TRUMP v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 23–939. Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024

With the recent 6-3 SCOTUS decision, or lack thereof, primarily consisting of waffling, sniveling, and babbling, the court has descended to depths of disingenuousness and dereliction of duty heretofore unimaginable.

The fact that there is a case before the court with a former President, we had a right to expect a brilliant and well articulated decision. It was anything but that. The dissenting opinions don’t just disagree on points of law, they sound a clarion call of an impending Constitutional disaster.

The case itself is compelling and consequential. If we genuinely desire equality under the law, this decision fails miserably. Anyone with any fundamental understanding of criminal matters would know that seeking an indictment against a former President or anyone of high political status must be based on the most solid evidence and criminal procedure. This is not partisan politics, this is a test of our national resolve for equity among all citizens regardless of status or station in life.

One does not go after a former President without thoughtful consideration, this case should have reinforced that everyone is the same under the law.

The fact that there has been legal maneuvering and appeals on appeals about the process, let alone a trial, should surprise no one. Although one might consider whether the average defendant would be afforded such latitude. This clearly is a peek into the inequities in the law. The courts seem to believe the veneer of being the former President confers special privileges, it should not when it comes to criminality.

Some men (in the universal sense) are more equal than others.

But the Supreme Court should be the last bastion against the politics that frequently corrupt the system.

It seemed a simple question. Is the President immune from prosecution from unlawful or corrupt acts committed while President?

Now, I would concede one limited level of immunity. A sitting President should never face criminal charges or civil liability while in office. In our zero-sum game of politics, corrupt individuals on both sides of the political spectrum would subvert the Courts to their own purpose by interfering with a President’s responsibilities.

Such a standard was already set by the court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) in which the court found,

“…a president “is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.” But the court also said this, “it is settled law that the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States.” 

It is clear the court was talking about official actions taken in the course of Presidential duties. It is also clear the court recognized that unofficial actions, which one would think would include the commission of a crime, are not immune from external jurisdiction or protected by separation of powers.

The key word in all of this being “official.” What the court should have determined is does a criminal act by a President, committed while in office, ever constitute an “official act.” If so, does it carry the presumption of immunity once he is no longer in office. If the answer is no, go to trial. If the answer is yes, case closed. Although it would open a whole slew of other options for the current sitting President.

But there is one way to guarantee these cases reach a jury. Turn out in November and vote to ensure Mr. Trump does no further damage to the republic.

Joe Broadmeadow

A sitting President can only face impeachment. If those in the House and the Senate subvert the process through partisan politics, the peoples’ recourse is the ballot box.

However, once a President is out of office, he should face the consequences of any criminal acts. Especially ones directly impacting the peaceful transfer of power, the Congressional proceedings to certify the election, and the sanctity of the vote.

In the case before the court, they chose to muddy the difference between official acts and unofficial acts. Placing a presumption of immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts, leaving it to the trial court to determine whether the actions of the President met the definition of official or unofficial.

(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in partic­ular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.” Majority Opinion, Roberts J.

Leaving a gaping hole in their decision. Here’s what has to happen, but we are not the ones to make that determination.

Why did they grant certiorari in the first place?

But like everything in the court’s decisions, the devil is in the details. The court claimed they offered guidance in this matter. One section of this guidance is this gem.

“Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.” Majority Opinion, Roberts. J.

What?

Let’s pick a generally applicable law, say US Code on Elections. Specifically, 52 U.S. Code § 20511 – Criminal penalties

(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—
(A)
the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or
(B)
the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,

So, suppose a President violated this law by coercing a state official to “find” 11,000 votes. In that case, SCOTUS claims the court cannot deem this an unofficial act simply because it violates the law.

Double what?

And one Justice felt the need to go beyond just this presumption of immunity. You get nine guesses and the first eight don’t count.

Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion has this to say about the office of Special Counsel.

“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a pri­vate citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former Presi­dent on behalf of the United States. But I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2.

By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the Pres­ident—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel oc­cupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A pri­vate citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.

No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue con­stitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to pro­ceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.” Concurring opinion, Thomas, J.

Clearly failing to convince the majority that the President should have absolute immunity, Thomas snuck in this malicious code to complicate matters further. It is nothing more than a backdoor way to delay the trial, provide an avenue of appeal to bring the case back to the court in the event of a conviction, and, should Mr. Trump be re-elected before the trials reach a jury, provide a roadmap to derail these cases entirely.

Mr. Trump wouldn’t have to grant himself a pardon; he could just have whatever lackey he chooses this time for the Attorney General claim the Office of Special Counsel is unconstitutional and disband it.

But all is not lost. The decision wounded the cases against the former President; it did not kill them. Even Justice Thomas recognizes the cases survive, much to his chagrin.

But there is one way to guarantee these cases reach a jury. Turn out in November and vote to ensure Mr. Trump does no further damage to the republic. We can then begin repairing the damage already done.

And if you’re hesitant about Mr. Biden, should he turn out to be the nominee, keep in mind what the country would look like after four more years of an incompetent charlatan and convicted felon occupying the Oval Office.

A convicted felon who now believes he has a get out of jail free card for life!

Meanwhile, we change the acronym SCOTUS to mean Supreme Cowards of the United States.