On January 9th, the Supreme Court of the United States, on a 5-4 vote rejected the former president’s request to block proceedings in his hush money case in New York, meaning that the sentencing will proceed as scheduled for 1/10. The lawyers for the former president wrote in their request that
“This Court should enter an immediate stay of further proceedings in the New York trial court to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government.”
One would have expected them to try to bring a better justification than simply claiming “grave injustice and harm” to “the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government.” The New York Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the case, has already indicated that the sentence will be no more than “unconditional discharge,” meaning that the case will be essentially dismissed with no strings attached. The only concern for the former president and his lawyers is likely the fact that he has to appear, virtually or in-person, at the court and listen to the serious scolding by the judge as is typical in such criminal convictions, and since he has been held in contempt of the court multiple times. But more importantly, they are likely concerned about the fact that, even though he will not be sentenced for any time in prison or even any fine or community service, he will officially become a convicted felon. And the first one serving as the president of the united states, for that matter. I wonder if there are any restrictions for security clearances or access to national security secrets for convicted felons!
His spokesman, Steven Cheung had also said the following
“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Constitution, and established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately dismissed.”
I think I can safely assume that this a good example of the consequences of the self-esteem craze I had discussed in a previous post, and something in par with the claim of the former president’s other lawyer, Alina Habba, who believes being pretty is more important than being smart, because she can “fake being smart!” Apparently, Mr Cheung also believes that he can fake being smart, by throwing in there the words “Constitution” and “established legal precedent.” I wish he had clarified which article and which section of the Constitution he had in mind when claiming that the Constitution demands the case to be immediately dismissed. It also doesn’t seem very appropriate to refer to a conviction handed down by 12 jurors of the defendant’s peers, after being presented the evidence by the prosecutors cross-examined by his lawyers over several weeks, as “meritless hoax”. So much for the respect for the rule of law.
As for the “established legal precedent”, I am not sure if he actually understands what a legal precedent means. Does he really think that there have been other president-elects in the past, who had paid hush money to cover up sex with a pornstar while their wife was pregnant, and then falsified business records by writing down that payment as legal expense, to hide the scandal from the voters who eventually voted them to the office. Or even if there was such a former president-elect, whether there was a ruling by an appellate court or by the Supreme Court that deemed them immune from sentencing for the felony crimes for which they had already been convicted by a jury.
In any case, the Supreme Court handed down the following ruling:
(ORDER LIST: 604 U.S.)
THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2025
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
24A666 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. NEW YORK, ET AL.
The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a brief virtual hearing.
Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.
I guess it is not much of a surprise for the four MAGA justices to be dissenting from this opinion, as they have pretty much always sided with the former president. Still, I don’t understand how they, or any politician or public official, can defend the criminal acts that are the subject of, or surrounding, this conviction with straight face, and not feel any embarrassment or conflict with their own moral values, and support holding that person above the law. I guess one explanation is the lack of such “moral values” that one would expect from the nation’s top Justices or other public officials. I am not saying that all who are supporting no-accountability for the actions of the former president are as corrupt as he is. But even if their support is not because of their own scandalous past but rather only for personal or political gain, doesn’t that make you question their moral values?
Among these four, I can understand Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh owing their lifetime appointment to the bench to the former president, and feeling obligated to side with him, no matter how outrageous or even unconstitutional that may sound. Siding Justices Thomas and Alito with the former president is also not much of a surprise, as they have proven, time and again, to have more affinity with MAGA and the former president than even Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. One peculiar aspect of this case is, however, the fact that Justice Alito was apparently on the phone with the former president a few hours before the lawyers for the former president filed this request to the Supreme Court. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the timing of this call, although Justice Alito claims it to have been only for an employment referral for one of his former clerks, is awfully suspicious. And, as you see above, Justice Alito is one of the Justices who dissented from this opinion.
As for the Chief Justice Roberts siding with the majority, I don’t find that very surprising either, as according to his year-end report, he seemed to be frustrated with the lack of respect to the court system, and intimidation of judges and prosecutors and court staff and their families. One wonders who he was referring to in the setences! Also, it is incredible that Chief Justice conveniently skips the mention of the several rulings from last year that went directly against the explicit text of the constitution (14th Amendment, Section III) in allowing a former president who had incited an insurrection against the United States to run again for president; or granted absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for pretty much any crime that a president may commit while in office (even if that prosecution takes place after he leaves office). This is of course the same immunity Mr Cheung mentions above, disregarding the fact that even this absurd immunity is only applicable to the actions that a president takes while in office, not the ones taken before he took office. In any case, I guess, the Chief Justice decided to take this opportunity to act on that frustration.
But more importantly than all, and probably not very surprising based on her previous positions, is the joining of Justice Amy Coney Barrett with the majority in this opinion. I may not agree with all of her opinions, but credit should be given wherever it is due, and in all fairness, Justice Barrett has demonstrated, multiple times, her relative independence from MAGA and from the person to whom she owes her lifetime position in the Supreme Court. She has sided with the liberal minority in several cases, and this time, too, she has proven to be open-minded, and willing to make a decision that she believes to be the right decision, even though it may anger the mob boss and his minions. Kudos to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and hope that she will continue to keep her open mind and independence in the many cases that will undoubtedly end up in front of the Supreme Court over the next four years.