Internet weighs in as SCOTUS debates immunity from prosecution for former presidents amid Trump trial

WASHINGTON, DC: Supreme Court judges found themselves at the center of a heated debate during the trial of former President Donald Trump. The core of their discussion revolved around the question of whether ex-presidents should enjoy immunity from prosecution for actions committed during their time in office.

The debate over presidential immunity escalated after Trump claimed to be open to such immunity from allegations of interference in the 2020 elections against him. 

SC judges clash on previous presidents not facing prosecution

As per Reuters, a dramatic clash of perspectives unfolded before the US Supreme Court regarding Trump's assertion of presidential immunity from prosecution.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the conservative stalwarts appointed to the bench by the former Republican commander-in-chief, emphasized, "We're writing a rule for the ages."

Chief Justice John Roberts, also a leaning conservative, expressed reservations about a lower court ruling, questioning its implications. "As I read it, it says simply, 'a former president can be prosecuted because he's being prosecuted. Why shouldn't we either send (the case) back to the Court of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that's not the law?"

The prospect of returning the cases to lower courts could inevitably postpone Trump's trial until after the upcoming November election, as BBC reported.

Meanwhile, as reported by BBC, Justice Samuel Alito raised the topic of presidential self-pardons in the absence of immunity, querying, why presidents wouldn't "pardon themselves from anything that they might have been conceivably charged with committing?"

Justice Clarence Thomas probed past precedents, questioning why no former president had faced prosecution before. "In not so distant past, the president or certain presidents have engaged in various activity coups or operations like Operation Mongoose, and yet there were no prosecutions, why?" he inquired.

To this Michael Dreeben, attorney for Special Counsel Jack Smith, replied, "So, Justice Thomas, I think this is a central question. The reason why there have not been prior criminal prosecutions is they were not crimes."

In a surprising twist, Justice Samuel Alito brought up some historical examples, hinting at possible legal actions against former presidents. He wondered aloud about President Franklin D Roosevelt's choice to detain Japanese-Americans during World War II - could that have led to charges?

Even Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal voice on the bench, probed the limits of this protection, posing a hypothetical about military coups. "How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?" she challenged.

Dean John Sauer, representing Trump, faced intense scrutiny from all nine justices, particularly regarding the extent of presidential immunity.

Justice Elena Kagan's incredulity was palpable as she pressed for clarity. "That sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?" she remarked.

Later, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoed concerns about unchained presidential exemption from punishment. "I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminality," she remarked, according to BBC.

Internet reacts to debate on presidential immunity

Social people users put forward their views on granting immunity to former presidents from prosecution.

A Facebook user wrote, "There should be no immunity for anybody come judge, come, Pope come president. Nobody should be above the law."

Another user wrote, "The Supreme Court does not have (Jurisdiction) to enjoin the president in the performance of his official duties and can not direct president's in how he exercises his purely executive and political powers."

A user commented, "You have to look at the double standards in government what everyone else can do and what president Trump can't do even if it's the same thing others in the past did."

Another user commented, "Trump has single handedly changed the moral compass of the world. It now points to true hatred."

A user stated, "No one is above the law ..ESPECIALLY the President of the United States. Just ridiculous and ignorant to even have deal with this BS. Why would he need Immunity ? Because he knows he broke the law."

Another user stated, "Well that’s going to send a message to past and future presidents!! No immunity for actions you decide to do that the officials think are not right!!! Maybe Obama and Biden will soon get theirs and maybe more!!!!"

A user asserted "If the Supreme Court grant presidential immunity. Biden should just cancel the 2024 election and remain President until he hands it over to Harris. It’s only logical. 🖖🖖"

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.