The Supreme Surrender to Donald Trump

In case you still had any faith in the Supreme Court. In case you thought the Supreme Court, even under Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, was capable of deciding the law fairly and objectively. FUHGEDDABOUTIT!

There is no justification for the Supreme Court’s decision to consider Donald Trump’s absurd claim that, as former president, he should be “totally immune” under the law. No justification at all except that members of the nation’s highest court – like the Senate Republican Caucus and the House Republican Caucus – have adopted the role of eunuchs in the temple of Donald Trump. There’s nothing he can say or do that they won’t embrace.

As it turns out, maybe the only true thing Donald Trump ever said was on Jan. 24, 2016, when he told a rally in Sioux City, Iowa: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” Little did we realize how prophetic that was.

Now Donald Trump’s making a far more serious claim: I could send an armed mob to attack the United States Capitol, threaten the lives of every member of Congress and the vice president of the United States, and attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election – and I still wouldn’t lose any votes. Not even on the Supreme Court.

Granted, the Supreme Court hasn’t decided the case yet. They’ve only decided to consider it. But that in itself is a miscarriage of justice. For one thing, because it plays right into Trump’s hands, whose only goal is to delay, delay, delay – until, God forbid, he’s re-elected and could grant himself an absolute pardon.

The Supremes have already done Trump a big favor by waiting so long to announce consideration of the case. In 2000, it took only three days for the Rehnquist court to hear, debate, and rule on Bush v. Gore. Yet it took two weeks for the Roberts court to decide whether to even hear the Trump immunity case – which they won’t do until the week of April 22, thereby delaying any trial on the Jan. 6 charges until summer, or maybe even after the election. That, in itself, is a huge victory for Trump – whether, in the end, he wins or loses.

But the court’s greatest injustice is agreeing to consider this case in the first place. Because it’s so patently absurd. In the United States of America, no matter who they are or what office they hold or once held, no one is above the law. That’s what makes us who we are.

Trump, of course, insists he should enjoy “ complete and total immunity” for any acts committed while in office. Seriously? The man who takes an oath of office to uphold the laws of the United States is exempt from all of them? Or, as Trump’s lawyers suggested in court, the president could send a team of Navy Seals to assassinate his political opponent and not be held accountable? That argument’s not worth taking seriously – certainly not by the nation’s highest court, and especially not after it’s been so soundly rejected by the lower courts.

Trump’s plea for immunity was first dismissed in December by federal judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who famously concluded that, among other benefits, being former president does not “confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.” Last month, Trump’s argument was again soundly rejected point-by-point in a 57-page ruling by the federal court of appeals. “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become Citizen Trump,” they reminded him. And us.

Yet the Supreme Court’s barging ahead. Now here’s the worst part: Clarence Thomas will be on the panel. Even though his wife was directly involved in Trump’s efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, Thomas has not recused himself from the case and Chief Justice John Roberts has not demanded that he do so.

Which makes a mockery of the entire court. Think about it. If this case were being decided in any other court of law, there’s no way Clarence Thomas, with all his obvious conflicts of interest, would be allowed to sit on the jury. And yet Trumper Thomas will be allowed to cast one of nine votes that could decide the future of our democracy.

Again, it’s wrong for the Supreme Court to take this case. And wrong for them to waste their time on it. You don’t need a Harvard lawyer. Any fifth-grader could tell you. No one is above the law.

========

(Bill Press is host of The BillPressPod, and author of 10 books, including: “From the Left: My Life in the Crossfire.” His email address is: bill@billpress.com. Readers may also follow him on Twitter @billpresspod.)