Better for the Supreme Court to be right than fast
The U.S. Supreme Court made the right call.
John Krull, publisher, TheStatehouseFile.com
When the justices on America’s high bench opted not to honor Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for expedited consideration of former President Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from prosecution, they sent the correct signal.
Political observers touted the court’s refusal to skip over typical parts of the appeals process as a big victory for Trump.
It wasn’t—we’ll get to that in a moment—but the fact that such observations were routine illustrates why it was important that the Supreme Court take its time.
Donald Trump’s presidency and its aftermath have created immense challenges for a self-governing society.
Not the least of them is that his presence encourages almost everyone to view events through a distorting partisan prism. Because he makes everything—assaults on American institutions that have preserved American rights for more than two centuries—about him and not about the country he took an oath to defend, Trump warps perspective.
He pushes both his supporters and his detractors to ask the wrong questions.
Does this help Donald Trump? Does it hurt Donald Trump? Will Trump like it or will Trump hate it?
Those questions are beside the point—or at least they should be.
The proper questions involve determining what the law says, how justice should be determined and administered appropriately and which of many unfortunate options is best for the republic.
Donald Trump is neither more nor less important than any other person who has held the office of president. Every president is a steward of the republic, not a ruler. That is why we demand that presidents take oaths pledging to execute the duties of the office and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.â€
The oath is a reminder that the person who occupies the Oval Office serves a greater cause than plain self-interest.
That cause is preserving the ability of free people to govern themselves.
This is an ongoing challenge. Every generation of Americans have had to wrestle with one existential question or another regarding our experiment in self-government.
Because of that, preserving the pillars of self-government has been so important for us as a nation.
One of those essential pillars is the judicial branch. If we Americans lack faith that fundamental issues of law will be weighed dispassionately, then it is hard to believe that human beings can govern themselves.
The safeguards built into the legal system—the myriad ways to challenge evidence, the many avenues for appeal—are there to reassure us that no one will be denied liberty or property without just consideration.
Donald Trump has been indicted four times on 91 criminal charges. He is the first president in American history to be indicted for criminal conduct.
Prosecuting him will establish precedents. His presidency and his ceaseless efforts to overturn the legitimate results of a presidential election already have shattered norms for a commander-in-chief’s conduct.
His attempts to evade legal accountability for his actions threaten to do the same.
For that reason, all who love this country and its institutions should demand that no steps in the process be skipped—that no safeguards of his or anyone else’s rights be forsaken.
It won’t cost much to do so.
The supposed win Trump scored with the court’s decision not to expedite his spurious claims of immunity will be short-lived. The appellate court will rule soon and then the matter will be before the Supreme Court.
The great Supreme Court justices with John Marshall have prided themselves on taking the long view, of placing eternal values above temporary considerations.
This court often hasn’t done that. The justices, particularly those who made their reputations as political animals, frequently have allowed themselves to take sides in the ideological battles of a rabidly partisan age.
The monumental questions involving Donald Trump’s prosecution give the members of the bench a chance to redeem themselves—and the court’s reputation.
There will be many opportunities—starting with demanding that Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself because of his wife’s work on Trump’s behalf—for the justices to show that they serve the Constitution and the law.
Not any party or politician.
FOOTNOTE: Â John Krull is director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students. The views expressed are those of the author only and should not be attributed to Franklin College.
After reading an intellectual column, Dr. Moss’s, this inconsequential drivel is even more laughable than usual.
FEAR!
Victory for Russia, fear-fear-fear!
You should be scared:
1. Some voters, granted, they’re like you. They actually like a dictator strongman like Russia’s Vladmir Putin, because they are weak-minded and are easily manipulated. They’ll even say the agree with Hitler, another dictator strongman: even though they disgrace our US Veterans who died while defeating that scum of humanity. BUT most voters ARE NOT LIKE YOU.
2. The Supreme Court is biding it’s time on Trump. Notice, they did NOT say Trump has immunity. The CLEARLY DID NOT SAY THAT.
3. They KNOW that Special Counsel Jack Smith has a “sprawling” case against Donald Trump for insurrection.
4. The Supreme Court will eventually consider Trump’s conduct in and around January 6th.
They know Trump conspired against the United States government.
5. They know the Special Counsel Jack Smith has phone records, memos and diary entries from key witnesses, including former Vice President Mike Pence, and key eyewitness testimony from people who are inside the Oval Office with Trump.
6. The Supreme Court of the United States of America WILL eventually strike down Trump’s claims of presidential immunity. It’s NOT EVEN GOING TO BE CLOSE: even going to be close. It could be 9-0.
This is why Victory for Russia is scared. Snarls at Krull every chance he gets. Because he can NOT write, or post, or show Krull is wrong in his columns. NO SIR. Because Victory knows Krull is right.
You watch.
Victory for Russia will not disagree with me.
Cause he knows I am right.
He knows Krull is right.
Victory will say something like a bad insult comic, oh yes. But little else, cause he knows he is wrong on the facts.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I thought I had suffered a stroke and lost all reading comprehension. But now I see that I am not the only thinking person who read this dribble and thought “what?”
The only thing Donald J Trump is guilty of is being Donald J Trump
Many in our society had no problem when blm,antifa and other liberal groups were rioting and destroying major cities and looting stores,killing innocent people,they called it protesting,our new,questionable vice president even bailed many people out,back in the day we called it Anarchism
When a large group of people were in DC on the 6th of January,yes many got violent and numerous people were injured and a few killed it was called an insurrection
If you’re a liberal you get special treatment,if you’re a conservative they throw the book at you,our country is getting more socialist than ever and our forefathers are turning over in their graves
Numerous top Democrats need to be tried for treason
This is my honest opinion
.
It doesn’t matter what your skin color is, nor your political preferences, or whether you’re a liberal or a conservative.
You kill a Cop?
You are a criminal!
You’re going to jail!
You attack the US Congressional Capitol Building?
You are a terrorist!
You’re going to jail!
This case is gonna end up in the Supreme Court.
Trump sent those scumbag terrorists to attack the US Congress.
They attacked and killed Cops.
He’s gonna be found guilty.
Who killed a police officer? Was one killed by the protests on January 6?
Jack Clark has TDS in the worst way
Comments are closed.