Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin has issued a scathing critique of the Supreme Court’s handling of former President Donald Trump’s immunity claims, suggesting that the court’s conservative justices appear to be in lockstep with partisan interests rather than adhering to constitutional principles. Raskin’s sharp comments came following the Supreme Court’s deliberation over whether the former president can be tried for his alleged involvement in the MAGA-led January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Raskin, a Democrat and a former member of the January 6 Select Committee, did not mince words when addressing the matter. “The most astonishing thing for me today was Justice Alito’s question,” Raskin told MSNBC, referring to Alito’s inquiry about whether criminally prosecuting a president for serious crimes could incentivize them to commit more unlawful acts to avoid prosecution. Raskin rebuked this line of questioning, saying it “buys completely into Donald Trump’s narcissistic criminal worldview.”
The implications of Alito’s question run deep, evoking concern about the principles of justice and accountability that underlie the U.S. Constitution. Raskin emphasized the historic stance that “presidents are subject to criminal prosecution if they commit crimes,” a stance validated by previous actions taken against former presidents, including Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton’s agreement to relinquish his law license.
Raskin’s condemnation didn’t end with the justices’ questions. He went further to denounce what he perceived as a worrisome indication of bias within the highest court. “They should move the Supreme Court over to the RNC headquarters because they’re acting like a bunch of partisan operatives,” Raskin said, expressing his frustration with what he sees as the politicization of the judiciary.
The core of Raskin’s argument rests on the assertion that no individual, not even the president, is above the law. This fundamental legal principle seems to be at odds with the defense strategy employed by Trump’s legal representative, D. John Sauer, who suggested that a president could theoretically order an assassination or a military coup without facing prosecution. Such claims have alarmed Raskin and others who worry about the precedents that might be set by granting such sweeping immunity to a president.
The Supreme Court’s readiness to reject Trump’s claims that he cannot be tried on alleged election interference doesn’t necessarily simplify the matter. The decision, expected to be released between late June and early July, could still significantly delay a trial initially intended to be Trump’s first criminal proceeding.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s deliberation on Trump’s immunity claims led to a ruling that former presidents enjoy some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution. This decision has shifted the focus to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., as four justices of the nine-member bench are likely to reject Trump’s absolute immunity claim.
Relevant articles:
– Jamie Raskin Goes Scorched Earth on SCOTUS Trump Immunity Case, newrepublic.com, 04/28/2024
– Jamie Raskin Slams Supreme Court Over Trump Immunity Case: ‘Acting Like A Bunch Of Partisan Operatives’, Benzinga, Fri, 26 Apr 2024 13:58:58 GMT
– Former J6 Committee Member Criticizes Supreme Court Over Trump Immunity Hearing, NTD, Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:00:07 GMT