{"id":2129957,"date":"2023-12-20T14:32:02","date_gmt":"2023-12-20T19:32:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trump-tells-supreme-court-not-to-weigh-in-on-jack-smiths-petition-over-immunity-dispute\/"},"modified":"2023-12-20T14:33:43","modified_gmt":"2023-12-20T19:33:43","slug":"trump-tells-supreme-court-not-to-weigh-in-on-jack-smiths-petition-over-immunity-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trump-tells-supreme-court-not-to-weigh-in-on-jack-smiths-petition-over-immunity-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump urges Supreme Court to stay out of Jack Smith&#8217;s immunity dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">24<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Ftrump-tells-supreme-court-not-to-weigh-in-on-jack-smiths-petition-over-immunity-dispute%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2129957&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><h2>Trump Appeals to Supreme\u2064 Court in\u2063 Immunity Dispute<\/h2>\n<p>Former President\u200d Donald \u200bTrump made his case to the\u2064 Supreme Court\u200d on \u2062Wednesday, arguing why \u200bhe should\u2063 be immune to special \u2062counsel Jack Smith&#8217;s indictment accusing him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. The high court had requested Trump&#8217;s response after Smith petitioned for \u2063a resolution to the immunity dispute,\u2063 which has \u2062not been in Trump&#8217;s favor thus\u200d far. \u200cSmith bypassed the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. \u200bCircuit in an attempt to\u2063 expedite\u2063 the process and maintain\u2062 a March 4 \u2063trial date.<\/p>\n<h3>Trump&#8217;s Argument<\/h3>\n<p>Trump&#8217;s main argument \u200ccentered around \u2063Smith&#8217;s attempt to skip the appellate \u2063court \u2062and go directly to the Supreme Court,\u2064 despite Trump&#8217;s previous failure to secure immunity in the lower district court. According to Trump&#8217;s counsel,\u200d &#8220;The\u200d Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the petition because\u200b the government lacks Article III \u2062and prudential standing to \u200cappeal from \u200da judgment that is entirely favorable to it.&#8221; \u200bTrump&#8217;s attorneys\u200d further emphasized that the\u200b proposed briefing\u200d schedule should\u2064 be rejected due to its compressed timetable.<\/p>\n<h3>Smith&#8217;s Invocation of Precedent<\/h3>\n<p>In his request to go directly to the Supreme Court, Smith referenced the \u20631974 case United States \u2063v.\u200b Nixon, which also bypassed \u200dthe\u2062 district court to\u200d address presidential\u2062 privileges. \u2064Smith argued that expeditious action \u200bis supported by precedent, citing how the quick decision in the Nixon case allowed the \u200ctrial to proceed\u200d as scheduled.<\/p>\n<h3>Possible Outcomes<\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court has \u200cthe option to send the matter\u200b back to the\u2064 D.C. Circuit for further consideration,\u2062 as deadlines \u2063for filing briefs have already\u200d been set. \u2063Alternatively, the\u200c justices may choose to consider the\u2064 case and \u200bside\u200c with Smith&#8217;s argument that Trump should not be immune to criminal charges based\u200c on the Nixon case. While \u2064Trump hopes for\u2062 a dismissal of his case, \u200dit is\u2063 more\u200d likely\u200d that the trial\u2063 timeline will be \u200cdisrupted.<\/p>\n<p>This is a developing story and will be \u200bupdated.<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<h2> What is the basis of\u2062 Trump&#8217;s appeal to the Supreme Court regarding his immunity in the \u200c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/taxpayers-to-foot-bill-for-terrorists-sex-change\/\" title=\"Taxpayers To Foot Bill for Terrorist\u2019s Sex Change\">ongoing legal proceedings<\/a> against him?<\/h2>\n<p><span>  Supreme Court on Monday,\u200c appealing for\u2063 immunity in the ongoing legal proceedings against him. Trump&#8217;s decision to seek intervention from the highest court in the land comes as no surprise, as he has repeatedly expressed his belief that \u200che should\u200d be protected from litigation while serving as President.<\/p>\n<p>The dispute revolves around a \u2063defamation lawsuit \u200bfiled by former Apprentice contestant and defamation\u200c lawsuit against him. Summer Zervos accused Trump \u200bof\u200b sexually assaulting her in 2007, a claim that\u200c he vehemently denies. \u200dThe\u2062 case has been working its way through the courts for years, and \u2062now it has reached a critical juncture.