Donald Trump has famously stated that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City and get away with it—meaning no charges or conviction. The bridge to that statement is his claim to total immunity that the US Supreme Court is now considering. Our concern is that the justices of the Supreme Court already have that privilege–they are totally immune from prosecution. Consider the actions of Clarence Thomas and others who have accepted huge monetary gifts (itself a crime) and failed to even disclose it as required by their own rules. Let’s carry this to the extreme using the Trump analogy. What if Chief Justice John Roberts–standing on the front steps of the Supreme Court building where it is inscribed “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW”–says “I just accepted a million dollar bribe from a GOP mega donor and from now on I will favor Republican positions on every issue that comes before the court. Further I will encourage other conservative justices by inviting other wealthy GOP mega donors to bribe them as well”? What will the Federal Government do…nothing. The justices have lifelong appointments and Congress seems to have ignored recent past transgressions. The President is helpless in this matter. So–is it really so farfetched to see why Trump thinks he’s totally immune when the Court he’s appealing to ALREADY HAS THAT FREEDOM? The question before the American citizens “is this a case where one individual’s freedom adversely reduces the freedom of others and so should be challenged?” The answer is clearly “yes”. So where do we go from here?
Comments are closed