During the Supreme Court hearing on Thursday regarding Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, Justice Sonia Sotomayor used the opportunity to push the debunked “fake electors” narrative favored by Democrats.
The hearing focused on Trump’s defense lawyer, John Sauer, who argued that Trump should be immune from criminal prosecutions due to his status as president and actions taken during his time in office. Sauer referenced the indictment by Special Counsel Jack Smith over Trump’s speech questioning the 2020 election results and the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol.
During questioning, Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about a president using official powers in an outrageous manner, prompting Sotomayor to question whether Trump’s alleged creation of fraudulent electoral candidates was within his rights. Sauer cited historical examples to support his argument, but Sotomayor continued to press the issue of the legitimacy of the electors.
Contrary to Sotomayor’s claims, the use of alternate electors during the 2020 election was not unprecedented or unlawful, as demonstrated by historical examples such as the 1960 presidential contest between Kennedy and Nixon. The existence of alternate electors would have ensured that the will of the people was upheld in the event of legal disputes over election results.
Sotomayor’s activism from the bench is part of a larger trend, as seen in recent indictments by Arizona and Michigan attorneys general against Republican electors. These actions echo the calls for electoral disobedience seen after Trump’s victory in 2016, demonstrating a double standard in the treatment of election results.
Shawn Fleetwood, a staff writer for The Federalist, highlights these issues and provides insight into the ongoing debate surrounding presidential immunity and the legitimacy of electoral processes. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood.
