Immunity case is a stall tactic

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding

Donald Trump’s notion that presidents should have absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. Since the founding of our republic, we have expected the president to perform his duties out of respect for the law and with full faith to serve the citizens of the country with integrity. No president had ever tried to overturn the results of an election until Jan. 6, 2021.

The male justices danced around the question at hand and obfuscated the proceedings with specious hypotheticals about official versus private acts and concerns about future presidents not being able to do the job out of fear of being prosecuted by succeeding administrations.

The female justices were more direct in their questioning by referring to the case at hand, which is the scheme to overturn the 2020 election. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put it succinctly: “Without the threat of criminal liability, future presidents will be emboldened to commit crimes. Why would the president not be required to follow the law when performing official or private acts?”

Until now, no president has needed absolute immunity. Richard Nixon resigned from office and was pardoned by Gerald Ford. The bedrock principle of our democracy is the rule of law and it is axiomatic that no one is above the law. There is nothing here that can’t be prosecuted. Don Hiddleson, Millcreek, Utah