To the Editor:

This LTTE concerns only the majority opinion in Trump v. US, important because it is the most significant SCOTUS decision since Dodds and Bush v. Gore. Next week, the minority dissent. I hope to get to other significant SCOTUS decisions this term. I’m afraid this is necessarily a little academic, but not as bad as if I were a constitutional law scholar.
It is noteworthy that both Justices Thomas and Alito, both whose conduct raises serious issues of impartiality, participated in the decision with no objection by CJ Roberts. The 94-page decision made no attempt at public clarity, leaves a trail of undefined terms, and sends the mess back to Judge Chutkan to solve.Then, SCOTUS will decide if she’s right or wrong in guessing what they really mean. Here is one link: 23-939_e2pg.pdf (supremecourt.gov).

The “Immunity Decision” significantly increased the power of the Chief Executive, (consistent with Project 2025 of the Republican Heritage Foundation). The holding in Trump v. US is that a president operates with immunity from prosecution depending on whether the conduct is deemed “official” or “unofficial.” Core “official” constitutional conduct (e.g., acting as Commander-in-Chief) has absolute immunity. Other “official conduct” (communicating with heads of state) has “presumptive immunity,” meaning that unless the government establishes that the prosecution will not create a danger of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch and “official” conduct, the president is immune. “Unofficial conduct” is not immune from prosecution, with caveats.

So, a former president is presumed immune from criminal liability while in office unless the prosecutor can prove that the president’s criminal act was purely “unofficial conduct” and: the proof of criminality requires no showing of mens rea, or motive, or does not rely on conduct tied to “official acts,” wherein he is immune.
A slight crack in the marble is all we have to hold him accountable. He is the only American citizen to be “above the law.” That is not what the Constitution intended, especially to an “originalist.”

Only ex-president Trump has required labelling of his conduct and parsing language to save him from criminal liability. No other ex-president has been accused of trying to overthrow the government, was convicted by juries of two frauds, liable for sexual assault, and is forever sniveling that he is being victimized as “no president has ever before” (apologies to Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy). He insists that none of it is due to his aberrant conduct. It’s someone else’s fault, always.

Martin, you assert that Trump is being persecuted and is innocent because he says so. He needs people like you to trust him, no matter that experience and glaring facts prove he is a chronic liar, cruel about others, the epitome of self-congratulation and -aggrandizement, and a child when it comes to accountability. You need him to prove that your passion for authoritarianism in life, politics, and “Old-Testament Christianity” is valid, even if contrary to the Constitution.

Kelly Scoles,

Fillmore, Ca.