The only way to resolve Donald Trump’s legal status
Several states have removed Donald Trump for the presidential primary ballot per Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, i.e. that oath-breaking insurrectionists may not hold public office. On Monday, March 4, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned Colorado’s actions on this matter.
Five of the nine Justices went further, stating that it is the US Congress that has the power to enforce the Amendment. Four of the nine disagreed with this uncharacteristic and needless departure from judicial restraint by the Court to speak to a matter which is not before it.
Corruption or cowardice?
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson said that the majority “decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.” Amy Coney Barrett also disagreed with the majority.
I personally wonder to what extent that insulation for the petitioner, Donald Trump, is corruption. I also wonder to what extent that insulation for the Court is cowardice.
The minority elaborated with simple and undeniable reasoning that Section 3 of Amendment 14 is “self executing, meaning that they do not depend on legislation.” The majority responded in the penultimate paragraph of the unanimous opinion: “So far as we can tell, they object ...”
The uncharacteristically petulant phrase, “So far as we can tell,” can only be understood to mean that the justices think what the minority states makes no sense, even though the minority’s arguments are both compelling and uncontested.
The majority’s statement can only be understood as a personal attack, of the type which is made so commonly by men against women. Coincidentally in this case, the minority is all women and the majority is all men.
Everyone is watching our justice system, both here in America and worldwide. Donald Trump faces trial for multiple crimes in both federal and state courts.
Tens of millions are convinced that he is a great leader who has been targeted by corrupt prosecutors and politicians. Tens of millions more are convinced that he is a dangerous criminal who must be stopped.
The immunity question
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments the week of April 22 on the question, “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Court has chosen to delay that hearing nearly two months. Some have claimed that they want to support Donald Trump’s interest in delaying the criminal trials he faces, but I think there is a more likely reason.
The Constitution says nothing whatever regarding the President’s criminal liability for his actions while in office. The absence of any guidance from our Constitution on how criminal acts by our President will be handled is a fundamental flaw in our nations’ greatest legal authority.
That buck stops with the Supreme Court, and it’s an extraordinarily weighty and difficult one.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to fault the Court for giving themselves time to thoroughly consider the issue, the existing body of law and judiciary opinion, the petitioner’s briefs due March 19, and the briefs in support due April 8.
The only resolution
If President Trump committed the criminal acts of which he is accused, and that two month and more delay in justice proves to be justice denied, I think we must accept that as a price we pay for a profoundly flawed Constitution.
The simple fact is that the only path to a peaceful resolution of the divisions in America surrounding Donald Trump is the 2024 Presidential election. The margin of victory must be clear, one way or the other, and the integrity of the election must be clear too.