Alito: Criminalizing Close Election Contests Would Destabilize Entire Foundation Of American Democracy


by Brianna Lyman

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito suggested Thursday during oral arguments regarding presidential immunity that criminalizing individuals just because they question government-run elections would destabilize true democracy.

Special counsel Jack Smith indicted former President Donald Trump for questioning the administration of the 2020 election. The high court is now hearing challenges as to whether presidents have immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office that fall within the scope of their presidential duties.

“Let me end with just a question about, what is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society, which is something that we all want?” Alito began. “I’m sure you would agree with me that a stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully if that candidate is the incumbent?”

“Of course,” attorney Michael Dreeben said.

“Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off in a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Alito asked. “And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process where the loser gets thrown in jail.”

“So I think it’s exactly the opposite, Justice Alito,” Dreeben said. “There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election and outside the record but I think of public knowledge, petitioner and his allies filed dozens of electoral challenges and my understanding is lost all but one that was not outcome determinative in any respect. There were judges that said in order to sustain substantial claims of fraud that would overturn an election results that’s certified by a state, you need evidence, you need proof and none of those things were manifested. So there’s an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence, if you lose, you accept the results, that has been the nation’s experience.”

“Thank you,” Alito interjected.

Alito appears to warn Democrats that should the high court rule that certain presidential acts are not covered by presidential immunity and Smith’s lawfare case against the former president may continue — true democratic norms would be decimated as partisan politicians could weaponize the justice system to target their opponents.

Smith indicted Trump on charges of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. In simpler terms, Smith alleges that Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen were false and that Trump knew they were false.

To support his claims, Smith alleges that since federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — which meddled in the 2020 election — told Trump the election wasn’t stolen, and he should have taken that at face value, as pointed out by Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson

But objecting to elections is a tale as old as time.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton still claims the 2016 election was stolen while Democratic Reps. Jim McGovern, Pramila Jayapal, Raul Grijalva, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters — who also called the 2000 election “fraudulent” — and Jamie Raskin all objected to Congress’ certification of electoral votes in 2017 that formally declared Trump the winner, my colleague Tristan Justice details.

The 2004 election was also considered “stolen” by New York Rep. Jerry Nadler who went so far as to declare voting machines need to be investigated.

And even after the Supreme Court ended Al Gore’s attempt to overturn the outcome of the election, there were no steps taken to throw Gore in jail for challenging the contest.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Supreme Court will decide for Trump. greg hardest hit, raped in the ass yet again.

What makes you think the lawless bastards will pay attention to the SCOTUS decision?
Like Joe and paying off student loans.

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt

Scenes like this repeated over and over again is giving the Democrats the runs.

Like slimy Harry Reid did when he ended the filibuster on judicial appointments, Democrats think they are going to hold absolute power forever. They don’t see the dangers in the precedents they establish.

Supreme Court JUST GRANTED TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY with Arguments Protecting Official Acts

Sotomayor’s ‘slam dunk’ backfires: Trump’s team torches her ‘fraudulent electors’ talking point…

Justice Sotomayor is not the brightest bulb in the box, so when she thought she had Team Trump by the you-know-what with her “fraudulent elector” theory, she must’ve felt pretty proud of herself. However, her victory was short-lived because Team Trump flipped the script on her and turned her talking points into ash during the back-and-forth over President Trump’s claim that he has “presidential immunity.”

Sotomayor found herself left holding her crumpled bag of useless talking points once Trump’s lawyers were done with her.

Trump Lawyer NUKES Sotomayor’s “Fraudulent Electors” Talking Point at SCOTUS

“Apply it to the allegations here. What is plausible about the president assisting in creating a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates, assuming you accept the facts of the complaint on their face, is that plausible that that would be within his right to do?” Sotomayor asked.

“Absolutely, your honor,” Trump attorney John Sauer responded. “We have the historical precedent we cite in the lower courts of President Grant sending federal troops to Louisiana and Mississippi in 1876 to make sure that the Republican electors got certified in those two cases, which delivered the election to Rutherford Hayes.”

“The notion that is completely implausible, I think, just can’t be supported based on the faces of this indictment or even…” he continued.

“Knowing that the slate is fake, knowing that the slate is fake, that they weren’t actually elected, that they weren’t certified by the state. He knows all those things…” Sotomayor objected.

“The indictment itself alleges, I dispute that characterization. The indictment affixes the word label to the so-called fraudulent lectures. It fixes the word fraudulent, but that’s a complete mischaracterization,” he replied.

“On the face of the indictment, it appears that there was NO DECEIT about who had emerged from the relevant state conventions, and this was being done as an alternative basis,” he concluded.

Thus buries a dishonest partisan Democrat talking point about the “fake electors” plot. It is a Constitutionally authorized process contingent upon the results of Electoral College votes.

This is what the Democrat-controlled media does: Twist the language to promote their political agenda in defiance of the law and the U.S. Constitution

An overweight, unwise Latina who has diabetes. I am hoping she stays on the Court in the same manner as RBG so that President Trump can nominate her replacement when Lou Cypher calls her with a promise of all you can eat doughnuts.

Last edited 1 month ago by TrumpWon