The United States Supreme Court is obligated to give rulings on politicized issues that are critically important — no matter which way they are decided — will enrage half the country.
The main issue is whether lower courts and future lawyers instead of voters will determine the eligibility of candidates in presidential elections.
During no period of U.S. history has any equivalent legal warfare been witnessed aimed at influencing the outcomes of presidential contests, all the while doing away with the last remnants of institutional justice.
Prominent examples started with baseless accusations that former President Donald Trump “colluded” with Russia to win the 2016 election, during which top FBI officials repeatedly lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain warrants to spy on advisors of his 2016 campaign.
Since we have learned the $30 million multi-year, taxpayer-funded Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation that followed was based entirely on lascivious falsified opposition research that was paid for and commissioned by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 failed presidential campaign machine, which found no evidence of collusion.
The former president was then impeached by the House of Representatives and then acquitted twice by the Senate, which failed to remove him. Now, his opponents work incessantly to pursue any destructive court actions to block him from running again as the leading challenger to the failing President Joe Biden.
After all, Trump is a 2024 contender with around 70% support from the GOP, who is decisively beating President Joe Biden in most polls, including would-be voters in swing states.
Despite the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations and no evidence of any felony, Alvin Bragg, Democrat Manhattan District Attorney, has attempted to prosecute Trump for “falsification of business records.”
Letitia James, Democratic New York Attorney General, wants to seize all of Trump’s properties in New York and cancel his business licenses there based on allegations he overvalued his massive Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach when he applied for business loans he subsequently paid back on time.
The judge presiding over the case, Supreme Court of New York’s Justice Arthur Engoron, appears to be determined to help her do this, ruling in pre-trial that Trump deliberately ignored defense testimony and committed fraud in multiple real estate experts supporting the property evaluation contained in the former president’s financial statements.
In the meantime, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in a majority decision to formally disqualify Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy over claims of the January 6, 2021 “insurrection” at the Capitol. The claims have never been legally charged or adjudicated.
The ruling in Colorado was based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was a remnant of the Civil War enacted to prevent former Confederate soldiers from gaining power during Reconstruction.
Trump’s campaign filed a quick U.S. Supreme Court appeal to the court ruling in Colorado.
Shenna Bellows, Maine Secretary of State, likewise asserted authority to determine if Trump is ineligible for the ballot in her state because of the 14th Amendment.
Once again, Republican supporters rapidly filed an objection after having prevailed in other states, including Rhode Island, Michigan, Minnesota, Florida, and New Hampshire.
Recognizing poor odds of success, plaintiffs withdrew lawsuits in 12 other states: Utah, California, Delaware, Connecticut, Kansas, Idaho, Massachusetts, Maine, North Carolina, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma.
The Supreme Court has demonstrated previously little appetite to enter the political fray in support of Trump, having rejected his arguments to block a 2020 New York state probe by the grand jury and declined to hear an appeal by his attorneys of a 2022 appeals court decision to review White House records related to the January 6 protest.
Things might be different this time, leaving the court little choice but to get involved.
Trump’s lawyers want Supreme Court to decide if he is immune from prosecution
Lawyers for Trump have called on the Supreme Court to decide if the former president is immune from being prosecuted as he faces two criminal indictments related to his efforts to stay in a position of power — federal prosecution brought about by Jack Smith, U.S. Special Counsel, as well as a racketeering case brought under Georgia law by an Atlanta district attorney.
Regarding the federal case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected the former president’s immunity argument and set a trial date of March 4 before intentionally pausing the timeline so her decision could be appealed.
Special Counsel Smith unsuccessfully requested the Supreme Court intervene to move fast toward trial, hoping to bypass a federal appeals court to expedite the case.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court declined to fast-track the question of presidential immunity, leaving it first to the hands of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit with arguments set to begin on January 9.
So far, none of these attempts to weaponize the U.S. criminal justice system against its political opponents appears to be working as they planned.
The impeachment charades haven’t finished Trump’s run for the presidency, and the 91 felony counts and four indictments based on unchartered and untested claims during the leadup to the presidential election have only caused more to support him.
Even with this, there isn’t a sign that their desperate failures will change the Far Left’s failing strategy for winning with dropping polls and lackluster achievements.
The most significant remaining question is if the Supreme Court will respond in nonpartisan unity to recognize the surest way to restore the public’s confidence in equal justice, which is the tried-and-true method — with open and fair elections.
