Supreme Court justices are above the law

The Republican-appointed justices (RAJ) who control this Supreme Court act as if they’re above the law. Their imperiousness, however, is the defining feature of the Roberts Supreme Court. Most notably, they refuse to abide by a code of ethics that constrains every other federal judge. 

More troubling, however, is their imperious overturning of long-settled legal precedents to enforce a right-wing political agenda. Notably, the RAJ have issued rulings that

• strip away women’s federally protected abortion rights,
• gut affirmative action programs addressing systemic discrimination, and
• roll back LGBTQ rights.

The only plausible explanation for these rulings is their Nixonian presumption that legal precedents lack merit unless they align with Republican ideology.

Executing Trump’s delay strategy

The RAJ have earned a reputation for using political ideology to trump legal reasoning. So it’s hardly surprising that they are doing their damnedest to provide legal cover for Trump. 

Of course, he is using the 3-D strategy to defend himself in the four criminal trials he’s facing: Deny, Distract, Delay. Above all, though, delay is the name of their game because, in this case, justice delayed would be justice denied. And that’s as self-evident as it is well-known. 

Alas, equally self-evident is that the RAJ are doing their damnedest to help Trump execute this strategy. Only that explains the way things played out at the Supreme Court yesterday, during oral argument related to the Jan. 6 (insurrection) case — the most serious of the four. 

In nearly three hours of oral argument, both conservative and liberal justices grappled with the historic significance of the case, which will set boundaries for presidential power in the future even as it impacts whether Trump faces trial in D.C. before this year’s presidential election — in which he is the likely Republican nominee.

(The Washington Post, April 25, 2024)

Mind you, the DC Court of Appeal addressed all the legal issues in a ruling handed down on February 6. That ruling was so comprehensive and commendable that most legal analysts said the Supreme Court wouldn’t even bother to hear Trump’s appeal. 

Supreme Court ignoring the special prosecutor

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has been pleading for months for the Court to recognize the compelling government interest in trying this case before the November election.  

Emphasizing that the charges against Trump ‘are of the utmost gravity,’ Smith contended that the ‘public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this Court.’

In an opinion on Dec. 1, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump is not entitled to immunity. Trump appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is scheduled to hear argument in the case on Jan. 9. But Smith came to the Supreme Court on Dec. 11, asking the justices to resolve the immunity question without waiting for the D.C. Circuit to weigh in.

(SCOTUSBlog, December 21, 2023)

Of course, the RAJ denied the prompt resolution Smith pleaded for in early December. Instead, it displayed willful disregard for the gravity of the insurrection charges and the public interest in their prompt resolution. 

Here is how SCOTUSblog reported on February 14 on Smith’s forlorn pleas:

Special counsel Jack Smith filed a brief Wednesday urging the Supreme Court to deny former President Donald Trump’s request to stay his federal election subversion case from moving forward as Trump appeals his claim that he should be immune from prosecution.

In the filing, Smith requested if the Supreme Court does intend to hear Trump’s appeal that they grant the review now and go into an expedited briefing schedule that would have them issue their ruling during this term.

So imagine Smith’s dismay. After all, the RAJ defied prevailing legal opinion by granting Trump’s appeal and request for a stay in proceedings. Even worse, they scheduled yesterday’s oral argument on his appeal for the latest possible date. This means Smith might have to wait until the end of this term in June for the ruling he sought back in December. 

Frankly, the RAJ couldn’t do a better job of helping Trump delay accountability for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection if they were taking instructions directly from Trump himself. 

Absolute immunity framed as “official acts’ 

The RAJ seemed hell-bent on fashioning a rule that would sanction Trump’s crazy contention. And remember, he contends that a president should have immunity to, among other things, 

• assassinate political rivals, 
• sell nuclear secrets (I suspect he already sold them to Saudi Arabia),
  
• mount a coup to remain in office, or
• “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” for kicks. 

The Democratic-appointed justices (DAJ) painstakingly demonstrated why the Court should rule against Trump, allowing this case to proceed without delay. But common sense was all they needed to do so.

Yet, the RAJ twisted legal reasoning to suggest a president only needs to frame his crimes as ‘official acts’ in the interest of national security to have absolute immunity. They seemed intent on remanding this case for “further proceedings” to determine what constitutes official acts. 

But everyone knows the effect would be to delay the trial until well after the November presidential election. Moreover, everyone knows that a reelected Trump would order his AG to fire Smith and end this trial. 

Tipping the scales of justice for one president (George W. Bush), shame on them; for another, shame on America. But not on me because I’ve been denouncing the RAJ for years as political hacks in judicial garb.

Meanwhile, the RAJ are so blinded by their partisan motive, they seem unaware that ruling Trump could do these things means Biden can. And even they couldn’t deny that Biden would have a far more compelling case if he promptly ordered the assassination of Trump in the national interest. 

Checkmate!