Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday requested Justice Department attorneys whether or not presidents must worry prosecution by a “bitter political opponent” if justices reject former President Trump’s immunity claims.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on the problem of presidential immunity, which might set a precedent for whether or not former presidents have “absolute immunity” from felony prosecution.
SCOTUS SEES ‘DANGEROUS PRECEDENT’ IN TRUMP IMMUNITY CASE IF PRESIDENTS CAN PROSECUTE RIVALS: EXPERTS
Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday, throughout arguments from Justice Department legal professional Michael Dreeben — who introduced arguments on behalf of Smith — questioned the repercussions of charging a former president.
“Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible nullity after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent,” Alito introduced.
TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO ‘ORDERED’ A ‘COUP’ COULD BE PROSECUTED
“Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail,” he mentioned.
“I think it’s exactly the opposite,” Dreeben replied. “There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election.” Dreeben went on to debate Trump’s makes an attempt to problem the 2020 election within the courts.
The official query the Supreme Court is contemplating is: “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 query stems from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case by which he charged former President Trump. Trump pleaded not responsible to all expenses and argues he needs to be immune from prosecution from official acts performed as president of the U.S.
It’s unclear how quickly the Supreme Court will rule on the presidential immunity subject.
Both liberal and conservative justices centered on the broader implications for future presidents, however raised sharply completely different issues.
“If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Biden, requested.
“If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country,” she mentioned.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes for the court docket’s determination: “This will have huge implications for the presidency.”
“I’m not talking about the present, so I’m talking about the future,” Kavanaugh mentioned.
And Justice Neil Gorsuch confused throughout questioning: “We’re writing a rule for, yes, for the ages.“
TRUMP BLASTS ‘BIDEN TRIALS,’ SAYS PRESIDENT IS WEAPONIZING DOJ TO ‘TRY TO KNOCK OUT’ HIS ‘POLITICAL OPPONENT’
As for Alito’s query, the previous president has repeatedly claimed that he’s being prosecuted by his political opponents, warning Americans and voters that every one circumstances in opposition to him, in all jurisdictions, are being introduced by his opponent — President Biden — and being performed in coordination with the White House.
Trump says his opponents wish to maintain him confined to the courtroom in the course of the 2024 election cycle to forestall him from campaigning.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The former president, who was prohibited by New York Judge Juan Merchan from attending the Supreme Court arguments Thursday, as a substitute sat in a Manhattan courtroom for his felony trial out of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation.
Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying enterprise information within the first diploma. Trump pleaded not responsible.