The Political Science Interpretivist

The folks at Good Authority aren’t too good at posting contrary views in the Comments section. Guess they feel it would undermine their “authority”! Andrew Rudalevige’s essay at Good Authority has some serious flaws; that is if US v Trump is to be clearly understood by political scientists, so they can explain it to their classes.   First, the very title is a blunder. He writes, “The Supreme Court’s immunity decision sidesteps history.” In fact, the Opinion follows, and draws “good authority” from, the 1803 case of Marbury v Madison. One of the things Chief Justice John Marshal wrote in Marbury is that there are two kinds of official government acts: discretionary and ministerial. He said the courts cannot question discretionary acts made by an official, because these are a matter of professional judgment. The Robert’s Opinion follows this principle of immunity, but re-states it in the more modern language of “official,” with a “core” and periphery, and “unofficial.” (More on this

                                           The media and fund raising emailers are having a ball screaming “the sky is falling! The Trump Supreme Court has given Trump ‘absolute immunity’ for whatever he wants to do as President. He’ll kill us all!” But that’s far from true. The United States v Trump The case is known as US v Trump . In its opinion, the Supreme Court didn’t give Trump anything. In fact, the Court remanded the case to the District Court, and told the lawyers for both sides to start all over again. This time, they have to consider three important points. Before explaining these, lets see how the case got to the High Court. As you probably know, Trump was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for several criminal charges alleging a conspiracy to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (SCt's Opinion, page 2. All references to the Opinion.) In the District Court, Trump’s lawyers moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity. (3) The