Opinion: Trump Should Have Full Immunity, Right? What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

PixabayPhoto bystevepb

Trump V. The United States.

Could there be a more apt statement right now than the name of the case before SCOTUS?

Does Trump have full immunity for all presidential acts, including the January 6 Insurrection?

During yesterday’s hearing, Trump’s attorney (D. John Sauer) pressed the point that a sitting president has significant powers that may very well include the elimination of an opponent for perceived corruption or actions detrimental to the well-being of the nation.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”

“That could well be an official act,” Sauer responded.

Why are we here having to ask questions like this?

Have we had to deal with prior presidential issues in the past that might have warranted a case before the court, for example, the case surrounding Richard Nixon's actions in 1972?

Are we only here because Trump was caught doing something wrong after January 6, 2021? Was it that his words and actions that led to the Insurrection were contrary to his oath of office?

Is it because Trump does not want to go to jail and wants instead to mirror the actions of other dictators around the globe and sit in the Oval Office for as long as he deems necessary to make America great again?

Since Trump took office America has been under assault by those who believe the truth, especially Trump’s truth, is whatever is being said. As someone famously said, there are alternative facts to be considered.

Like a red traffic light is merely a suggestion. Or a tornado warning siren, nothing more than a soundtrack to destruction.

Yesterday was the beginning of the case. Beginnings are not endings. What prompted Sauer to make a statement that assassination for the “good” of the country was within Trump’s rights, may just have been a defense attorney trying to win a case for his client.

Or it could be that he agrees with Trump and sees a US President as having near limitless powers, even if not framed in the Constitution.

In either case, it’s before the courts with a decision likely by the end of June.

Which way will it go? Will they send the case back down to a lower court for clarification – a little tightening of judicial reasoning - or make a decision that may change the way America is run?

And if it's the latter, that would hopefully be countered by new legislation making certain things clearly illegal due to certain jurists having lost the plot of what the Constitution is actually there for.