The Supreme Court has undermined US democracy - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
2024年美国总统大选

The Supreme Court has undermined US democracy

Expanding presidential immunity increases the risks from a second Trump term

Just a few weeks ago, a Manhattan jury found former president Donald Trump guilty of 34 felony counts. Its decision affirmed an idea that is the bedrock of American democracy: no one, not even a former president, is above the law. Monday’s Supreme Court decision in Trump vs United States seems to undercut that principle.

In a 6-3 decision regarding Trump’s claims of immunity over allegations that he sought to overturn the 2020 election result, the court radically expanded the notion of presidential immunity. It argued that a president may not be criminally prosecuted for exercising “core constitutional” duties, such as commanding the military, and has “presumptive immunity” for “official” acts.

The majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, suggests “official” could apply to anything a president does with the agencies under their jurisdiction. A president, it states, has no immunity for “unofficial” acts.

Lower courts will now have to draw the boundaries between what were official and unofficial acts. The Supreme Court ruling almost certainly pushes any trial over the election interference case beyond the November election. Voters are then deprived of knowing the outcome, and Trump could throw the case out if re-elected. The court has also forever altered the US system — in a way that not only a returning Trump but other future presidents could take advantage of.

In another era, this decision might be seen as less a dangerous harbinger, and more a subject for high-flown debates. Ever since the 1982 Nixon vs Fitzgerald case, the court has been clear that a president is immune from civil liability for actions taken in office. The court has now extended that principle, arguing that an “energetic, independent” executive should not be deterred from taking necessary action by concerns over potential criminal prosecution after leaving office.

Criminal conduct seemed unlikely for most past presidents, who, despite their failings, generally sought to occupy the “place of moral leadership” that Franklin Delano Roosevelt argued is the core of the role. But we have now observed the extent to which an occupant of the White House can erode democratic norms. Trump’s first term, despite some limited economic successes, was characterised by a disregard for the rule of law and the electoral system, as evidenced by two impeachment trials and the sundry criminal cases against him and his former staff.

A second term promises to be even more incendiary. Trump has vowed to be a “dictator” in his first day in office, and has all but promised to wield the immense powers of the office to punish his political enemies. In expanding presidential immunity, the Supreme Court has in effect granted Trump — and all future presidents — carte blanche.

With courts now unable to hold a president accountable for most actions taken in office, the ruling shunts that responsibility on to the Senate and the House of Representatives. But as Trump’s failed impeachments show, the current polarised US legislature has proved particularly ill-equipped to restrain a demagogue.

Trump may lose in November, and a lower court may still find him liable for “unofficial” acts related to his attempts to overturn the election. But the Supreme Court’s decision has done lasting damage. The American Revolution — which Ralph Waldo Emerson called “the shot heard round the world” — helped spur an international movement away from tyranny and towards democracy and accountability. By prioritising an “energetic” presidency over an accountable one, the court’s conservative justices have chipped away at a central pillar of the American system.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

和平协议的艺术

美国和俄罗斯之间的谈判能否就乌克兰问题达成持久的解决方案?历史学家玛格丽特•麦克米伦认为,目前的迹象并不乐观。

詹姆斯•邦德:属于美国的英国间谍

伊恩•弗莱明的虚构作品,对英国情报机构来说既是福音又是负担,如今将由科技巨头亚马逊来重新定义。

曼联正在处理错误的问题

十年来积累的体育失败如今正在冲击俱乐部的盈亏底线。

政治学家比约恩•隆堡:‘你不能在所有事情上都花钱’

这位“持怀疑态度的环保主义者”曾利用成本效益分析来反对减排。现在,他将注意力转向了海外援助。

建立了一个隐秘全球房地产帝国的孟加拉国政治家

赛福扎曼•乔杜里和他的家人在海外购买了482处房产,花费了2.95亿美元。新政府希望收回其中的一部分资金。

脱碳的自私指南

新的研究表明,即使美国对全球协议完全不感兴趣,仍然会看到减少排放带来的成本效益。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×