Viewpoint: Your November Presidential Vote May Elect Several Supreme Court Judges as Well.
The Supreme Court is asked to review more than 7,000 cases each year. Generally, however, they only agree to review about 100-150 cases per year. With 2024 half over, they have ruled on 23 cases so far. That would put them below the 100-150 average if they continue at that pace.
Two cases of interest were decided recently. Today (Monday), by a 6-3 ruling split down ideological lines, the conservatives of the court ruled that Donald Trump as President had full immunity from actions taken when within their constitutionally given powers. But that immunity does not apply to private acts.
So, the Trump case goes back to the U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine if any of the actions cited were not official. Included in the decision was a decision to throw out any alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.
Actions that were official seemed to be defined broadly by the court. A former president has "at least a presumptive immunity" for "acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility," the court wrote.
The odds of a jury finding Trump’s guilt or innocence before the election is unlikely. The court's three liberal justices said the ruling gives presidents permission to use their official powers to break the law.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a written dissent, said that under the present ruling a president could not be prosecuted for organizing a military coup, taking bribes or even ordering the assassination of a political rival.
Sotomayor said, "Never in the history of our republic has a president had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. With fear for our democracy, I dissent," Sotomayor said
A second case of interest is one enacted by Connecticut in 2021 that centers on an exemption for faith from vaccinations and immunizations, and has been denied by the court.
The vaccinations affected by this law had to do with COVID19 and also dealt with other vaccinations required by law. Individuals could waive vaccinations needed by public schools, childcare facilities and other institutions with a faith-based exemption.
That exemption is no longer relevant. During COVID-19 the exemption began to be filed enough that it became apparent that a large number of individuals had opted out of the COVID vaccine for religious reasons.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Educational institutions countered by informing people of outbreaks they blamed on the lack of the vaccine.
The statute does allow a single exemption. Like most states, Connecticut children have to show they have gotten the required doses of polio, chickenpox, and mumps vaccines.
.
The Supreme Court ruling will have no impact on present K-12 students who have been granted such faith-based exemptions before the ruling. Several organizations with a success record against forced vaccinations swiftly filed objections to the ruling. The grounds of course are that it violates the pupil’s freedom of religion and incurs dislike of religious populations who don’t wish to be vaccinated.
That argument was turned down by the Supreme Court when they upheld the decision of a federal appeals court.
Cases coming up yet this year include Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The United States vs. Miller will deal with a bankruptcy question related to fraudulent transfers and sovereign immunity.
The next President, like others before him, can appoint Supreme Court justices to a lifetime appointment. Donald Trump, during his presidency, appointed three supreme court justices. Joe Biden nominated only one during his first term as president.
In the balance, may be the two oldest justices: Clarence Thomas (75), and Samuel Alito (74). Both are conservative.
Kind of adds to the weight of your vote, doesn’t it? You are not only casting a vote for the President of the United States but, perhaps, two life-long appointees to the nation’s highest court. Cast your vote well.