[Reason] Senator Schumer Goes Nuclear With "No King Act"

there is no precise definition; Roberts himself acknowledges that that issue can raise "difficult questions":

Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. We offer guidance on those issues below. Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations—such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions. Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.
​

I have on a number of occasions mentioned the "sorites paradox" of trying to precisely define inherently ambiguous terms. The term "official" is probably another good example of an inherently ambiguous concept. That ambiguity does not render the term meaningless, any more than the terms "hot" and "cold" are meaningless. It just means there is a need to flesh out and elaborate on what a term means in a specific context.

 

I understand the decision has been controversial and legal analysts disagree on its meaning, arguments, and significance. I believe Roberts was trying (in his capacity as CJ) to straddle a fine line and craft a decision that went beyond being Trump-specific but respected and covered all Presidents from here on in.

Criminal acts are criminal acts--including bribery, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution if I'm not mistaken. I just don't think the Trump decision is the end of civilization as we know it. I also believe that Presidents must be allowed some freedom and flexibility to act in their capacity as President and make difficult and sometimes morally ambiguous decisions: Obama ordering the assassination on an American citizen comes to mind. That's all.

 

again, I disagree with your assessment of the decision; but the point of starting this thread is more about Schumer's (and by extension, Democrats') disrespect/disregard for the Supreme Court as an institution. Putting aside questions of whether the Trump decision was well-argued or poorly argued, it IS a decision by the Supreme Court, and as such warrants a sort of base-level amount of respect. Schumer's proposed act is mostly bad political theater, as usual for Schumer, and not surprising I suppose. But it's disgraceful for a Yale Law-trained Senator and Senate Majority Leader to be stooping so low. This is not an act of statesmanship, but the lowest, coarsest brand of partisan grandstanding. Schumer should be better than this.

 

back to Schumer:

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2024/08/02/schumer-puts-judicial-supremacy-on-the-table/

an hour ago
Schumer Puts Judicial Supremacy On The Table
by SHG

Not that it has any chance of passing in the current Congress, but if there is a major shift following the next election, who knows? Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has proposed what he delightfully calls the No Kings Act, the putative purpose of which is to reverse the Supreme Court’s presidential criminal immunity ruling in Trump v. US and strip the president (and vice president, although the Court never mentioned the Veep) of any immunity from prosecution whatsoever.

(1) NO IMMUNITY.—A President, former President, Vice President, or former Vice President shall not be entitled to any form of immunity (whether absolute, presumptive, or otherwise) from criminal prosecution for alleged violations of the criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress.
​

Much as the Supreme Court’s Trump decision may have gone overboard with the scope of immunity and, more importantly, the evidence of criminal intent admissible in a criminal prosecution, the “no man is above the law” platitude is far better for stoking the outrage of the simpletons than preserving a functioning chief executive where very serious decisions will involve very hard choices, some of which may very well involve conduct that could be criminal, even if it’s the right choice for the benefit of a nation.

But Schumer, trying to nail down the outer edges of his misbegotten election year proposal, not only stripped the president of immunity, but also the Supreme Court of independence and supremacy.

(A) dismiss an indictment or any other charging instrument;

(B) grant acquittal or dismiss or otherwise terminate a criminal proceeding;

(C) halt, suspend, disband, or otherwise impede the functions of any grand jury;

(D) grant a motion to suppress or bar evidence or testimony, or otherwise exclude information from a criminal proceeding;

(E) grant a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of coram nobis, a motion to set aside a verdict or judgment, or any other form of post-conviction or collateral relief;

(F) overturn a conviction;

(G) declare a criminal proceeding unconstitutional; or

(H) enjoin or restrain the enforcement or application of a law.
​

So all the normal things courts do in criminal prosecutions, all the authority and jurisdiction that courts possess should any other “no man is above the law” be prosecuted, is gone along with immunity. How else can Schumer assure that a Supreme Court, particularly this one that the Dems hate with a passion, can’t pull some sly trick to let Trump walk on some “technicality” like the Fourth Amendment.

The big issue, aside from stripping presidential immunity which would theoretically remain the law as applied to Biden if enacted and Trump is elected, is whether Congress can, by law, strip the Supreme Court of its authority to perform its judicial function. Is there any basis in the Constitution for doing this? Well, maybe. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
​

According to Joseph Story, the “with such Exceptions” language refers to whether the Supreme Court has original or appellate jurisdiction. The alternative argument is that Congress can make exceptions which strip the judicial branch of its judicialness whenever it wants.

While some, if not many, would argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. US deserves such treatment, if the Court can be neutered whenever Congress either dislikes a decision or prefers its political choices of dubious constitutionality to be supreme and unreviewable, it can invoke this same power to nullify the power of the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.

And if so, why would Congress ever allow the Supreme Court to find a law it enacted, which it obviously likes or it wouldn’t have passed, to be unconstitutional?

​

 

you said, "It's not the end of civilization, but it does mark the end of a fundamental principle of our republic: that no one is above the law." I disagree that it "does mark the end of a fundamental principle of our republic: that no one is above the law."

The decision does no such thing, that is just a hyperbolic statement.