The court’s delays on authoritarianism
Liz Cheney nailed it, criticizing the Supreme Court for slow-walking Donald Trump’s appeal of his claim that presidents cannot be prosecuted for anything they do while in office.
The Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that Trump’s claim is not valid. If the court ruled that presidents were like kings and could do anything they wanted without prosecution, we would no longer have a democracy. An authoritarian president could declare martial law, prosecute, jail and even kill his opponents with impunity.
The Supreme Court should be able to easily and quickly rule that the law applies to presidents like it applies to everyone else, especially after presidents leave office.
The American public should be able to see the evidence and the verdict in the trial of Donald Trump on the charge of trying to overthrow the 2020 election before voting in the 2024 election.
The Supreme Court has moved fast when it wanted to, like in the Colorado case when the court reversed that state’s decision that Trump should be kept off the state’s 2024 ballot because he tried to overthrow the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court also moved fast in Bush v. Gore to install George W. Bush as president.
If Trump’s case is stalled beyond the election and he wins, his Justice Department could end the prosecution and he could try to pardon himself.
If the Supreme Court believes in an informed electorate, it should insure a speedy trial for Donald Trump.
Richard Barsanti
Western Springs