This ruling represents judicial activism at its worst. The SCOTUS did what it did in 2000 in order to install Bush and they made no bones about it. Now they're doing the same thing again with Trump.
lastlib
(24,572 posts)YES. An emphatic "yes."