, a challenge to special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Donald Trump for election subversion related to Jan. 6. The former president argues that he has absolute “presidential immunity” for the “official acts” he undertook while attempting to overturn the election, rendering the prosecution against him largely unconstitutional.
Dahlia Lithwick: Justice Alito trotted out this theme that was kind of bone-chilling: He said “we all want” a “stable democratic society,” and nothing could be worse for democracy than holding a president to account, because that will “lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy.” As if democracy requires giving immunity to criminal presidents because otherwise they won’t leave office.
Beyond Alito, this was certainly not the Roberts court that I expected to show up at this argument. As a blinkered institutionalist, I’m getting blowback along the lines of: “I told you so. They’re a bunch of partisan hacks.” I truly believed that at least seven members of the court would take the potential failure of democracy as a proposition seriously enough that the partisan valence of this case went away. That didn’t happen.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: NBCNewsHealth - 🏆 707. / 51 Read more »
Source: ksatnews - 🏆 442. / 53 Read more »
Source: wjxt4 - 🏆 246. / 63 Read more »
Source: CalMatters - 🏆 261. / 63 Read more »
Source: WashTimes - 🏆 235. / 63 Read more »
Source: cnnbrk - 🏆 393. / 55 Read more »