The Presidents all chose not to do what President Trump is doing today because they wanted to avoid “the appearance of impropriety.” The Separation of Powers is a bedrock Constitutional principle. Just as the Chief Justice does not insist on hanging around in the Oval Office looking over the President’s shoulder while he does his job, it seems similarly inappropriate for the President to be perceived as watching and judging the performances of members of the Court.
The problem, strangely enough, is like the matter of playwrights attending rehearsals of the shows they have written. Let the directors do their jobs without the added pressure of being under the playwright’s often disapproving eye. The President shadowing the Supreme Court as it does its difficult job is infinitely worse.
We all know Trump isn’t attending the oral argument today because he likes sitting in court. He is there hoping that his presence will, in some way, further the cause he supports and maybe influence the Justices who are capable of being influenced. This is indeed one of those “democratic norms” Trump is so often accused, usually unfairly, of breaching. In this case, the accusation would be fair.
The President of the United States should respect the Separation of Powers, and the tradition of staying out of the Supreme Court bolsters that. Trump was wrong.
Ethics Alarms 
I disagree.
I think people alluding to “the appearance of impropriety” are often just saying that something hasn’t been done before, and so it shouldn’t be done going forward. Why would it be improper to witness the legal arguments before a court that might materially effect you? In any other context, we’d argue until we’re blue in the face that it’s a fundamental right in any democracy worth the name to be able to face directly, in person, the process that we are subject to.
Ditto.
The same reason a boss flirting with a subordinate is unethical. The President isn’t just any spectator. He automatically carries his power and authority with him. It is attempted intimidation and influence or looks like it is (hence the “appearance of impropriety.”). Apparently the Justices made it clear that he was not welcome, and he left.
I mean… Not only is this not a great comparison, but I think you know it. The President is a very powerful person, sure, but the judiciary is a coequal branch of government, they have a whole lot of power too, and they are not subordinate to him, and no one who matters is really confused by that. The justices certainly aren’t.
And while the president is powerful, he is also a person, and that means that the Supreme Court just asked the respondent in the case before them not to attend. I don’t think they should have asked that, I think that’s grossly inappropriate.
HT
Well said. I was trying to formulate my reason why I had no issue with his attendance. The Presidents attendance cannot influence the justices who enjoy lifetime appointments. He has no power to intimidate any justice or judge yet they can negate or impose limits on his decisions .
As for why it had not been done before is speculative at best.
Trump screws up so many things that could have been handled better, and to better advantage. So this is likely just one more the same: an impropriety that will be focused on by the opposition and if this war in service to Israel does not resolve well, he will cause the loss of the mid-terms, become neutered, get impeached, then likely go to jail. (If the war is won, the Straight opened, and catastrophe averted, things will look quite different). (The world enemies of Trump (and US power) must see to it that this war is extended.)
Bad decision on his part, strategically.
It will be interesting to hear what President Trump has to say tonight during his address to the nation. Alas, I’ll have to read about it tomorrow as I don’t even stay up until 9PM on New Year’s Eve! You know, “Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise”; at least I’m healthy.
The numbskulls on X who don’t grasp the difference between illegal immigrants and immigrants are gleefully arguing that, without birthright citizenship, none of the President’s children are citizens because their mothers were immigrants.
Legal immigrants. Who weren’t pregnant when they arrived here. Who gave birth to their children after being legally married to Trump, a man who was born a U.S. citizen.
This is how addled the Left has made people: they don’t understand birthright citizenship, anchor babies, legal immigration versus illegal immigration and what makes the Trump children American citizens.