Copyright 2024 Patriot Mom Digest
In a pivotal legal showdown, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to scrutinize former President Donald Trump's assertion that he holds presidential immunity against certain legal actions this Thursday.
The case focuses on the role and appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith and his qualifications to uphold a lower court's ruling concerning Trump. The Washington Examiner reported that Smith could find himself removed from his position because of a lack of authority, an event that could collapse his indictment of Trump.
The controversy started when Donald Trump shared a critique on his Truth Social platform targeting Jack Smith. Authored by Steven Calabresi, the piece accuses Smith of lacking legitimacy to defend a ruling by the D.C. Circuit because his appointment did not receive Congressional sanction.
Calabresi, a respected legal scholar, explicitly states that Jack Smith, appointed directly by Attorney General Merrick Garland on November 18, 2022, lacks necessary congressional approval. This, Calabresi argues, makes Smith's position and his consequent actions legally untenable.
The critique extends further, emphasizing that without formal approval by Congress, Smith’s involvement in significant cases - including those about the classified documents found in Florida and matters related to the January 6, 2021, riot - is inadmissible.
Under U.S. law, the creation of federal offices and the appointing of certain judiciary roles invariably need Congressional input and approval. This is typically observed to maintain a clear separation of powers and ensure democratic accountability.
Specifically, the Senate usually reserves the power to approve U.S. attorneys with extended national jurisdiction, designed primarily to prosecute high-stake violations. This ensures that significant prosecutorial powers are not misused or wielded without sufficient oversight.
In contrast to Smith's appointment, U.S. Attorney David Weiss was constitutionally appointed by Garland to serve as Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden case. This appointment bestowed Weiss with jurisdiction beyond Delaware, meeting constitutional norms.
By highlighting the differences between the appointing processes of Weiss and Smith, Calabresi underscores a potentially critical legal misstep. The appointment of Smith as a Special Counsel without presidential nomination or Senate confirmation, he argues, is a deviation from established legal procedures.
Calabresi proposes that this procedural oversight not only undermines the legitimacy of the actions taken by Smith but possibly renders them void. As such, Smith's role in spearheading high-profile federal prosecutions against Trump might be seen as constitutionally shaky.
Additionally, if Smith's actions are legally invalidated, this could open him up to personal legal consequences, including possible tort claims for unconstitutional intrusions on personal liberties and properties, as suggested by Calabresi.
The implications of the Supreme Court’s impending decision are far-reaching. It will not only influence the specific proceedings against Trump but may also set a precedent regarding the boundaries of Special Counsel appointments and their authority.
In Calabresi's own words, the situation presents a case where "Special Counsel Jack Smith is an Emperor who wears no clothes," highlighting a potential overreach in legal powers assumed under his appointment.
Furthermore, Calabresi emphasizes the need for constitutional adherence in any federal action against Trump. Federal prosecutions must adhere to constitutional norms, irrespective of the personal vilifications that Trump may have attracted due to his actions or the events of January 6, 2021.
This Thursday’s Supreme Court review encapsulates a multifaceted legal challenge. It positions a critical eye on the constitutional legitimacy of appointing powers used by the Attorney General and the broad implications such appointments could have on prosecutorial practices. It also reiterates the vigor with which foundational legal mechanisms protect democratic governance and maintain checks on power within the federal government.