Staff Reports
The U.S. Supreme Court gathered to discuss former President Donald Trump’s immunity arguments, with Mr. Trump’s attorney challenging Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s stance against immunity. The attorney emphasized historical concerns about prosecuting a president, stating it could lead to chaos and unconstitutional actions.
Justice Jackson expressed worries that granting immunity could embolden future presidents to commit crimes without consequences while in office. The attorney disagreed, highlighting that the U.S. has operated under the same system for over 234 years without significant issues.
This situation is crucial as President Trump faces legal challenges in New York and hopes for immunity from prosecution. Conservative voices argue that allowing criminal charges against a president would weaken the institution and subject future presidents to constant legal threats.
WATCH: Trump Lawyer HUMILIATES Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson during immunity arguments at SCOTUS.
— Proud Elephant 🇺🇸🦅 (@ProudElephantUS) April 25, 2024
During the hearing, Justice Alito and U.S. attorney Dreeben discussed past presidential actions that could be considered criminal today. They also revisited President Nixon’s pardon, questioning the need for it if presidents are immune from prosecution.
Trump’s legal team warned that denying immunity would hinder a president’s ability to lead effectively and expose them to political attacks. They stressed the importance of protecting the presidency from constant legal battles and ensuring the president’s independence.
