Is Brett Wrong or right in his views
Right
Wrong
During extensive deliberations at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the significant future implications of the decision, particularly the risk of initiating a destructive cycle of politically motivated prosecutions that could undermine the presidency. Over two and a half hours on April 25, the justices appeared skeptical of a federal appeals court's decision that denied President Trump absolute immunity from criminal charges linked to acts he carried out while in office.
In August 2023, Trump was charged by Special Counsel Jack Smith with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results. Arguing for absolute immunity, Trump contended that his actions were within his official presidential duties, unless impeached and convicted by Congress—a stance the appeals court rejected by asserting that presidents are not exempt from criminal prosecution for wrongdoing.
The Supreme Court now faces the question: "To what extent does a former president enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for actions claimed to be official during their tenure?"
The court's discussion on absolute immunity, if recognized, could completely halt the ongoing prosecution by Mr. Smith. Several conservative justices indicated a preference for limiting prosecutions of former presidents, underlining the profound importance of this case for future presidencies.
Justice Kavanaugh, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, expressed that their concerns extend beyond Trump's specific case to the broader implications for presidential authority and national governance.
Arguing against the notion of presidential immunity, former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, representing Mr. Smith, stated that the Constitution's framers did not intend for presidents to operate above the law, noting that the charges against Trump—such as the alleged orchestration of dueling electors—were not part of his official duties.
Conversely, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, argued that denying immunity could irreparably alter presidential decision-making, potentially leading to aggressive legal challenges against future presidents, including hypothetical charges against President Biden related to his immigration policies.
Justice Kavanaugh voiced concerns about the long-term risks of this precedent, suggesting that it could lead to a cycle of vindictive prosecutions. He highlighted the historical burden of investigations on past presidencies and questioned the potential misuse of vague laws by innovative prosecutors.
Justice Kavanaugh also criticized the Supreme Court’s 1988 Morrison v. Olson decision, viewing it as a judicial error that hindered executive function. He warned that prosecuting former presidents might encourage targeted legal campaigns, referencing Justice Jackson's caution against prosecutorial overreach.
Opmerkingen