How Trump’s 'absurd' immunity claim actually imperils Republicans: conservative

09 May 2024

On Thursday, April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court listened to oral arguments both for and against former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims.

Trump is claiming that because he was still president in late 2020 and early 2021, he enjoys total immunity against the federal charges in special counsel Jack Smith's election interference case — and therefore, the case should be thrown out altogether.

Trump's immunity argument has been flat-out rejected by Judge Tanya Chutkan, who wrote that U.S. presidents do not enjoy a "divine right of kings." And a federal appeals court had a very similar analysis, totally rejecting Trump's claims. But it remains to be seen what the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately decide.

In an article published by the conservative National Review on May 9, journalist Christian Schneider warns that Trump's "absurd" immunity argument — if accepted by the High Court — could have terrible results for Republicans in the future.

"The justices must figure out when a president can be held criminally liable for actions that took place during his presidency," Schneider writes. "The two extreme positions — that a president is completely legally immune for all actions he takes during his time in office or that all of his actions are subject to criminal review — are equally absurd, so the Court must now decide where the line is drawn."

Schneider, who co-hosts a podcast on the 49-year history of NBC's "Saturday Night Live," adds, "Because of Trump's unwillingness to accept, or lack of knowledge of, the traditional concept of the peaceful transfer of power, the justices must now write down the unwritten rules."

Schneider emphasizes that if Democrats totally dominated the United States' federal government, the last thing Republicans would want is a Democratic president who enjoys absolute immunity.

"As with any position on a major issue," Schneider argues, "the pro-Trump contingent should also consider the ramifications of broad presidential immunity when the other party is in power — as is the case today. If presidents can do whatever they want without legal ramifications, what's to stop Joe Biden, citing what he and his party see as Trump's threat to democracy, from canceling the 2024 election to save the republic? Or let's say the election takes place — does Vice President Kamala Harris get to pick which electors she's willing to accept?"

Because of Trump, Schneider writes, the High Court "must speculate as to what might be a private versus public act."

"When etiquette wanes and the holes in our interactions are exposed," the National Review writer explains, "they are filled with more illiberal laws meant to teach us how we should behave. But it is now Trump who is forcing us to litigate the commonplace, and this litigation of civic etiquette is far more dire and less entertaining than a Larry David rant. If only Emily Post had written a manual on the peaceful transition of power."

Christian Schneider's full National Review article is available at this link.

From Your Site Articles