Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court made the suggestion that destabilizing real democracy would result in criminalizing individuals simply because they contest government-run elections during oral arguments on Thursday.
Former president Donald Trump was charged with questioning the 2020 election administration by special lawyers Jack Smith. The high court is currently hearing arguments regarding whether leaders have resistance from legal prosecution for deliberations that fall under their purview.
What is necessary for the operation of a firm democratic society, which we all desire, should I only ask, to be the conclusion? Alito began. If a prospect is the former, a secure, democratic nation requires that a candidate who loses an election, perhaps one that is near, even one that is hotly contested, leave office calmly.
” Of training”, lawyer Michael Dreeben said.
Will it not lead us into a routine that destabilizes the functioning of our nation as a democracy if an incumbent who loses a pretty near, fiercely contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the leader is going to be ready to go off in a quiet retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a terrible political player? Alito asked. ” And we can look all over the world and discover nations where the loser has been jailed.”
” So I think it’s exactly the opposite, Justice Alito”, Dreeben said. Although there are legal ways to contest election results both inside and outside the box, I believe that the petitioner and his allies have filed numerous electoral challenges, which are all indistinguishable from the outcome-related ones. There were judges who claimed that there was no evidence of any of those things when they were presented to support substantial allegations of fraud that would overturn election results that had been certified by a state. So there’s an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence, if you lose, you accept the results, that has been the nation’s experience”.
” Thank you”, Alito interjected.
True democratic norms would be undermined as partisan politicians could use the justice system to take advantage of their opponents, if the high court rules that some presidential acts are not covered by presidential immunity and Smith’s lawfare case against the former president were to continue.
Trump was indicted under the auspices of Smith on suspicion of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Smith argues in plainer language that Trump’s claims that the 2020 election were stolen were false and that he was aware of them.
Smith claims that to back up his claims, he should have taken that at face value because Federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which meddled in the 2020 election and informed Trump that the election was n’t stolen, as Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson has suggested.
However, the history of opposing elections is as old as time.
Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton still claims the 2016 election was stolen while Democratic Reps. Jim McGovern, Pramila Jayapal, Raul Grijalva, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters— who also called the 2000 election “fraudulent” — and Jamie Raskin all objected to Congress ‘ certification of electoral votes in 2017 that formally declared Trump the winner, my colleague Tristan Justice details.
The 2004 election was also considered” stolen” by New York Rep. Jerry Nadler who went so far as to declare voting machines need to be investigated.
There were no steps taken to put Gore in jail for challenging the election, even after the Supreme Court overturned Al Gore’s attempt to overturn the outcome.
The Federalist’s Brianna Lyman is a correspondent for elections.
