The solution to the problem of where to find Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution is not to be found in our Constitution. The Founding Fathers were very clear that no such immunity exists.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, “I’m very concerned about the future.” Rather than admit there is no such immunity, conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court seem more concerned about whether future presidents might risk malicious prosecutions by their political rivals after leaving office.

The conservative justices’ concerns about the implications of their rulings inconveniencing imaginary future presidents was more worrisome to them than the consequences of allowing Trump to go untried for crimes he committed while in office.

I find it curious that the conservative wing of SCOTUS is suddenly jettisoning original intent as their “north star” and is now awakening to the effects of their rulings. Recollect the Heller ruling in 2008, which overturned the current precedent and handed gun advocates a carte blanche with no limiting condition of a “well-regulated militia.” That judgment was handed down with little or no weight given to its bloody consequences.

Heller marked an unprecedented shift in the history of American gun ownership. Disengaging the Second Amendment from the long-held right of a state right to maintain and regulate a militia has proven to be deadly. Could it be that the conservative SCOTUS are more concerned about the safety and comfort of former presidents than they are for the 50,000 gun victims who have suffered from their profligate dismissal of consequences?

Richard Bennett
Portland

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter: PMA plan embodies vision

Next »

Letter: The real RINOs