Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argues that Presidents should be allowed to commit federal or Democratic crimes because we know it will end

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for and against Donald Trumpdeclaration of absolute presidential immunity. The good news is that the Court seems unlikely to rule completely in his favor, agreeing that he should not be prosecuted for anything he did while in office and dismissing a federal election lawsuit against him. back to you. The bad news is, unsurprisingly, they won’t just tell him to go away, as some justices suggest that presidents should receive some immunity – a move that could potentially limit the Law Special monk. Jack Smithcase and delayed the trial until after the November election. Crazy news? That conservative justice Samuel Alito actually tried to argue that we should allow presidents to commit crimes without fear of prosecution rescue democracy.

That’s right: Talk to Michael Dreeben, and attorney representing the special prosecutor, Alito began by stating: “I am sure you will agree with me that a stable democratic society requires a losing candidate in an election. election, even a close election, even a hotly contested election, must leave office peacefully. , if that candidate is the incumbent? Then, starting with a premise that all reasonable people agree with, he continues with this:

If an incumbent loses a very close, contentious election, know that the real possibility after leaving office is not that the president may retire peacefully, but that the president may be prosecuted. criminal prosecution by a harsh political policy. opponents, wouldn’t that lead us into a vicious cycle that would destabilize the functioning of our country as a democracy?

If you get a headache trying to follow that, what Alito is saying is that presidents need to know that they will never be prosecuted for any crimes they may commit while in office. office, otherwise democracy will collapse, because future politicians may, for example, try to follow suit. subvert a free and fair election to maintain power and avoid criminal charges. And if that sounds completely absurd to you, you’re not alone. Responding to Alito’s theory, Dreeben said, “I think exactly the opposite, Judge Alito.”

Of course, Alito’s desire to let presidents do whatever they wanted could lead to terrible results. Sonia Sotomayor Unfortunately had to point out:

Either way, it’s clearly good news that the Court is unlikely to uphold Trump’s (and apparently Alito’s) claim that presidents should enjoy absolute immunity for anything they do while in office, but it’s really, really bad what the likely outcome of the proceedings would be. Still a big victory for the former president. Each New York Times:

There doesn’t seem to be much urgency among the justices — especially conservatives — to ensure that the immunity question is resolved quickly. That leaves open the possibility that Mr. Trump could avoid being tried on charges of plotting to overthrow the last election until after voters go to the polls to decide whether to choose him as president in this election. or not.