Barrett questioned lawyers representing Idaho's strict abortion ban about lack of exceptions for emergency complications.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett took center stage in debates on abortion and presidential immunity at the Supreme Court.
Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns about Special Counsel Jack Smith's authority to prosecute Trump.
She clarified that a president's private actions do not qualify for immunity during Trump's case.
In a series of significant hearings at the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett took center stage in debates on abortion and presidential immunity. The conservative justice questioned lawyers representing Idaho's strict abortion ban and former President Donald Trump's claims of immunity.
During the hearing on Idaho's abortion ban, Barrett expressed her concern over the law's lack of exceptions for emergency complications such as sepsis or uncontrolled bleeding. Her probing questions highlighted her ability to navigate complex legal issues and stake out a position between conservative and progressive blocs.
In Trump's case regarding presidential immunity, Barrett helped clarify that a president's private actions do not qualify for immunity. She questioned whether the special counsel Jack Smith had the authority to prosecute Trump without Senate confirmation.
Former Representative Liz Cheney weighed in on social media, arguing that if Trump pressured or lobbied state legislatures and members of Congress while seeking to appoint an Attorney General in a quid pro quo for help on January 6, his acts would be considered private. This statement came as part of the ongoing debate surrounding Trump's alleged efforts to overturn President Joe Biden's election win.
Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns about the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump during a Supreme Court session. Thomas questioned whether Smith had the authority to bring charges against Trump, as he was never confirmed by the Senate. This issue adds another layer to the ongoing legal battle between Trump and the Justice Department.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on these cases in due course, shedding more light on these contentious issues.
Former Representative Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, posted a message on social media after former President Donald Trump’s case regarding presidential immunity was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cheney argued that if Trump pressured or lobbied state legislatures and members of Congress while seeking to appoint an Attorney General in a quid pro quo for help on January 6, his acts would be considered private.
Accuracy
A majority of the justices appeared open to some type of immunity for official acts taken by a president.
Trump's lawyer argued that the language allowing for criminal conviction of a federal officer after impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate implies that a current or former president cannot be criminally charged until and unless they are convicted by the Senate.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains a few inflammatory rhetorical statements and appeals to authority, but no formal logical fallacies. The author quotes Liz Cheney's message to the Supreme Court and provides context for the case Trump v. United States without making any assertions of their own.
The former president's attorney argued that all presidents are entitled to legal immunity for actions taken during their time in office.
The Supreme Court heard arguments over former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the absence of any explicit immunity for presidents in the Constitution and pointed out that they knew how to provide legislative immunity if they intended to do so.
Trump’s lawyer argued that the language allowing for criminal conviction of a federal officer after impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate implies that a current or former president cannot be criminally charged until and unless they are convicted by the Senate, but no justice seemed particularly interested in this contention.
Accuracy
]The conservative justices seemed content to engage in a free-form balancing exercise[
Critics argued that the conservative justices appeared to be on the verge of fashioning a legal protection for former presidents based on their subjective assessment[
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the absence of any explicit immunity for presidents in the Constitution and pointed out that they knew how to provide legislative immunity if they intended to do so[
Trump’s lawyer argued that the language allowing for criminal conviction of a federal officer after impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate implies that a current or former president cannot be crimally charged until and unless they are convicted by the Senate
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(80%)
The article discusses the Supreme Court's debate over former President Trump's claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. The conservative justices seemed to be engaging in a free-form balancing exercise rather than adhering to their strict textualist interpretation of the Constitution, which they have previously used to overturn federal abortion rights. Critics argue that this approach has no basis in the Constitution and is not originalist.
Some critics said the conservative justices – all of whom purport to adhere to an original understanding of the Constitution – appeared to be on the verge of fashioning a legal protection for former presidents based on their subjective assessment of what’s best for the country and not derived from the nation’s founding document.
The two-hour, 40-minute argument session featured a boatload of scary hypotheticals about coups and assassinations, along with predictions about serial, tit-for-tat prosecutions of future presidents, but there was little discussion of the Constitution’s text.
Two years ago, conservatives relied on a strict interpretation of the Constitution’s text and original meaning to overturn the federal right to abortion. But on Thursday, as they debated whether Trump can be prosecuted for his bid to subvert the 2020 election, they seemed content to engage in a free-form balancing exercise where they weighed competing interests and practical consequences.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett owned the arguments in two high-profile cases on abortion and presidential immunity during the Supreme Court’s recent hearings.
Barrett questioned Idaho’s lawyer about the live issue of its strict abortion ban and its relation to federal law.
She nudged an attorney for former President Donald Trump into a series of potentially critical concessions regarding presidential immunity.
Barrett has been a reliable vote for the conservative bloc since her arrival on the Supreme Court.
Her exchange in the abortion arguments showed her ability to stake out territory between conservative and progressive blocs on the court.
In Trump’s claims of immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case, Barrett helped clarify that a president’s private actions do not qualify for immunity.
