OPINION:
“No one is above the law” has become the favorite slogan on the left. The platitude is intoned as justification for prosecuting a former president for his official acts while simultaneously falling over backwards to excuse his successor’s dubious dealings.
The Supreme Court will test the limits of the platitude on Thursday. Former President Donald Trump petitioned justices for their assistance in resolving the impossible position in which he finds himself. The Justice Department, under control of Mr. Trump’s political opponents, contrived charges that threaten to send the former president to jail on allegations he made false claims about the 2020 election.
This case was assigned to a judge appointed by President Barack Obama who has hinted at her hatred of Mr. Trump in the Jan. 6 cases she has presided over. Thus, Mr. Trump’s prospects of exoneration are slim — regardless of the evidence — given that 95% of the jury pool has already voted against him once.
Throughout our nation’s history, incumbent presidents have restrained themselves, for the most part, from using the judicial branch to crush opponents in upcoming elections. The landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case helped discourage such abuse. The court concluded that the official actions of the executive “can never be examinable by the courts.”
Mr. Trump argues that “never” actually means never, and the protection the Constitution offers doesn’t expire at noon on the chief executive’s final day in office. Were it otherwise, an ambitious prosecutor in any of the 50 states could indict the president over policy disagreements.
Blinded by partisanship, Democrats apparently fail to think beyond their desire to “get Trump” to see how readily the tables can be turned against them. Perhaps a Texas prosecutor will indict President Biden on Jan. 21, 2025, for his facilitation of the foreign invasion at the southern border. The charges could even be brought in Roberts County, where Mr. Trump carried 96% of the vote. After all, no one is above the law.
The Constitution establishes a remedy should a president be caught performing dastardly deeds. A House majority must impeach and a bipartisan, two-thirds supermajority in the Senate must convict the chief executive before “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Democrats want municipal judges in the country’s most divided jurisdictions to supplant the proper congressional role. That’s a dangerous and foolish idea considering the consequences.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have been charged with unlawfully jailing 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent. Mr. Obama could be held to account for the targeted killing of a 16-year-old American citizen in a drone strike. Or Mr. Obama could be charged with lying to Congress over the whopper he delivered in the “Obamacare” debate, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”
Requiring a bipartisan vote of elected, federal representatives raises a formidable barrier against ambitious fanatics like special counsel Jack Smith, who sees no problem with abandoning two centuries of precedent if it means achieving a fleeting political victory.
For the sake of the nation, the justices must send a clear statement to these militant activists posing as officers of the court: Their efforts to interfere in the 2024 election must stop now.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.