Justice Alito Questions Whether Prosecuting Presidents Would Undermine the Government
His comment was made as U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in former President Trump’s immunity case.U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday questioned whether prosecuting former presidents may undermine the country’s governance during a hearing on former President Donald Trump’s presidential immunity case.
President Trump’s lawyers have argued that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former occupants of the Oval Office would become routine and presidents couldn’t function as the commander-in-chief if they had to worry about criminal charges.
“I’m sure you would agree with me that a stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully, if that candidate is the incumbent,” Justice Alito asked Michael Dreeben, an attorney for special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which is prosecuting the former president in two separate cases.
Mr. Michael Dreeben, an attorney for special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which is prosecuting the former president in two separate cases, replied, “Of course”
Read more...
"I'm going to give you a chance to say ...if you stay by it: The president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him -- is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" she asked.
ReplyDelete"It would depend on the hypothetical," Sauer answered. "We could see that could well be an official act."
******************
As a note: this applies to Republican AND Democratic presidents.
Don't think they should be answering "hypotheticals" that are out in left field/
ReplyDeletewhoever 6.34 is they must have watched the supreme court on tv that hypothetical was asked by them.bring on the debate
ReplyDelete