The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a question that will decide if the former president faces charges for efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a question that will decide if the former president faces charges for efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to review a fast-tracked petition asking if Donald Trump can use his status as a former president to claim immunity from criminal charges related to his effort to overturn the 2020 election.

The order came only hours after Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the justices to expedite consideration of Trump’s presidential immunity claim in his D.C. prosecution for election interference leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. The decision is not an agreement to hear Smith’s case, but rather an agreement to review his petition faster than normal.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    65·
    11 months ago

    The legit argument for immunity is that a president is completely immune for official actions, anything else done while he is president but not official presidential action can’t be charged while president but can be charged after his term.

    Assuming they aren’t charging anything that could be construed as an official presidential action, this should be 9-0 of course you can be charged.

    • Deconceptualist@lemm.eeEnglish
      24·
      11 months ago

      Anything illegal should be charge-worthy, official or not, just like any other office. Actively holding the title of president entities immunity only as a delay, because that role also serves as commander-in-chief for the US. Having that seat empty during a prosecution could be hugely disruptive to the executive branch and strategically unwise for geopolitics.

      But once the new president takes over, there’s no longer any reason to delay the judicial process with temporary immunity.

      At least, that’s how I learned it in 6th grade, midwest public school.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        7·
        11 months ago

        I’m actually pro prosecution / impeachment of presidents for that reason, we have a backup available so it doesn’t actually hurt us. But I have to disagree on official actions. Sending someone to war can’t be reckless endangerment, having someone drone striked can’t be murder, we can’t have the president sued for damages every time they sign a law that harms a business or industry.

        • Deconceptualist@lemm.eeEnglish
          5·
          11 months ago

          Signing laws isn’t illegal in the first place.

          And I want to say I might be completely okay with holding those in power responsible for endangerment / drone strikes / murder / war.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      11 months ago

      His efforts to overturn the election came about while he was still President. Trump was the President of the United States on January 6th, 2021. Biden was not the President until January 20th, 2021.

      Framing it that way, this is getting worse all the time.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        10·
        11 months ago

        He was president but it wasn’t official action so he could be charged after he was done being president aka now.

  • vagrantprodigy@lemmy.whynotdrs.orgEnglish
    34·
    11 months ago

    If they give him immunity, they are basically saying any president can rig an election with no consequences. It would completely undermine our system of government.

  • kescusay@lemmy.world
    25·
    11 months ago

    Nice to see Smith isn’t willing to put up with this shit. SCOTUS - even the conservative members - will quickly find that former presidents aren’t kings, and that will be that.

    • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
      7·
      11 months ago

      Yes, but they are deciding whether he can be held criminally liable while in office, which he was on 1/6/21.

      • kescusay@lemmy.world
        19·
        11 months ago

        That’s still deciding if former presidents are kings or not. If former presidents are shielded by their former office against any crime they did while in office, Biden could take out a gun and shoot Trump at a debate, declare himself the winner, and march off stage with no post-presidency repercussions. It’s basically a license to commit literally all the crimes.

        • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
          5·
          11 months ago

          That’s fair, but I think it is worth noting that former presidents can commit crimes both in office and after their term. This particular former president has done both it would seem, so that’s another reason to be clear about what is being judged. In this case it is for crimes while in office.

  • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
    9·
    11 months ago

    For emphasis:

    The decision is not an agreement to hear Smith’s case, but rather an agreement to review his petition faster than normal.

    So any score guessing is a bit premature. They have not been granted cert.

  • roguetrick@kbin.social
    4·
    11 months ago

    This should not be an interlocutory appeal. Anybody else would have to wait for the final decision for this. Can any lawyer explain why they’re granting this appeal?

    • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social
      12·
      11 months ago

      Because it is a very important case and Trump’s current defense strategy hangs purely on whether or not he was acting as President when he was giving the Jan 6, 2021 speech or whether he was campaigning as a private citizen. Also as to whether anyone but the President at the time can even answer that question.

      At this moment nothing else even matters, so they do not even need to prove whether what he said makes him culpable for his followers’ actions that day.

      If SCOTUS decides that the DOJ under their current policy can indict a former President for actions as a sitting President, then that goes out the window and severely weakens Trump’s case.

      This is even more important because the elections are coming up next year and if Trump can keep the case in court and he wins the elections, then he stands a pretty good chance that regardless of what happens, the case is going to die.

      Even if it doesn’t die, and let’s say he goes to prison in August, does he stay on the ballots? What happens to the RNC? What happens when half the people’s choice is effectively taken away? What if people write in Trump and/or state’s just simply do not remove him and he wins anyway while in prison? What do we do while we figure it all out?

      It is very important that this question is answered as quickly as possible.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        18·
        11 months ago

        The reason for skipping the appeals court, where this would most certainly go, is that the whole case gets automatically stayed while the appeal is happening. Which is, of course, Trump’s aim - to delay the process. Jack Smith is basically saying, “No delay for you.”

      • osarusan@kbin.social
        7·
        11 months ago

        whether or not he was acting as President when he was giving the Jan 6, 2021 speech or whether he was campaigning as a private citizen.

        This is some sovereign citizen bullshit. Of course that’s the kind of the argument Trump’s lawyers would make. It should take 2 seconds to slap this down, except with how corrupt the SC is I don’t have any confidence they won’t just give it to him.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          1·
          11 months ago

          Thomas will probably vote to give him immunity, and maybe Alito. Possibly another conservative pickup, but not enough to give Trump what he wants. After striking down abortion rights, the Supreme Court got cold feet, and isn’t willing to rule quite so arbitrarily.

          For that matter, even Thomas might not. He might rub enough braincells together to remember who is currently President, and what a ruling in Trump’s favor would let Biden do. It’s kinda like how conservatives turned against the Patriot act once they realized Hillary might be President.