Stopping Trump
More than half of Americans want Donald Trump to “go away”. 65% believe the criminal charges against him are serious, and 49% believe he should suspend his Presidential campaign (ABC). But, to quote Bill Murray’s stellar performance in the summer camp movie, Meatballs; “It just doesn’t matter”. Donald Trump is the likely Republican nominee for the Presidency in 2024.
Trump won the Presidency despite losing the popular vote. He survived the Access Hollywood Tapes, and the Mueller investigation into his political campaign. “Good people, on both sides” and child separation at the border didn’t tip the scales. And neither did the “perfect” phone call to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. It took a world pandemic and Joe Biden to end his first term as President, and even then, he led his supporters in an attempt to alter the results on January 6th. He is, and remains, the only former President who faced two impeachments. And the only former President facing ninety-one criminal indictments, both Federal and State.
We looked to the Republican Party leaders, the Justice Department, and Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republicans twice, to “…rid us of this meddlesome President”. It took Covid, and Biden, to break the chain in 2020. But Trump is back again, as outrageous as ever, with a legitimate chance to win the Presidency and become “dictator”, at least for the “first day”.
Criminal Charges
The truth of the criminal charges: disrupting the lawful transition of power, trying to corruptly influence the election in his favor; and stealing and mishandling classified documents; is self-evident. Justice is incremental, but is inexorably moving against him. And Trump’s lawyers, legitimately, see delay as their best tactic. If Trump wins “again”, Federal charges will disappear. The state charges will be placed in abeyance until he leaves the White House (if he leaves). There will be no justice.
So many of us look to the Supreme Court as the institution that might finally stand to the moment. After all, the Court was the bulwark that blocked the “stop the steal” movement in 2020. Two cases are to that Court, with hopes that Trump’s illegal actions are punished.
One case comes from the Colorado Supreme Court, that ruled Trump was an “insurrectionist” as defined by the 14th Amendment, and therefore disqualified from their ballot. The other case comes out of Jack Smith’s targeted charges in the Washington, DC District Court. In that case, the Trump lawyers claim that the President of the United States has “sovereign immunity”, a blanket protection from any criminal charges arising through the course of his Presidential “duties”. Since Trump was the President, and the counting of the electoral ballots in Congress was a Federal action, they argue that immunity from prosecution extends to whatever he did leading up to and including January 6th.
A Tainted Court
Let’s get an ugly part out of the way first. Justice Thomas, and to a lesser extent Justice Alito, are “tarred”. They accepted massive funds from conservative millionaires and groups for their own personal use. And Thomas’s wife helped organize the January 6th Insurrection. Both Justices are “conflicted” in a legal sense. They appear improper and biased. In any other Court in the country, they would recuse themselves. But they aren’t in any other Court, they are in a Supreme Court that sets its own rules, and has no authority to enforce those rules on their own members. So all of the Trump cases will be heard by all nine of the Justices.
But even the financial “patrons” of the Justices aren’t necessarily Trump fans. So it not just the weight of the money that might sway their view. Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett, Cavanaugh and even Chief Justice Roberts all owe their exalted positions to one man: Leonard Leo, of the Federalist Society. Leo and Senator Mitch McConnell made it a decades long mission to tilt the ideology of the Supreme Court in their favor; and with the Trump Presidency they cemented a six to three majority. The stand that the “Society” chooses about Donald Trump may be more important than the money, or even the law.
So, even if the Supreme Court is corrupt beyond redemption; keep in mind, even the corrupters aren’t all for Trump.
The 14th
Start with the Colorado case. The 14th Amendment was written to protect the “gains” of the Civil War. The third section prevented the same people who led the Confederacy from returning to National power. There were no “trials” for insurrection, no hangings for Treason. Even Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy (and former US Senator and Secretary of War) was released from his imprisonment in Fortress Monroe, and ultimately pardoned. But he was still banned by the 14th from holding office again.
From that precedent, it doesn’t take a trial or conviction of insurrection to ban someone from office under the 14th. A “common sense” rule applies: if they participated in an Insurrection, they are banned. And that’s what Colorado applied to Donald Trump.
But the practical outcome of the Court letting Colorado’s decision stand, is that Trump would appear on ballots in Republican controlled states, and not appear on ballots in Democratic controlled states. That would widely swing the popular vote, but probably do little to alter the outcome in the Electoral College. What it would surely do, is magnify the political divide in the Nation. It could, whatever the outcome, make the results unacceptable to huge portions of the electorate.
The Supreme Court will not rule that Colorado was “right”, and that Trump is an insurrectionist. And they won’t require that an insurrectionist need be “convicted”. They’ll sidestep that whole issue. They will rule that there were “procedural” errors in Colorado’s decision, that need to be “corrected”, and that process of “correction” will go beyond the 2024 election. After that, the issue will be moot. Score Trump 1, Justice 0 – but a good try by Colorado.
Immunity
No matter the patrons of the Supreme Court majority, I cannot see them ruling that the President has “blanket immunity” from any actions he takes. It’s not common sense, nor is it a reasonable outcome of the Constitution. The entire impeachment/conviction process is based on removing the President (or other official) so they CAN be tried in the regular Court system. (This also makes the Trump lawyers’ other claim – that impeachment trials created a “double jeopardy” situation – bogus).
The Jack Smith trial will continue. But what procedure will the Court use? They’ve already refused Smith’s request for an expedited hearing in front of the Supreme Court (Trump now 2, Justice 0). So the immunity question will go to the DC Appellate Courts, who’s likely to rule against Trump (Trump 2, Justice 1).
Then, the Supreme Court will have a final say in the matter. If they determine to hear the case, then Jack Smith’s goal of a trial decision before the election is over (Trump 3, Justice 1). But the Supreme Court may simply refuse a Trump appeal from the DC Circuit, affirming the Appellate decision. And then the trial begins (Trump 2, Justice 2). I’m betting that’s the tactic the Supreme Court uses.
The Supreme Court won’t openly stand in opposition to Donald Trump. But they won’t enable a second Trump Presidency, either. The flawed Robert’s Court, like the Senate Republicans, will step aside. The trials may go on, but ultimately the burden of Trump is on the votes of the American People, once again.
