[ad_1]
1686 Gordon v Hales It confirmed the power of King James II of England to disregard all laws and not be bound by them. Trump v. United Statesthe judges were unable to cite any substantive precedent. Before rendering their judgments, James II personally questioned all of the judges, who held positions at his will. When it seemed that any of the 12 judges of England’s highest court would not rule as he wished, James II dismissed them and replaced them with other, more compliant judges. After citing judgments of “the King’s will,” James II’s behavior became increasingly egregious, to the point that a revolution against him, called the Glorious Revolution, occurred because his soldiers refused to fight for him. The subsequent Constitutional Assembly, which convened in the spring of 1689, demanded that all records of the case be submitted to them. They then dismissed all of the High Court judges, fined them, and ruled that they could never hold any public office again. They also ordered that no High Court judgments from the reign of James II could serve as precedent.
The Supreme Court just today reheard one of the most despicable cases in British history, a case that marked the apex of despotism in British history and was repudiated by the revolution for the damage it caused. Their argument that the president is not liable for any criminal conduct related to his official duties is essentially the same as the ruling on Trump Gordon v Hales Gifted by the King of England in 1686.
As Sotomayor summarized in her dissent, “According to the majority’s reasoning, he is immune from criminal prosecution when he uses his public office in any way. Ordering SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immunity. Organizing a military coup to stay in power? Immunity. Accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immunity. Immunity, immunity, immunity.” She concluded: “In every use of public office,” a power that includes virtually any part of the presidency, “the President is now king above the law.”
[ad_2]
Source link
