The 2024 presidential race is poised to become a game-changer in terms of the involvement of the Supreme Court, particularly regarding the fate of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. A series of crucial decisions on whether Trump is eligible to be on the ballot and immune from prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith are currently in the hands of the court. These issues stem from Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election based on false claims, actions that ultimately led to the violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6th.
Defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Shan Wu weighs in on these legal matters, highlighting the potential for the Supreme Court to redeem itself. In a Daily Beast article, Wu suggests that the court could take a narrow view of these cases, relying on factual findings and avoiding broader constitutional questions. This approach would allow the court to prioritize its credibility while respecting the states' role in managing elections.
While some argue that taking a narrow view could lead to a patchwork of election rules across the country, Wu points out that the court has previously upheld the idea of letting states handle certain issues, even if it results in varying approaches. The case of Dobbs, for instance, involved the overturning of Roe v. Wade, allowing states to establish their own abortion laws.
Twitter Post On Supreme Court's role in Trump's eligibility and immunity discussed
Former Attorney General Bill Barr expresses concerns about the potential backlash of aggressive legal tactics against Trump. Wu disagrees, emphasizing the importance of applying the law impartially, regardless of political consequences. Upholding justice and allowing the chips to fall where they may, rather than manipulating the law for political gain, should be the court's guiding principle.
Wu acknowledges that the Supreme Court's self-perceived adherence to textual readings and originalism may shape its opinions on these cases. However, he cautions against assuming that a philosophically consistent approach will sway conservative justices, given their ability to interpret the text in various ways.
Several Trump-related cases loom over the court, with significant implications for the 2024 election. The potential for Trump's delaying tactics to push accountability for the events of January 6th until after the election raises concerns about denying justice through delays. However, Wu believes that if the cases get too close to the election, the court may be hesitant to intervene, suggesting that delays may indeed be a viable strategy for Trump.
While the outcome of these cases remains uncertain, Wu believes that the obstruction charge may pose the greatest hurdle for Jack Smith. The interpretation of the word 'corruptly' and its connection to the violent acts at the Capitol could impact the charges against Trump under the obstruction of proceedings statute.
As the Supreme Court grapples with these consequential decisions, the eyes of the nation are once again fixed on the highest judicial body in the land, waiting to see how it will navigate the complex legal terrain and define the boundaries of presidential accountability and eligibility.
