• Investing
  • Stock
Round Table Thoughts
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Home Economy Clarence Thomas swipes at Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment in SCOTUS immunity case
Economy

Clarence Thomas swipes at Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment in SCOTUS immunity case

by July 1, 2024
by July 1, 2024 0 comment
Share
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsapp

In the Supreme Court’s monumental decision in former President Trump’s immunity case, one justice questioned whether Special Counsel Jack Smith – at the helm of Trump’s unprecedented prosecution – was constitutionally appointed. 

On Monday, a 6-3 majority ruled that a president has substantial immunity for official acts in office, and sent the case back down to lower courts to determine which acts at the center of Trump’s case were official. 

‘The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive,’ the opinion said. 

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas looked to ‘highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure’ – the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel. 

‘In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President ‘is not above the law.’ But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. The Constitution provides for ‘an energetic executive,’ because such an Executive is ‘essential to… the security of liberty,” Thomas wrote. 

‘Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law,’ Thomas said, adding that ‘[t]hose questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.’

Thomas explained that in this case, the attorney general ‘purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States.’ 

‘But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure,’ he said. 

‘If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution.’ he said. 

Thomas added that ‘a private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.’

Thomas noted that ‘[n]o former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.’ 

The question of what immunity should be granted to Trump and future presidents stemmed from Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Those charges were the result of Smith’s months-long investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election results. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued he should be immune from prosecution from official acts done as president.

In an amicus brief filed in the case before the high court, Ed Meese, attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, argued that the court should reject Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request because he was unconstitutionally appointed in the first place. 

‘Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,’ the brief stated. 

‘Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,’ he argued. 

Merrick Garland cited statutory authority for Smith’s appointment, none of which Meese argued ‘remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.’

Thomas acknowledged that argument in his concurrence, saying, ‘It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office ‘established by Law,’ as required by the Constitution. When the Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel, he did not identify any statute that clearly creates such an office.’

Meese also argued that ‘even if one overlooks the absence of statutory authority for the position, there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel.’

‘Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute… and so directs specifically enough to overcome a clear-statement presumption in favor of presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation. No such statute exists for the Special Counsel,’ he added.

Thomas on Friday argued similarly. 

‘Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause,’ he said. 

‘For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be,’ he said.

‘Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed,’ he added.

‘We must respect the Constitution’s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee,’ he concluded. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
You Might Also Like
  • House Oversight, Judiciary to hear testimony from another Biden family biz associate amid impeachment inquiry
  • Bernie Sanders disagrees, but Trump keeps insisting Harris is more liberal than the Vermont senator
  • State of the Union: Rep. Scott Perry invites pro-life activist Mark Houck as guest to presidential address
  • Trump indictment could dominate 2024 GOP presidential nomination race: ‘It will be inescapable’
Share
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsapp

previous post
Biden tries to flip the script on negative narrative coming out of disastrous debate with Trump
next post
Biden camp dismisses Trump immunity ruling: ‘Doesn’t change the facts’

You may also like

Over 100 former Trump administration officials back DeSantis for president:...

May 23, 2023

Texas court tosses billionaire’s defamation suit against Beto O’Rourke

June 10, 2023

Harris claims she ‘made clear’ her position on fracking in...

August 30, 2024

Supreme Court asked to decide if police dog committed an...

September 6, 2023

Cruz calls Hamas attacks on Israel ‘largest mass murder of...

October 10, 2023

US lets UN Security Council resolution calling for pauses in...

November 16, 2023

Minnesota moves toward 2040 carbon neutrality goal

February 3, 2023

Blinken rallies Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and Italy to...

November 8, 2023

Harris defends policy flip-flops in preview of first interview since...

August 29, 2024

McCarthy signals House could soon vote on short-term spending bill...

September 27, 2023

    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Confused by the Market? Let the Traffic Light Indicator Guide You

      May 9, 2025
    • Which Will Hit First: SPX 6100 or SPX 5100?

      May 9, 2025
    • The V Reversal is Impressive, but is it Enough?

      May 9, 2025
    • Krispy Kreme stock plunges after doughnut chain pauses McDonald’s rollout, pulls outlook

      May 8, 2025
    • Don’t Buy Robinhood Stock… Until You See This Chart Setup

      May 8, 2025

    Popular Posts

    • 1

      Trump-era China sanctions ended by Biden may be...

      June 27, 2024 2,633 views
    • 2

      Walz’s honeymoon with China gets fresh scrutiny as...

      August 9, 2024 2,339 views
    • 3

      Biden appointee played key role in recruiting Chinese...

      June 25, 2024 2,321 views
    • 4

      Shein’s global ambitions leaves some cybersecurity experts fearful...

      July 10, 2024 2,303 views
    • 5

      Harris VP pick spent years promoting research facility...

      August 29, 2024 2,186 views

    Categories

    • Economy (7,009)
    • Editor's Pick (2,066)
    • Investing (538)
    • Stock (2,533)

    Popular Posts

    • 1

      Trump-era China sanctions ended by Biden may be revived under new House GOP bill

      June 27, 2024
    • 2

      Walz’s honeymoon with China gets fresh scrutiny as Harris camp blasts ‘lying’ critics

      August 9, 2024
    • 3

      Biden appointee played key role in recruiting Chinese businesses to Delaware: ‘Longtime friends’

      June 25, 2024
    • 4

      Shein’s global ambitions leaves some cybersecurity experts fearful of Chinese spy threats

      July 10, 2024
    • 5

      Harris VP pick spent years promoting research facility that collaborated with ‘Chinese military company’

      August 29, 2024

    Latest News

    • Confused by the Market? Let the Traffic Light Indicator Guide...

      May 9, 2025
    • Which Will Hit First: SPX 6100 or SPX 5100?

      May 9, 2025
    • The V Reversal is Impressive, but is it Enough?

      May 9, 2025

    Categories

    • Economy (7,009)
    • Editor's Pick (2,066)
    • Investing (538)
    • Stock (2,533)

    Disclaimer: RoundTableThoughts.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2024 RoundTableThoughts.com. All Rights Reserved.

    Round Table Thoughts
    • Investing
    • Stock
    Round Table Thoughts
    • Economy
    • Editor’s Pick

    Read alsox

    ‘Vulnerable’ House lawmakers hold safety summit...

    July 15, 2024

    Biden ignores press questions while leaving...

    August 12, 2023

    China Committee Chair Gallagher proposes Taiwan...

    December 18, 2023
    Sign In

    Keep me signed in until I sign out

    Forgot your password?

    Password Recovery

    A new password will be emailed to you.

    Have received a new password? Login here