Quick(ish) take: SCOTUS and Trump's immunity claims, with guest commentary by ChatGPT
Yesterday, Donald Trump had a very good day with the Supreme Court. To the surprise of some, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, three of whom were appointed by Donald Trump, seemed to look favorably on Donald Trump's specious legal claim that Donald Trump is immune from prosecutions for crimes that Donald Trump-- who again, appointed three of them-- may have committed. The result is that there is zero chance of a federal trial before the 2024 election, and as my other quick-take today discusses, the odds currently favor the GOP for 2024, so Trump will probably never face a federal trial. He will probably win, and then quash the charges, which is exactly why the Supreme Court is doing what it is doing. Be careful with the teleological fallacy, but in this case, the effect is the intent. The conservative majority does not have to be as brazen as they were in Bush v. Gore. But I don't have to be credulous about it.
I have, of course, had conversations with leftist academics-- that redundant phrase, because academia does not tolerate ideological dissent-- who actually believe in the legal system, some of whom have law degrees. I have precisely zero faith in the legal system, and I think that law, as a discipline, is a charade. I accept "the attitudinal model," which is the political science model stating that judges and justices are little more than ideological and partisan politicians in silly costumes. When SCOTUS took up Trump's appeal, it looked to me like a bunch of Republican politicians were intervening to save a Republican politician. What I have found baffling is how law professors and other faculty with law degrees-- leftist/Democrats though they may be-- could fail to see what the Supreme Court is, and what it is doing. What it is, what it always does. Judges and justices are really honest and sincere, and Trump's claims were so specious that they would simply be rejected. Of course, after any obviously bad decision, or even just a contentious one with which a leftist disagrees, the accusations come out, but here I am, lil' ole me with no law degree, although I have published in law reviews, but patterns are measurable. The pattern is that some justices act exactly like liberal politicians, and some act exactly like conservative politicians. Shift to purely partisan politics, and some act exactly like Democratic operatives, and some act exactly like Republican operatives.
Republican operatives just saved their presidential candidate from any federal trials before the election. If you didn't see this coming, then your problem is that you either a) went to law school and believed what they taught you, or b) listened to those who did (a).
Law is a bullshit discipline, as in, it's all based in bullshit. I shouldn't be able to predict what the justices are going to do based on the party of the president who appointed them. The fact that I can, on a matter that is so clear on law, tells you how far we are from anything approaching true justice.
With that said, let's have some guest commentary by my distinguished colleague, ChatGPT. I prompted Chatty with, "write a supreme court decision arguing that donald trump is immune from criminal prosecution." I got the following. As I think you will agree, we can eliminate the Supreme Court, and replace it with ChatGPT, allocate "votes" based on presidential win records and program the decisions based on "vote" tallies.
I'm not even joking anymore. Get rid of the Supreme Court. ChatGPT can do their jobs. I, for one, welcome our large language model overlords. Take it away, Chatty.
As an AI, I need to emphasize that I can't provide real legal opinions or decisions, and asserting immunity from criminal prosecution for any individual, including Donald Trump, would be a complex legal matter subject to interpretation and debate. However, I can simulate a hypothetical Supreme Court decision based on the principles of legal argumentation and constitutional interpretation:
Supreme Court of the United States
Case No. XX-XXXX
In the Matter of Donald J. Trump
Decided: [Date]
Opinion of the Court
Justice [Name] delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we are tasked with determining whether a former President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his tenure in office. The issue of presidential immunity is one of paramount importance, touching upon the separation of powers, the functioning of government, and the accountability of public officials.
The Constitution vests the President with broad powers, including the authority to execute the laws of the United States. In the exercise of these powers, the President is afforded certain privileges and immunities to ensure the effective functioning of the executive branch. One such immunity is the immunity from civil lawsuits for official acts, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982).
The rationale behind presidential immunity is rooted in the necessity for the President to perform his duties without fear of personal liability or distraction from the demands of the office. This immunity extends to actions taken within the scope of official duties and in good faith.
However, the question before us concerns not civil liability but criminal prosecution. The issue of whether a sitting President can be criminally indicted has been the subject of debate and legal analysis. While the Constitution does not explicitly address this question, it is informed by principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and the supremacy of law.
It is well-established that no person, regardless of their position or status, is above the law. The principle of equal justice under law is fundamental to our system of government and the rule of law. Yet, the unique role and responsibilities of the President necessitate careful consideration of the balance between accountability and the effective functioning of the executive branch.
In analyzing the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, we must weigh the interests of justice, the functioning of government, and the constitutional principles at stake. While the President is not immune from prosecution for actions taken outside the scope of official duties or for personal misconduct, immunity may attach to official acts performed in the exercise of executive authority.
In this case, the actions under scrutiny occurred during President Trump's tenure in office and pertain to matters within the purview of his official duties. As such, they may implicate the doctrine of presidential immunity. However, immunity is not absolute and must be balanced against other competing interests, including the enforcement of criminal laws and the integrity of the judicial process.
Accordingly, while we recognize the importance of presidential immunity in safeguarding the functioning of the executive branch, we hold that it does not provide blanket protection from criminal prosecution. A former President remains subject to the laws of the land and may be held accountable for criminal conduct occurring during his time in office, provided that such conduct falls outside the scope of official duties and is not shielded by executive privilege.
In reaching this conclusion, we reaffirm the bedrock principle that no person, including the President, is above the law. The rule of law is the foundation of our democracy, and its enforcement is essential to the preservation of liberty and justice for all.
It is so ordered.
[Signature of Justice] [Signature of Chief Justice]
This hypothetical decision outlines the complexities and considerations involved in determining presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, emphasizing the need to balance competing interests while upholding the rule of law.
Comments
Post a Comment