Yesterday the Supreme Court issued two decisions of great immediate and historic importance. In Trump v. Vance, the Court ruled that a sitting President is not immune from state criminal investigation. In Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, the Court ruled that a sitting President is not immune from Congressional investigation into the President's non-privileged, private information. In each case, the Court identified limits to the investigative power. In the Vance, case, the limits are no different from those that apply to investigations of any citizen. In the Mazars case, the limits are special limits derived from the Constitutional principle of separation of powers. Both cases were informed by precedent, but extended precedent to the new circumstances the cases presented. And each case resulted in an Opinion of the Court authored by the Chief Justice and supported by a seven-Justice majority.
The commentary following the opinions has focused on their political implications for the current occupant of the White House. The President's critics decry the timing, because of the unlikelihood that either case will prompt the production of his sought-after financial records in time for them to become public before the November election. The President himself attacks the decisions as personally unfair to him, and further proof of a politically motivated hoax and witch hunt.
Neither criticism should be allowed to obscure the great significance of these critically important and profound rulings. That's because a bi-partisan majority of the Supreme Court has ruled clearly and unequivocally yet again that the President of the United States is not above the law, but is answerable to the people. To this observer, the decisions represent brilliant expositions of the balances that must be struck in considering federal power versus state power, on the one hand, and executive power versus legislative power, on the other. For that reason, they get at the core of American constitutional structure and principle, and do so in a way that is true to the founding vision of our democracy.
Is it unfortunate that the cases are unlikely to have a direct impact on the November election? Perhaps. But the principles at stake are greater than any one election, and the cloud of ongoing investigations and the very visible opposition of the President to personal, financial transparency may well have important indirect effects.
Are the decisions unfair to the President, as he has been so quick to proclaim? Not at all. What he does not, and likely never will, understand is that these rulings are not about him. They are about the Office of the President and the fabric of our very system of government, a system that is supposed to be a system of law and not of powerful individuals.
Beyond the answers to these questions, the decisions are significant because they demonstrate in powerful ways the continued vitality and legitimacy of the institution that delivered them. Each decision candidly identifies the interests at stake on either side, and strikes a well-reasoned balance consistent with more than 200 years of the Court's historical, constitutional pronouncements. Although neither opinion was unanimous, the Chief Justice was able to bring together both Democratic and Republican Court appointees to agree on the outcome of each case. He was able to do so, no doubt, because of the opinions' consistency with precedent, reason, and the fundamental principles underlying our constitutional form of government. And he was able to do so because of the commitment of the Justices to the Rule of Law as a foundation on which our freedom depends.
The Court has stumbled in the past, as reflected in such oft-criticized decisions as Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. Against that backdrop, Vance and Mazars stand as redemptive acts that remind us of the crucial significance of the Supreme Court as a check and balance on federal, executive, and legislative power. In Lincoln's words, they are reassuring reminders that ours is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." And they signal, loudly and clearly, that this President and all Presidents are beholden to a power greater than themselves.
The commentary following the opinions has focused on their political implications for the current occupant of the White House. The President's critics decry the timing, because of the unlikelihood that either case will prompt the production of his sought-after financial records in time for them to become public before the November election. The President himself attacks the decisions as personally unfair to him, and further proof of a politically motivated hoax and witch hunt.
Neither criticism should be allowed to obscure the great significance of these critically important and profound rulings. That's because a bi-partisan majority of the Supreme Court has ruled clearly and unequivocally yet again that the President of the United States is not above the law, but is answerable to the people. To this observer, the decisions represent brilliant expositions of the balances that must be struck in considering federal power versus state power, on the one hand, and executive power versus legislative power, on the other. For that reason, they get at the core of American constitutional structure and principle, and do so in a way that is true to the founding vision of our democracy.
Is it unfortunate that the cases are unlikely to have a direct impact on the November election? Perhaps. But the principles at stake are greater than any one election, and the cloud of ongoing investigations and the very visible opposition of the President to personal, financial transparency may well have important indirect effects.
Are the decisions unfair to the President, as he has been so quick to proclaim? Not at all. What he does not, and likely never will, understand is that these rulings are not about him. They are about the Office of the President and the fabric of our very system of government, a system that is supposed to be a system of law and not of powerful individuals.
Beyond the answers to these questions, the decisions are significant because they demonstrate in powerful ways the continued vitality and legitimacy of the institution that delivered them. Each decision candidly identifies the interests at stake on either side, and strikes a well-reasoned balance consistent with more than 200 years of the Court's historical, constitutional pronouncements. Although neither opinion was unanimous, the Chief Justice was able to bring together both Democratic and Republican Court appointees to agree on the outcome of each case. He was able to do so, no doubt, because of the opinions' consistency with precedent, reason, and the fundamental principles underlying our constitutional form of government. And he was able to do so because of the commitment of the Justices to the Rule of Law as a foundation on which our freedom depends.
The Court has stumbled in the past, as reflected in such oft-criticized decisions as Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. Against that backdrop, Vance and Mazars stand as redemptive acts that remind us of the crucial significance of the Supreme Court as a check and balance on federal, executive, and legislative power. In Lincoln's words, they are reassuring reminders that ours is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." And they signal, loudly and clearly, that this President and all Presidents are beholden to a power greater than themselves.
Comments
Post a Comment