Trump's Bid to Stand Above the Law

[Zorro]

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear lawyers argue the president’s claim that he has absolute immunity while in office.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear one of the most consequential cases ever considered on executive privilege. Trump v. Vance concerns a subpoena issued by the Manhattan district attorney to President Trump’s accountants demanding the release of tax returns and other financial documents to a grand jury.

What is at stake is no less than the accountability of a president to the rule of law.

Mr. Trump claims that a president has “temporary absolute immunity,” meaning he cannot be criminally investigated while in office. Indeed, in oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, his lawyers said that if the president were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, he could not be investigated or indicted until after he left office.

If the justices endorse this extreme view, they will make it impossible to hold this president, and all future presidents, answerable in courts for their actions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/supreme-court-trump-executive-privilege.html

We're going to find out soon which Supreme Court justices will pervert the rule of law to support this criminal president. I have little confidence the Republican nominees will make the proper lawful decision.

[beachbumbob]

1. creates the precedent for a Biden admin

think about all Joe can do just by executive order and we can all tell the GOP to fock off

[rampartc]

2. ridiculous. this immunity is imaginary

and circumvents the most basic concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances.

if anything, we should do anything necessary to overturn this decision (which is "in the bag" for trump.)

[Laelth]

3. I don't think the SCOTUS will rule for Trump, here.

Even the Republicans on the Court will be reticent to surrender all their power to review the Executive Branch of our government.

If they rule for Trump, they will be toying with creating a 4-year, cyclical dictatorship.

-Laelth

[lark]

4. You, my dear, are an optimist.

When has any member of the Russian Repug SCOTUS 5 ever ruled against rw dogma - NEVER. They are all in on the treachery and criminality as long as it benefits the olgiarchs and hurts the working class. They are shredding the constitution knowingly and willingly to turn us into a rw fascist dictatorship. They will not protect us, not one bit because they love rw dictatorships.

[Laelth]

5. I suppose I am an optimist.

But I suspect that the SCOTUS sees a potential left-wing dictatorship coming to power next year, and that may give pause to some right-wingers on the Court.

-Laelth

[Chainfire]

6. What makes you think

it would only be in cycles of four years? If the Supreme Court rules that the President is not fettered by laws, then his power becomes absolute. He could literally, and in full public view, order hits on his political enemies, pay the assassins from the treasury, and be beyond the reach of the law as long as he served. Now, that is Power!

With that kind of power he could rule for life while supported by the law of the land. Once that power was granted the conservatives could never afford to relinquish it as their fortunes, their freedom and their lives would be lost with a change of "presidents."

[Laelth]

7. States control elections.

The federal government can not stop elections, so even a federal executive with unfettered power would still be limited by our 4-year election cycle.

-Laelth