Learn about a little-known amicus brief that may revolutionize the views of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. This is a clever way to sidestep the controversial topic of Trump’s claim to full immunity. Be prepared for its possible effect on the case of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
In an amicus brief, legal scholars Steven G. Calabresi and Gary Lawson, as well as former attorney general Edwin Meese III, cast doubt on prosecutor Jack Smith’s right to pursue President Trump.
Don’t miss this! Carry faith with you everywhere with the Exclusive National Prayer Coin!
The two main points of contention are that Smith cannot serve as special counsel since he is a private person, and the attorney general lacks the power to choose a special counsel without the Senate’s confirmation and the president’s nomination.
Meese was appointed by Reagan in 1984 to the office of 75th Attorney General of the United States, a post he held until 1988. Meese has since maintained his influence on law and public policy, holding prominent positions at the Heritage Foundation and other prestigious institutions.
In a piece published on the left-wing publication Public Notice, Lisa Needham clarified this by saying, “The argument raised by Meese and friends is not directly related to immunity. Instead, they assert that Jack Smith doesn’t have the authority to prosecute Trump.” Should the Supreme Court uphold this, Smith’s case would be essentially crippled without having to confront Trump’s contentious arguments about absolute immunity.
A new argument suggests that Attorney General Merrick Garland might not be able to name a special counsel without adhering to certain legal requirements. This procedure, as briefly described, ought to involve a Senate confirmation after a presidential nomination. Let’s examine this hotly debated topic and its possible ramifications in more detail.
According to the writers, the Attorney General shouldn’t be able to choose a special counsel without first going through the nomination and confirmation process, as was the case with Jack Smith. They propose that the same protocols that apply to high-ranking government officials should also apply to such appointments.
This legal tactic may have far-reaching consequences. “If enough conservatives on the Supreme Court latch on to this argument, it could provide them a way out of addressing the absolute immunity issue,” Needham wrote. This strategy, which concentrates on Smith’s appointment’s technicalities rather than the more significant problem of presidential immunity, may create a precedent that changes the nature of presidential accountability and the function of special counsels going forward.
Although amicus briefs have long been utilized in well-known cases, they have a big impact on court rulings, especially those made by the Supreme Court. To drive home his point, Needham invoked the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case, in which the conservative justices mostly relied on amicus filings in reaching their decision.
ALERT! Major Water Restrictions In Effect!
“Trump has made clear his goal is to push all his criminal cases out until past the 2024 election, and if the conservatives at the Supreme Court help him slow play this one, he may very well get his wish.”
In all the current uncertainty, the Trump team is relieved that the initial trial date of March 4 appears even more improbable.
