Kavanaugh Review of 2009 Law Offers Insight to Presidential Immunity Case

In June, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the presidential immunity case that was argued last month.

The general consensus is that the case will get kicked back to the lower courts regarding the alleged crimes of Donald Trump before the court takes the case back to make a decision.

Either way, at some point, the court will have to rule on the case, and people are now pointing to a 2009 law review written by Justice Kavanaugh as to how they believe he will lean.

It’s All There

Kavanaugh and Barrett are right there with Chief Justice Roberts in terms of being moderates.

Both have walked across the aisle in their decisions to oppose their fellow conservative justices, so this 2009 legal review written by Kavanaugh is getting a lot of attention.

In that review, Kavanaugh stated, "The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.”

He later added, "If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.

"Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterward."

Some are taking this to mean that Kavanaugh will rule in favor of giving Trump blanket immunity, but I have read the review, and that is not the case that he is making.

What I believe will happen is that the court will ask the lower court to specifically identify Trump’s alleged crimes, then the court will decide if those crimes are under the purview of Trump’s presidential duties or if he was asking as a candidate-private citizen in those acts.

Based on previous rulings, there is just no way this court will give Trump blanket immunity, which is honestly the right call.

No president should have blanket immunity, literally having the right to commit crimes without the fear of ever being prosecuted.

Honestly, I doubt any of this will matter, though. If this all plays out the way I think it will, Trump’s other indictments will not see the inside of a courtroom before the election, and if Trump wins, those cases will never be tried.

Not only can they not put Trump on trial during his presidency, but I would suspect that Trump’s Attorney General would dismiss the federal cases against him.

Granted, that might lead to another impeachment of Trump and likely his AG, but if the GOP has the Senate, that will fail again as well.

And even if that is not the case, we are then talking about putting an 81-year-old man on trial who is no longer a threat to the Democrat Party, so I doubt Dems will be interested in pursuing those charges at that point.

This was all done to prevent Trump from winning the election, so I think the enthusiasm to prosecute Trump would be dead by then.

For many, it is not a question of whether Trump broke the law, but rather how overzealous the government has been in its pursuit when we have seen other cases either never pursued or resulting in small fines, whereas the DOJ is now trying to lock up Trump for the remainder of his life.