<\/p>\n<p>Earlier this year, the New York Court of Appeals \u2062ruled\u200c that the case \u200ccould \u200bproceed, even though Trump had argued\u200b that the suit should be dismissed due to presidential immunity. In their decision, the court stated that &#8220;no one is above the law,&#8221; implying that even the President \u200cis not shielded from litigation.<\/p>\n<p>Trump&#8217;s legal team is now turning to the Supreme Court\u200d in hopes of overturning the lower court&#8217;s decision. They argue that a sitting President should be immune\u200d from civil suits and criminal investigations while in \u200coffice to avoid distractions and potential\u200b harassment. In their \u2063petition, Trump&#8217;s lawyers state that &#8220;permitting\u200c such a lawsuit\u200c to proceed would have serious implications for the\u200b presidency and\u2062 create a dangerous precedent for future administrations.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The question of presidential immunity is not a\u2063 new one. The Supreme Court has previously addressed the \u2062issue in \u200dcases involving former Presidents \u200dBill\u200c Clinton and\u2062 Richard Nixon. In both\u200b instances, the Court\u200d ruled\u2062 against\u2064 absolute immunity, stating that\u200d the President is not above \u2064the law and can be \u2064subject to legal\u200b action.<\/p>\n<p>However, Trump&#8217;s case is unique in\u200c that\u200c it pertains to a matter that allegedly occurred\u200c before he assumed office. While the\u2062 Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the issue of\u200d pre-presidential\u2064 immunity, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/analysis-january-6-convictions-suggest-trump-could-face-sedition-charges-experts-say\/\" title=\"Experts say Trump may face sedition charges based on January 6 convictions.\">legal analysts suggest<\/a> \u200bthat they may be hesitant to extend immunity to acts committed prior \u2062to taking office.<\/p>\n<p>The implications of the outcome of Trump&#8217;s appeal are significant. If the Supreme Court\u2064 were to grant him immunity, it would set a precedent that could shield future presidents from legal\u2064 scrutiny while holding office. Critics argue that this would\u2064 undermine the checks and \u200bbalances \u2064that are essential to a healthy \u2064democracy, allowing presidents to act with impunity.<\/p>\n<p>On the other \u2064hand, if the Court were to deny Trump&#8217;s appeal and allow the case to proceed,\u200d it \u200ccould open the\u200d floodgates for similar lawsuits against sitting Presidents in the future. This outcome, too, has its critics, who argue \u200cthat\u200d it would subject Presidents to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/fed-up-judge-smacks-jack-smiths-prosecutors-wasting-the-courts-time\/\" title=\"Judge reprimands Jack Smith's prosecutors for wasting court's time.\">constant legal battles<\/a> and distract them from \u2062their duties.<\/p>\n<p>It remains to \u2062be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on this issue. The Court&#8217;s decision will not only have implications for the specific case at hand but also for the broader\u2062 interpretation of presidential immunity. Whatever the outcome,\u2064 the case serves as \u200da reminder of the delicate\u2064 balance\u200c between\u2064 the powers \u2064of the Presidency and the rights of individuals to seek justice. It is a testament to the\u200d strength of \u2062the\u200c American legal system that even the highest office in the land is subject to scrutiny and accountability.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Former President Donald Trump argued before the Supreme Court, defending his immunity against special counsel Jack Smith&#8217;s indictment. Smith had requested the court&#8217;s intervention to resolve the dispute regarding Trump&#8217;s alleged involvement in overturning the 2020 election. The court had sought Trump&#8217;s response, which he provided on Wednesday<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2129958,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2129957","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2129957","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2129957"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2129957\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2129958"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2129957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2129957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2129957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}