Donald Trump and the Supreme Court: Can He Really Bank on Constitutional Protection?
Overview: The recent acquittal of Donald Trump in the state Supreme Court has raised questions about whether he can truly rely on the Supreme Court to shield him from any real repercussions. Despite legal scholars stating that the conviction may have been wrongful, the clause for state court jurisdiction holds serious implications.
State Court Conviction and Appeals
As of now, Trump's conviction is currently upheld by the state Supreme Court, and he has the option to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals. However, ultimately, the decision rests with the state courts, which are not subject to federal reviews. The power of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) over state court actions is limited, and they can only intervene in cases of Constitutional rights violations.
Even if Trump had a constitutional right to any kind of protection, the recent conviction in the state Supreme Court takes precedence. This means that any attempt to move the case to a federal court for review would be met with significant legal hurdles, especially considering that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction over state trials.
Proposed Legislation and Its Realities
A bill is pending in the U.S. House that would aim to grant former Presidents the right to have any state cases against them moved to the Federal Court system. However, the reality is that such a bill faces minimal chances of passing the Senate. Politically and legally, the chances of a constitutional amendment passing are slim, making this bill a non-starter.
Impeachment and Presidential Immunity
The question of presidential immunity also arises, with some claiming that Trump enjoys special protections. The impeachment process and subsequent trial showed that this was a controversial topic, but ultimately, the belief in presidential immunity remains a point of contention. The Supreme Court justices, with their complex backgrounds, might differ in their views on immunity, but they operate within the confines of the law as it is written.
The Role of Merrick Garland and Jack Smith
Another key aspect is the role of Merrick Garland and Jack Smith in the criminal case process. If Garland had initiated the necessary legal actions on January 7 or 6, 2021, this might have significantly altered the situation. However, despite their presence and the potential for legal action, the inaction of the Justice Department and the Attorney General has delayed the process.
Cleaning Up the Government
Going forward, the solution may lie in fundamental changes to government institutions. All branches of the government need a thorough cleansing to ensure transparency, honesty, and a genuine love for democracy. The current media and political climate makes this a challenging aspiration, as the majority of people do not seem to care about these issues deeply.
Even with such changes, Trump's belief in his own rights may continue to shield him from legal repercussions, much to the frustration of many. Until there is a significant shift in public opinion and political will, the status quo will likely remain.