In a recent article published in Vanity Fair, the question of the Supreme Court's potential involvement in deciding presidential eligibility and immunity claims was explored. With the cloud of doubt still lingering over the 2020 election for some, concerns about the legitimacy of the presidency have arisen. While it is widely recognized that the election was fair and Joe Biden is the duly elected president, there are still those who harbor doubts. The looming question now is whether the Supreme Court's involvement in these matters will further exacerbate these concerns.
According to the article, there seems to be a growing consensus that the Supreme Court may be hesitant to determine who can and cannot be a candidate for the president of the United States. This reluctance stems from the desire to let the people decide rather than having the court interfere in the electoral process. However, this poses a potential conflict with another pressing issue – the immunity claims made by former President Donald Trump.
The article highlights that the recent Colorado case has added weight to Trump's claims of immunity, suggesting that everything he did while in office should shield him from prosecution. To maintain consistency and provide voters with all the necessary information, the Supreme Court might expedite the decision on Trump's immunity and allow the trial to proceed. This would ultimately offer voters a conclusive answer to the question of whether Trump is a felon or not.
The piece acknowledges the irony of a court that favors letting the people decide on eligibility but recognizes the importance of transparency and letting the legal process play out. By swiftly addressing the immunity issue, the Supreme Court could remove the shadow of uncertainty hanging over Trump's potential candidacy and allow him to campaign without the burden of pending criminal charges.
Shifting the focus to another topic, the article briefly touches on the age of the presidential candidates. It notes that both major party candidates are considered too old for the demanding role of the presidency. The author, himself approaching the age of 75, does not advocate for forcibly pushing older individuals off the proverbial cliff, but rather raises concerns about the suitability of 80-year-olds holding the highest office in the land.
As the debates regarding the Supreme Court's role in presidential eligibility and immunity claims continue, it remains to be seen how the court will navigate these complex issues. The future legal proceedings, as well as public perceptions, will undoubtedly shape the political landscape leading up to future elections.
