The Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Gives Trump King George III’s Power
On the eve of Independence Day, six right-wing justices issued an unhinged and dangerous ruling.
A version of this post appears concurrently as an op-ed in OtherWords.
If you hadn’t read the news in four years — or just arrived from another galaxy — the Supreme Court’s de facto grant of immunity to Donald Trump for his alleged federal crimes might sound almost reasonable.
There are “unique risks,” six right-wing justices warned, that if a president were required to answer criminal charges, his energies would be “diverted.” He might become “unduly cautious,” less willing to take “bold and unhesitating action.”
But if you’ve followed even a shred of news, you know this reasoning is utterly unhinged — and dangerous. The risk the right-wing majority refuses to consider is that a president might “boldly” and “unhesitatingly” try to overturn our constitutional democracy.
The real danger isn’t that an “unduly cautious” president will worry too much about being charged with crimes. The danger is that a faithless president can use the enormous powers of the presidency to overturn an election he lost. That’s what nearly happened after the 2020 election — a matter the majority says not one word about.
Nonetheless, the six hold that when a president is performing “core constitutional powers” — engaging in actions which the Constitution says he can do — he is totally immune to criminal prosecution.
Supreme Court adopts theory that a president is free to order that political rivals be assassinated
The Constitution provides that: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . .” Under the court’s ruling, this is a “core constitutional power,” and a president cannot be charged with any crime for any orders he gives as commander in chief.
In the oral argument of the case, Trump’s attorneys were asked about the seemingly absurd notion that a president would be immune to prosecution if he ordered a SEAL team to assassinate a political rival. They didn’t dispute it. And now the Supreme Court just adopted that absurd theory.
Similarly, a president would now enjoy “absolute immunity” from prosecution if he told the attorney general, “Forge evidence that Joe Biden sold secrets to China and arrest him for treason.” He could freely sell national secrets to Russia. Auction pardons. Or assassinate unfriendly judges or others he perceives to be his enemies.
Last year Donald Trump stated that the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, deserved to be executed. With the absolute immunity the Supreme Court just conferred, if Trump were re-elected he could order that Milley be summarily executed without being held liable.
Where does this outrageous theory come from? Not the Constitution.
The six right-wingers’ ruling has no basis in law or logic — and turns the lessons of our history upside down. The Constitution includes no language granting the president immunity from criminal charges, and the Founding Fathers were dead set against an all-powerful executive.
The Founders considered it a feature, not a fault, that under the proposed Constitution the president would be restrained. They maintained the president wouldn’t pose a threat to liberty because he wouldn’t be above the law, unlike the King of England.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote, former presidents who’d committed crimes during their presidency would thereafter be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
Right-wing justices need to help re-elect Trump so they can maintain control of the Supreme Court for decades to come
The conservative majority of the Supreme Court acknowledged, in theory, that a president is not 100 percent above the law. Even Trump’s own lawyers conceded the point.
Nonetheless, the six ignored Trump’s concessions and will now require his federal criminal trial to go through a time-consuming process to assess the immunity claims. That will delay the trial until after the election — which could give Trump the power to fire all of the prosecutors and dismiss the charges against himself if he wins.
Why would the conservative justices do all this to protect Trump? So they can continue to impose their extremist views on America.
The extremists currently enjoy a six-three Supreme Court majority. But Justice Thomas is 76 and Justice Alito is 74. Their seats could become vacant in the next four years. Were a Democratic president in a position to replace them, the conservative majority would be replaced by a five-four liberal majority.
By protecting Donald Trump from prosecution, the right-wing justices are trying to make Trump’s election more likely — in order to secure the succession at the Supreme Court, and to make sure the right maintains its power. With Trump back in office, Thomas and Alito could retire and allowing Trump to appoint even more extreme versions of them, who would be on the court for decades to come.
The upcoming election could determine whether the far-right majority is flipped on its head — or paves the way for a deeper assault from extreme judges and politicians.
What would that mean? A judicial war on government agencies that seek to protect us from climate change, unsafe drugs, polluted air and water, and monopoly power. Theocracy over personal rights to control our own bodies. Hobbling efforts to address racism. Destruction of voting rights. Emasculation of gun control efforts. And judicial corruption without end.
You make this unbelievable Supreme Court ruling comprehensible. But no less disturbing.
Brilliant ! W hav a .ot of work to do. We absolutely must not allow that disgusting SOB to be elected.