Democrats alarmed over conservative judges in Trump court cases

Democratic lawmakers are sounding the alarm over the perception that conservative judges and justices in two federal lawsuits are leaning in favor of former President Trump.

The two lawsuits accuse the former president of attempting to overturn the 2020 election and obstruction of justice related to his handling of classified documents.

Some Democratic senators are worried that the Supreme Court’s conservative justices are playing politics over Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case related to the events of January 6, 2021, leading up to Election Day. It has been suggested that there is no possibility of a verdict being handed down.

And they are perplexed that Judge Eileen Cannon has mired Mr. Smith’s case over Trump’s handling of classified documents in a complex and arcane legal argument over the Presidential Records Act. They claim that the Presidential Records Act has nothing to do with this case.

Crucially, Democrats doubt whether two of the most powerful criminal cases against Trump, including the more serious charge of trying to overturn the results of the last presidential election, will be decided by November. It means that it is.

Democratic senators are outraged by last week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, in which several conservative-majority justices issued sweeping statements against the former president for all conduct related to official conduct, including communications. He expressed a positive attitude toward the argument of Trump’s defense team that he should be granted immunity. To supporters before marching on the Capitol on January 6th.

“It would be really outrageous if a court decided that a president is immune for anything he does while in office,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

“As many have already said, our system is meant to create a democracy and not have an all-powerful king who can violate the laws of the land with impunity. “And if we open that door, God help us.’The president can commit a crime and go unpunished,” he added.

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said the justices were so preoccupied with hypothetical scenarios for presidential immunity that they paid little attention to the actual charges Trump faces. He said he was concerned.

“That seemed counterintuitive to me,” she said. “To me, the question of whether the president has immunity from prosecution should be clear on its face.”

“Of course it is very worrying that it has taken them so long to get to this. I don’t know right now how long it will take,” she said.

Smith said it would be a “travesty” if the Supreme Court sent arguments on Trump’s claims back to lower courts for further argument, potentially delaying the criminal case for several more months.

beyond the law

Conservative members of the high court last week appeared to support the idea that the Constitution gives presidents broad immunity from prosecution even after they leave office, but liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that Trump He warned that granting immunity for all official acts risks upending the Oval Office. “The capital of criminal activity in this country.”

Democrats warned that the Supreme Court could place President Trump “above the law.”

“We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out, but I’m troubled by the idea that the president is above the law. I don’t believe that,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin. (Democrat, Illinois) said.

Mr. Durbin, whose committee approved all members of the high court, said he sometimes felt the arguments were far-fetched as the justices considered hypothetical questions about what would happen if a president ordered the assassination of a political opponent. said.

“I think some of the examples that have been used in courts where the president has ordered the military to stand down against individuals that he deems a threat to his administration are a sign of taking this to the extreme,” he said. . “I’ll be watching closely to see what this court decides, but I think it’s unconstitutional to say that the president is above the law.”

Some legal experts also expressed surprise that some of the justices appeared to accept the Trump lawyers’ novel theory.

“It was surprising to hear from at least some judges that the president could commit some form of criminal misconduct that would not be held accountable in court,” said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law scholar at the University of North Carolina. ” he said. he told ABC News this week.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said the Supreme Court will rule in June to send Special Counsel Smith’s January 6 case back to lower courts for some sort of resolution. I predicted it would be. This sort of definition of how far presidential immunity extends could delay prosecutions by months.

“I think it’s going to go back to the lower courts to find out exactly what kind of conduct falls under presidential privilege and what counts as personal conduct. That’s how this is going to end.” I think — there will be impunity for some actions,” he said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Democrats are furious

Democrats are furious at the possibility that Graham’s predictions will come true, delaying the verdict in Trump’s trial.

“I was hoping they would leave the D.C. Circuit ruling in place, but that was it,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), a member of the Judiciary Committee. Ta.

In a unanimous opinion issued earlier this year, the D.C. Circuit forcibly rejected President Trump’s immunity claim, but the opinion was so strongly worded that experts say the Supreme Court should decide whether to I was doubtful that I would even take it up.

“We are the Trump team. [strategy] Because these charges will delay everything. They seem to have been successful in that regard,” Hirono said, adding that he was “not satisfied” that the case against Trump seemed to have stalled completely before the election.

Exit polls during this year’s presidential primaries found that a significant percentage of Republican voters said they thought Trump would be unfit to serve as president if convicted.

But now Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s relatively arcane case against Trump for falsifying business records appears to be the only case likely to be decided by Election Day.

Legal experts and lawmakers from both parties generally view Bragg’s case as the weakest of the four criminal cases against Trump.

Democrats have indicated that the Supreme Court will carefully consider Trump’s immunity claim, but argue that the D.C. Circuit will treat it as an open-and-shut inquiry, which will only increase calls for expansion and reform of the high court. ing.

“It makes me want to look at the Supreme Court. I’ve already signed a bill that changes the composition of the Supreme Court, and that’s my position. I think we need court reform,” Hirono said.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Sen. Smith, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced the Judiciary Act of 2023, which would expand the Supreme Court by four seats.

Hirono also questioned the conduct of Judge Cannon, who was appointed by President Trump. Judge Cannon, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, took seriously President Trump’s argument that classified documents found in his possession were actually his personal property under the Presidential Records Act. There is.

Federal prosecutors said in a 24-page filing that the judge’s order for the parties to submit draft jury instructions that seriously considered Presidential Records Act defenses was a “fundamentally flawed legal premise.” claimed to be based on.

“I think many of President Trump’s appointments and nominees, including the Supreme Court, by the way, have an ideological agenda. That’s not what we expect from our judges,” Hirono said. Ta.

“What I expect from judges is to make fair and impartial decisions based on facts and precedent. That’s not what’s happening at the Supreme Court or with judges like Eileen Cannon,” she said. said.