|
SCOTUS's immunity ruling looks even worse now
The administration's wild threats against Obama show it did nothing but embolden Trump.
|
| |||||||||||||||
 |
🗣️ Paid subscribers keep Public Notice free. If you appreciate our fiercely independent coverage of American politics, please sign up and support us. 👇
Can you believe it has been over a year since the conservatives on the Supreme Court invented a very special immunity for a very special president?
It’s arguably the worst decision to come out of the Roberts Court, which is saying something. And it isn’t a reach to say that if there had been no immunity decision, there likely would be no Donald Trump second term.
 |
|
Without the immunity decision, Trump would probably still be dragging out his appeals in his multitude of criminal cases, and the rest of us would be living in a world where the federal government remains functional. Instead, Trump has taken full advantage of that immunity, not just to dodge his crimes, but to crown himself a king, above all laws. And thus far, the Court seems more than happy to help.
On Tuesday, sitting in his increasingly gilded Oval Office, Trump was served a softball question about who he should have the Department of Justice prosecute in light of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s so-called revelations about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
“It would be President Obama,” Trump said. “And Biden was there with him ... the leader of the gang was Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. He's guilty. This is treason.”
On Bluesky, Just Security’s Asha Rangappa pointed out that one of the rationales for the Court’s conservatives granted Trump immunity was “that it would prevent politically motivated investigations against former political opponents.” It seems impossible, but that justification somehow sounds even more craven and stupid than it did a year ago when Chief Justice Roberts claimed that the independence of the executive branch may be “significantly undermined” if a former president’s official acts are “routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions.”
You see? John Roberts was just looking out for future presidents, because surely granting Donald Trump immunity would guarantee that he would not try to criminally prosecute previous occupants of the White House. If there’s one thing we all know, it’s that Donald Trump is very meticulous about adhering to court orders and not at all inclined to use the power of his office to attack anyone.
Oh wait. That’s pretty much all Trump has done since taking office again in January.
Presidential immunity (exceptions apply)
The immunity decision was a literal get-out-of-jail-free card for Trump. The conservative majority took an absurdly expansive view of what constitutes an “official act” for which he would have absolute immunity.
Trying to figure out a way to overturn the 2020 election? Totally an official act because Trump talked to Department of Justice officials about how to do it. Pressuring former Vice President Mike Pence to break the law by refusing to certify Biden’s victory? Per Roberts, also an official act, because they were discussing their “official responsibilities.” Oh, and also, if you’re trying to sort out what is an official act or an unofficial one, “courts cannot inquire into the president’s motives,” and acts are not unofficial simply because they violate a law.
A note from Aaron: Enjoying this article from Lisa? Then please sign up to support our work 📈 Paid subscribers keep PN free for everyone 📈