Barrett questioned whether Idaho’s strict abortion ban allows for emergency complications like sepsis or uncontrolled bleeding to be exempted.
Accuracy
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Idaho’s lawyer about the live issue of its strict abortion ban and its relation to federal law.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(95%)
The author, John Fritze, demonstrates a slight bias towards highlighting Justice Amy Coney Barrett's role in the Supreme Court hearings. He uses descriptive language to emphasize her impact on the arguments and quotes from experts who praise her influence. However, this does not rise to a level of significant bias as the author also provides factual information about the cases and includes opposing viewpoints.
Barrett managed to shape the final arguments of the current term this week while also keeping her options open.
I'm kind of shocked, actually. I thought your own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered. And you're now saying they're not?
It's a decent bet that, by the end of this term, her vote is going to end up either being dispositive or at least critically important to many – if not most – of the court’s most important, and divisive, decisions[
] Justice Amy Coney Barrett owned the arguments[
She clearly thinks the prosecution can proceed if it focuses on private acts, rather than official ones[
J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge with conservative credentials, believes it is unlikely that Donald Trump will face trial for the crimes he committed in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court’s right-wing majority appeared uninterested in determining whether Trump’s alleged crimes related to the insurrection constitute official presidential acts that are immune from prosecution after leaving office.
If Trump wins the upcoming election, he can instruct his attorney general to drop the charges against him.
Five right-wing Supreme Court justices could potentially grant Trump immunity from prosecution for his actions related to Jan. 6, including pressuring his vice president and Justice Department to subvert the electoral count.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested that if presidents must fear prosecution after leaving office, they might be more prone to resisting the transfer of power and destabilizing the country.
Accuracy
Five right-wing Supreme Court justices could potentially grant Trump immunity from prosecution for his actions related to Jan. 6.
Deception
(30%)
The author expresses his opinion that Trump is likely to 'skate' and avoid prosecution for his alleged crimes related to the insurrection. He also speculates on potential outcomes of the Supreme Court case and expresses concern about the apparent openness of the right-wing justices to Trump's arguments. These statements are editorializing, pontification, and emotional manipulation.
Luttig lacerated the right-wing justices for harboring a ‘radical vision’ of the American presidency, and pronounced himself ‘gravely’ worried that Trump will never face accountability for alleged crimes committed in attempting to destroy U.S. democracy through extensive procedural corruption and the naked incitement of mob violence.
I now believe that it is unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
To be sure, some observers think that in the end, five justices will not grant Trump that immunity. But Luttig fears that this may be overly optimistic.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting J. Michael Luttig's concerns about Trump's potential immunity from prosecution and the Supreme Court's apparent openness to Trump's arguments. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the potential outcomes of the case, such as 'destroying U.S. democracy through extensive procedural corruption and the naked incitement of mob violence.'
The New Republic Politics Homepage
I believe it is now likely either that Trump will get elected and instruct his attorney general to drop the charges, or that the Supreme Court will grant him immunity from prosecution.
Justice Samuel Alito declared that if presidents must fear prosecution after leaving office, they might prove more prone to resisting the transfer of power, destabilizing the country.
Bias
(80%)
The author expresses a clear bias against Trump and his legal arguments. He uses language that depicts Trump as attempting to destroy U.S. democracy and engaging in procedural corruption and incitement of mob violence. The author also expresses concern that Trump may not face accountability for these alleged crimes.
I now believe that it is unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
Luttig lacerated the right-wing justices for harboring a ‘radical vision’ of the American presidency, and pronounced himself ‘gravely’ worried that Trump will never face accountability for alleged crimes committed in attempting to destroy U.S. democracy through extensive procedural corruption and the naked incitement of mob violence.
To be sure, some observers think that in the end, five justices will not grant Trump that immunity. But Luttig fears that this may be overly optimistic.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the authority of Special Counsel Jack Smith to bring charges against former President Donald Trump during a Supreme Court session.
Trump’s attorneys had not raised the issue of Smith’s appointment in the current Supreme Court case, but they agreed with the analysis provided by former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and Michael Mukasey that Smith has no authority to prosecute as he was never confirmed by the Senate.
Meese and Mukasey argued in a March amicus brief that because the special counsel exercises broad authority to convene grand juries and make prosecutorial decisions, independent of the White House or the attorney general, he is far more powerful than any government officer who has not been confirmed by the Senate.
Trump’s attorneys claimed in a March court filing in Florida that Smith argues in federal court that he is independent of the White House and Garland, but at the same time insists that he is subordinate to the attorney general and therefore not subject to Senate confirmation.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(95%)
The author raises questions about the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and authority to prosecute former President Donald Trump. He quotes Thomas Phippen directly stating that 'Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?' and 'we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey.' The author also mentions that Smith was never confirmed by the Senate to any position. These statements demonstrate a clear bias towards questioning the legitimacy of Smith's appointment.
Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?
we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey.
