I think your point about the concern with a future president prosecuting a political opponent is spot on -- but that's exactly what makes it important that the court issue a broader rule in this case.
First, when that potential prosecution does occur the court's job will be harder than it is now. For all I approve of charity, I fear that …
I think your point about the concern with a future president prosecuting a political opponent is spot on -- but that's exactly what makes it important that the court issue a broader rule in this case.
First, when that potential prosecution does occur the court's job will be harder than it is now. For all I approve of charity, I fear that in a potential prosecution of a democratic president some justices might suddenly find it harder to reach a ruling ending the prosecution and the political fervor will only make the decision harder (lots of fervor now but less about the parts that don't apply to Trump). Worse, whoever is doing the prosecuting will feel the deciscion is hypocritical after allowing Trump to be prosecuted -- possibly to the extent of creating a constitutional crisis
Also, there is the issue that even if any conviction is ultimately overturned merely allowing that kind of political prosecution to go on could have hugely harmful effects. Especially if the court was to decide this case in a way that didn't create a right to immunity from trial only conviction (eg no pre-comviction appeal based on immunity).
So I agree that sometimes it's better not to issue a broad rule but I'm not convinced this is one of those times.
I think your point about the concern with a future president prosecuting a political opponent is spot on -- but that's exactly what makes it important that the court issue a broader rule in this case.
First, when that potential prosecution does occur the court's job will be harder than it is now. For all I approve of charity, I fear that in a potential prosecution of a democratic president some justices might suddenly find it harder to reach a ruling ending the prosecution and the political fervor will only make the decision harder (lots of fervor now but less about the parts that don't apply to Trump). Worse, whoever is doing the prosecuting will feel the deciscion is hypocritical after allowing Trump to be prosecuted -- possibly to the extent of creating a constitutional crisis
Also, there is the issue that even if any conviction is ultimately overturned merely allowing that kind of political prosecution to go on could have hugely harmful effects. Especially if the court was to decide this case in a way that didn't create a right to immunity from trial only conviction (eg no pre-comviction appeal based on immunity).
So I agree that sometimes it's better not to issue a broad rule but I'm not convinced this is one of those times.