The dust is still setting on the U.S. Supreme Court decision on immunity for Donald Trump. The Justices ruled that the former President has limited immunity for official acts but not for unofficial ones. The High Court is sending the charges against Trump back to the lower court to separate the two types of actions. The Alabama Republican Party says the people now get to speak. APR talked with State GOP Chairman John Wahl before yesterday’s ruling. He said no matter the outcome, the results at the ballot box are what count…
“I think, you know, constitutionally, they looked into it, they studied it. They are in this position. We respect their decision, and we will go to the court of public's opinion in the fall and let the voters decide, as they should be able to do," he said.
Both Justice Samuel Alito and another conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, have rejected calls to recuse themselves from cases related to the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Thomas' wife, Ginni, supported efforts to overturn the election results. One possible option for the court. The justices puzzled during arguments over where the line should be drawn, and though it seemed unlikely from their questions that they'll adopt Trump's views of absolute immunity, they did seem potentially poised to narrow the case. Thomas also reportedly questioned the legitimacy of Special Council Jack Smith. Alabama GOP Chairman John Wahl repeated his position on the indictments against Trump.
“I will also highlight the fact that I believe the cases brought against Donald Trump recently are politically motivated, and that the American people, in the end, are the court of public opinion. And whether you know this Supreme Court ruling does not necessarily dictate the results of the election,” he said.
The majority did reject Trump's arguments that the indictment should be dismissed, and that impeachment is a necessary step in the enforcement of the law. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all dissented from the majority opinion. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote: "Today's decision to grant former Presidents’ criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."
