US Supreme Court may have made perhaps the most important Donald Trump its decision before this second season began.
In July last year in the US Supreme Court boatthat the President of the country has full protection, or immunity from criminal charges.
If the US President, “prescribes Navy Seals special troops to assassinate their political opponents. Immune. Organize a military coup to stay in power. Immune.”
These warning examples wrote at the time of the Supreme Court Judge who opposed the decision Sonia Sotomayor.
“I’m afraid of our democracy,” Sotomayor stopped his dissenting opinion.
The decision was made by the votes of conservative judges.
It is now in effect and President Donald Trump knows it.
Can the Supreme Court brake Trump?
From his first day of office, Trump has issued numerous presidential regulations and regulations that many most lawyers consider to be unlawful.
It is against the regulations raised Already at least 40 lawsuit. Trump and his administrations do not show terribly conveying.
In any case, the Trump administration will complain about unpleasant decisions to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
In the US Supreme Court, conservative judges have a majority of 6-3.
Still not at all itself It is clear how the Supreme Court will vote in Trump’s orders.
Conservative judges are by no means a united group.
Some of the most conservative judges are likely to vote for Trump’s regulations almost anywhere.
Still, the most wildest interpretations of the Constitution may not go through the judges.
The traces of the campaign financing decision appear
Supreme Court’s long -term referee John Roberts As a key person, there have been two central solutions for Trump.
The first decision was made already in 2010. At that time, the Supreme Court practically overturned the tough rules on campaign financing.
It is that decision that allows Elon Musk, for example, to spend over $ 250 million to support the Trump campaign.
At that time, President Barack Obama was heavily criticized by the decision.
Although President Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s action, he did not suggest that the decision should not be followed.
It is not unusual for politicians to criticize court decisions. It is quite different if politicians do not follow them.
Does the president have to comply with the law?
Numerous Current Trump Administrators have emphasized the Constitution interpretationbecause all executive power is, according to the Constitution, the president, no one has the power to prevent it.
This is a very radical interpretation of the law, but it is the Trump administration now based on this interpretation.
The extremes were taken by Trump’s Vice President JD VANCE. He wrote On Sunday at X-message service, “judges have no right to control” Trump “legal power.”
VANCE IS said Before his vice -presidential period, in his view that the president does not have to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision if his “contrary to the Constitution”.
The idea that the president could decide on the constitutionality of his actions is completely exceptional and contrary to the concept of democracy of American democracy.
At the heart of the rule of law is that decision -makers must also comply with the law.
In the United States, the interpretation of the Constitution is specifically decided by the Supreme Court. In the rule of law, a politician cannot only decide that the court is wrong and simply refuse to comply with its decision.
Vance is seeking support for his idea a couple of hundred years ago.
He has previously referred to a couple before his deputy presidential season times to the case where the president Andrew Jackson refused to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in 1832.
At that time, it was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States settled to support the rights of Cherokee Indians.
Vance has presented the case as an example in which a vertebrate president is against court.
However, the case is generally presented in US history as an example of major presidential abuse, and not, like Vance, as a heroic.
Disregard for the right of law has already been seen
The Trump administration appeared to be openly defiating the court for the first time on Monday.
Federal judge John McConnell according to a white house had not complied with His order already issued in January to overturn the freezing of federal funds. McConnell re -ordered that the Trump administration must immediately release the frozen funds.
McConnell recalledthat individuals cannot make their own interpretations of their law and leave on the basis of the order.
The situation has created great fear in the United States.
What if the president simply does not comply with the laws of the courts? Who can stop the president in that case?
Several valued lawyers have warned that the United States is already in the midst of a constitutional crisis.
– In the past, presidents may have done something against the Constitution. But never before, it has never known that the President’s Constitution seems to be completely meaningless, said Professor of Law at Stanford University Pamela Karlan The New York in Times.
When the Supreme Court last summer made a decision of the president’s immunity, the judge who opposed the decision Ketanji Brown Jackson stated in his dissenting opinion:
“The majority of my colleagues seem to believe that the court can prevent the president from becoming a king by applying their interpretation later in the case. I’m afraid they are wrong. But on behalf of all of us, I hope they are right. ”