Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis Week on 'Ask the Supremes': Do Menendez and Cuellar Have Congressional Immunity?
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-05-16-ask-the-supremes-menendez-cuellar-immunity/
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) walks from his office to the House chamber to vote, May 15, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
Lets assume that the same considerations the Republican Supreme Court justices voiced when Donald Trumps request for blanket immunity came before them might also affect their considerations of immunity for any crimes that New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez and Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar (both now indicted for bribery) may have committed. Well begin by noting that during the Trump oral arguments, these justices sought to make distinctions between crimes committed as presidentand hence protected because it involves acting in an official capacityand crimes committed while president, like stealing from the collection plate in church (unless, of course, those funds were then used to close the budget deficit, which would then become a crime as, rather than a crime while).
By this standard, Menendez and Cuellar have a strong case that their (allegedly) accepting bribes was clearly a crime as. After all, were they not members of Congress, those (alleged) bribes would not have been tendered. And after all, their subsequent actions to promote the policy results theyd pledged to help along in return for their (allegedly) taking those bribes were clearly undertaken as members of Congress. If thats not dispositive enough for these Supremes, consider their comments during the oral arguments in the Trump case that the laws Trump is alleged to have broken didnt specifically reference the president as being subject to them. The same logic clearly applies to Menendez and Cuellar. Do the bribery statutes specifically single out members of Congress as subject to their strictures? And even if they do, do they specifically apply to members of Congress from New Jersey, or the border regions of Texas? No? Case closed!
But waittheres more! The justices also entertained arguments that even if convicted of a crime, the laws under which Trump would be found guilty werent self-executing, and thereby required additional congressional action to be put into effect. Surely, the same requirements must apply to sitting members of Congress. Even should Cuellar and Menendez be convicted and sentenced to jail, those sentences should be stayed, then, until Congress passes enabling legislation. Perhaps Congress may wish to appoint a committee of senators and representatives to escort C&M to prison, much as they appoint senators and representatives to escort presidents to the dais before State of the Union addresses. One wouldnt want to leave such matters to the unelected bureaucrats of an overreaching administrative state.
But there are weightier issues in play here, as the Republican justices noted in considering Trumps pleas for immunity. Were writing a rule for the ages, Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch noted during oral arguments, then proceeding to bypass the particulars of Trumps case (the January 6th attack on the Capitol, the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and so on) to the more fundamental issues of whether future presidents might be held accountable for offenses, even on the flimsiest of charges. By the same token, the consequences of not granting C&M immunity could result in future members of Congress shunning the input of their constituents, not to mention a marked decline in the campaign finances that power our government. Whos to say where this could end? Such a ruling could deter future members of Congress from, say, accepting commemorative quilts or hearty handshakes of praise for their actions. Democracy itself might tremble in the face of such discouragements to popular feedback.
snip
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 190 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post