After the Trump immunity decision handed down from the Supreme Court, the Left has been fighting back. But a new development has sent them reeling.
Because SCOTUS attacked Special Counsel Jack Smith in move Democrats never saw coming.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that former President Donald Trump possesses presidential immunity for official acts conducted during his tenure, shielding him from prosecution in the January 6 case brought forth by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
This decision is a significant victory for Trump, affirming his protection under the doctrine of presidential immunity, a principle designed to ensure the independence and functioning of the executive branch.
Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, raised critical constitutional concerns about the appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel.
Thomas argued that the appointment of Smith might violate constitutional structures because it was not clear that his office was established by law, as required by the Constitution.
“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure,” Thomas noted.
He questioned the legality of appointing a private citizen as Special Counsel without a clearly established office by Congress. “The Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”
Thomas’s opinion underscores a fundamental constitutional principle: the separation of powers. The Constitution mandates that federal offices must be created by law, a safeguard to prevent the executive from unilaterally establishing positions of significant authority.
Thomas argued that no statute clearly established the office of the Special Counsel in this case, raising serious questions about the validity of Smith’s appointment.
“By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” Thomas wrote.
“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”
Thomas further highlighted that throughout American history, no former president has faced criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office, despite numerous presidents engaging in actions that many might argue constitute crimes. This unprecedented prosecution, according to Thomas, must be conducted by someone duly authorized by the American people.
Thomas’s opinion delved into the technicalities of the Appointments Clause, which differentiates between principal and inferior officers.
He questioned whether Smith was a principal officer, who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, or an inferior officer, who could be appointed by the Attorney General if Congress has vested such authority in the Attorney General.
“Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause,” Thomas argued. “If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be.”
Thomas stressed that determining whether the Special Counsel’s office was “established by Law” is not a mere technicality. It ensures that the executive branch does not overreach its authority, maintaining the balance of power fundamental to the Constitution’s protection of liberty.
This ruling and Thomas’s concurrence have significant implications for the current political landscape. Trump and his supporters see this as a vindication, reinforcing the narrative that the prosecutions against him are politically motivated. The ruling may embolden Trump’s base and bolster his campaign for re-election, presenting him as a victim of political persecution.
For the Biden administration and the Department of Justice, this ruling presents a setback. The validity of Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel is now under scrutiny, potentially undermining ongoing investigations and prosecutions. This could lead to a broader reassessment of the appointment processes for special counsels and other significant federal positions.
Justice Thomas’s call for the lower courts to address the constitutional questions surrounding the Special Counsel’s appointment signals that this legal battle is far from over. The courts must now determine whether Smith’s appointment was constitutional and, by extension, whether his prosecution of Trump can proceed.
The decision reaffirms the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and maintaining the checks and balances designed to prevent the abuse of power. As the nation moves towards the 2024 presidential election, this ruling will likely continue to resonate, influencing political discourse and the legal strategies of both parties.
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s presidential immunity, coupled with Justice Thomas’s questioning of the Special Counsel’s appointment, underscores the ongoing tensions between different branches of government and highlights the constitutional safeguards designed to protect American democracy. This ruling is a significant development in the legal and political saga surrounding Trump, with far-reaching implications for the future of presidential immunity and the separation of powers in the United States.
Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for updates on this developing story.
