America’s Courts, Swinging between the Left and the Right

Published in The Merit Times
(Taiwan) on 19 May 2024
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jennifer Sampson. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
The United States has a long-established democratic system based on the separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. In separating these powers, the Founding Fathers established a foundation that has endured for more than 200 years. However, after Donald Trump transitioned from business to politics and entered the White House, he continually violated the foundational principles the country was built on. In particular, the string of legal dramas before this year’s presidential election continually pose a challenge to the bottom line of the American justice.

It is abundantly clear that President Joe Biden’s Democratic camp wants to use the courts to impede Trump’s campaign, be it the Capitol riot, classified documents case or hush money charges. Trump brought these all upon himself and has no one else to blame. While these cases implicate politics as well as personal ethics, it is understandable that the courts address these matters in an orderly fashion and stick to the basic principle on which a country governed by the rule of law operates.

The presidential election is in November, however, and with Trump involved in numerous litigious cases, both the Democrats and Republicans have taken advantage of using judicial procedures to their advantage. The independence of the judiciary has been fully tested in this battle and, so far, remains firm.

An obvious example of using politics to influence judicial decisions took place at the end of last year when the three Democratic-led states of Colorado, Illinois and Maine cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to argue that Trump was ineligible to run for president. This section provides that that anyone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and later “engage[s] in insurrection or rebellion against the same" cannot serve in Congress or hold any office under the United States, understood to include the presidency and the vice presidency. A majority of Colorado’s Supreme Court held that this disqualified Trump from holding office and that his name should be removed from the ballot.

This amendment, proposed after the Civil War, has long been controversial. The Democratic-led states obviously and intentionally singled out this amendment; they will not give up a chance to diminish Trump’s power. Fortunately, the Supreme Court clearly ruled in March when it overturned Colorado’s Supreme Court and maintained that Congress should decide this issue. Essentially, this allows Trump to remain an eligible candidate.

The Trump executive immunity case would also drag the justices into the political swamp. Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith is trying Trump in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, while Trump asserts that the president should have immunity from criminal prosecution. This case has also made its way to the Supreme Court. While the justices have yet to decide unanimously, the conservative justices believe the president should have partial immunity, a view that favors Trump. The Supreme Court has clearly indicated it will not decide the cases before the election, which will help the court avoid entering the political fray.

Similar situations have also played out in elsewhere. A federal judge in Florida has postponed Trump’s trial on charges connected to the taking of classified documents, and in Georgia, Trump’s election interference case has also been postponed indefinitely — all of which benefits Trump.

Currently, the case that has been unstoppable is the hush money case, ongoing now for 14 days, trapping Trump in a New York courthouse. Powerless, Republican members of Congress have taken turns showing support at the courthouse and campaigning for Trump. Even House Speaker Mike Johnson showed up on May 14 in a dramatic demonstration of support.*

The Constitution provides that the House speaker is the third most powerful figure behind the president and the vice president. At the courthouse, Johnson proclaimed the trial to be a “miscarriage of justice” — an unprecedented action by a speaker. This is no small matter. Doesn’t it shake a country’s foundation when the leader of the legislature accuses the country’s judiciary of being unfair? The Associated Press has pointed out how rare this is in America’s political history.

Every day, the drama of this election, which has extended into the courtroom, is being played out in front of the world, and the final act is yet to come. The independence of the American judiciary, swinging between the selfish interests of both parties, is being severely tested. Others, as well as Taiwan, can learn from America’s experience.

*Editor’s note: On May 30, a New York jury found Donald Trump guilty of all 34 charges in the hush money case.


美國本是行政、立法、司法三權分立的老牌民主國家,立憲元老以這三個權力鼎足分立,成就超過兩百年的歷史基業。而當在由商轉政的川普入主白宮後,即不斷衝撞立國基石,尤其在今年總統大選之前連續上演的司法戲碼,正不斷挑戰美國的司法底線。

拜登總統的民主黨陣營,想用司法來套牢川普的競選活動,當然是昭然若揭;不論是國會暴動案、機密文件案、封口費案,都是川普咎由自取,怨不得人。這幾個案子有涉及政治、有涉及私德,但以法論法,循序推進,皆無可厚非,也是法治國家運作的基本原則。

然而今年十一月是美國總統大選,加以川普涉及多案的可議性,使民主、共和兩黨都利用機會透過司法程序攫取對自己的最大利益,在纏鬥過程中,司法的獨立性即備受考驗,到目前為止,美國的司法獨立性尚稱牢固。

企圖用政治影響司法的顯例,其一是始自去年底科羅拉多州、伊利諾州和緬因州三個民主黨執政州,皆引用美國《憲法》第十四修正案第三款,主張川普沒有資格參選。該款指任何宣誓擁護美國憲法且後來「從事於顛覆或反叛國家的行為」的人,均不得為國會議員、總統與副總統的被選舉人。科羅拉多州最高法院多數法官同意,依此規定川普應喪失擔任總統職位的資格,自必要從初選選票中除名。

此項在美國內戰之後提出的修憲條款,早有爭議,民主黨的執政州翻出這個條款,用心明顯,只要能削弱川普能量的任何可能,都不放棄。所幸,聯邦最高法院今年三月明確裁決,推翻科羅拉多州最高法院的裁定,認為本案應由國會決定,等於仍保留了川普的參選資格。

想把大法官拖入政治泥淖的還有川普是否擁有刑事豁免權案。司法部特別檢察官史密斯起訴川普涉及二○二一年一月的國會暴動案,川普陣營主張總統應該具有刑事豁免權,這個案子也一路打到最高法院。大法官意見目前尚未一致,但保守派大法官認為總統應具有部分的免責權,這是有利川普的意見,而最高法院也很明確的表示,本案在選舉前不會審理完畢,正是要避免讓司法捲入政治。

類似的情形,也出現在其他的下級法院,佛羅里達州的聯邦法官決定推遲川普機密文件案的審理,喬治亞州也決定無限期延審川普干預選務案,這都有利於川普陣營。

至於目前如火如荼進行中的封口費案,已經開庭十四次,把川普牢牢的鎖在紐約法院裡。共和黨無計可施,最近共和黨參眾議員輪番到法院幫川普助陣兼造勢,十四日共和黨籍的聯邦眾議院議長強生更到場聲援,達到高潮。

依美國憲法,眾院議長是美國僅次於總統、副總統後的第三號人物,強生以國會議長之姿到法院聲稱「司法不公」,這是美國歷史上頭一遭,非同小可;當掌握立法權的領袖指責國家的司法權不公正,豈非動搖國本?美聯社評論即稱,這在美國政治史上實屬罕見。

目前這場因選戰延伸到司法戰的大戲,每天都在世人眼前上演,尚未落幕,美國司法的獨立性還在兩黨的私利中擺盪,經受著嚴重考驗。美國經驗,也足堪世人猶其台灣借鏡

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Topics

Australia: Donald Trump Is So Convinced of His Mandate that He Is Battling the Courts

Australia: The US’s Biggest Export? Trump’s MAGA Mindset

Cuba: The First Casualty

Germany: Trump for the Charlemagne Prize!

Canada: It Turns Out Trump’s Tariffs Were Illegal After All

Related Articles

Australia: Donald Trump Is So Convinced of His Mandate that He Is Battling the Courts

Australia: The US’s Biggest Export? Trump’s MAGA Mindset

Cuba: The First Casualty

Germany: Trump for the Charlemagne Prize!