Before the Supreme Court adjourned for the summer, it handed down one of the most troublesome rulings for Democrats in this campaign cycle. In the case of Trump v. United States, the court ruled that the President has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office. In other words, as long as the President acts within the confines of his constitutional duties as expressed in Article II of the Constitution, he is safe from criminal charges.
Thank God for the Supreme Court.
Democrats have screeched for over three years that as President, Trump conspired to foment an “insurrection” at the Capitol on January 6 in order to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The prosecution in this case argues that Trump broke the law by urging supporters to storm the Capitol Building to disrupt the counting of electoral votes. Trump has consistently argued that his refusal to accept the 2020 election results stem from his presidential duties to ensure election laws are being fully upheld. This, henceforth, is considered an “official act” of the President.
To be clear, the insurrection allegations are unequivocally false, as Trump made no such comments calling for people to “storm the Capitol Building.” However, he did call for peaceful protest, which is protected by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court torched the prosecution’s case in the landmark 6-3 ruling, sending the case back to the lower D.C. court for review.
Monday’s ruling, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, does not create a new standard, but rather reiterates what has been true forever. Presidential immunity has been an unspoken rule since the nation’s inception. The rule exists to provide presidents with exclusive privileges that foster stress-free execution of the law. Roberts emphasizes this in the majority opinion, “The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive."
If presidential immunity did not exist, the President would be constantly walking on eggshells when making tough decisions, effectively crippling his duties as Commander-in-Chief. Political opponents would use the rule of law against their predecessors for contentious decisions made during their tenure in office. The Presidency itself would be enshrouded in unending litigation, making effective execution of the law virtually impossible. This is not what the Framers envisioned when they were crafting the Executive Branch.
Writing for the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the majority’s opinion completely out of context and added fuel to the Left’s absurd claims about presidential immunity. She drummed up inanities like, “the President is now a king above the law,” and accused the ruling of “mak[ing] a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
The biggest over-exaggeration of Sotomayor’s rant is expressed in a litany of fanciful hypotheticals. Quote:
“When [the President] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
Absurd, absurd, absurd.
Chief Justice Roberts retorts the nature of Sotomayor’s dissent in section IV-C of the Court’s opinion. Quote:
“As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.”
Roberts first dispels the dissent’s exaggerations as “wholly disproportionate,” then swiftly clarifies the ruling’s future implications. Further in the same section, he addresses claims that the Court supposedly places the President “above the law.” Quote:
“Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. Accounting for that reality … does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives.”
Presidential immunity does not place the President above the law; it reinforces the law to its fullest extent.
The Left, uninterested in the reasoning of the majority opinion, took Sotomayor’s dissenting rant and claimed it to be the law of the land. Liberals on Twitter even went as far as to insanely suggest assassinating Donald Trump and members of the Supreme Court.
Here’s left-wing influencer and DNC payee, Harry Sisson: “According to the Supreme Court, Biden could now send in Seal Team 6 to take all of them out. He could send in the military to take out Trump. He has ‘immunity’ for official acts now!”
Here’s attorney Bradley P. Moss: “The Supreme Court just gave Biden unequivocal immunity to order the military to take action against Trump. Today. Right now.”
And here’s journalist Aaron Rupar: “if President Biden declared today's Supreme Court ruling to be an assault on democracy and ordered Chief Justice John Roberts imprisoned indefinitely, would that be an ‘official act?’”
To the surprise of no one, liberals took a ruling that is self-evident and pretended to not understand what it means while vomiting their sick fantasies onto the internet.
This ruling establishes a great truth, even greater than its expressed intent. Aside from reiterating the Executive Branch’s need for substantial immunity, it also reiterates the utmost importance of the separation of powers and the importance of the Judicial Branch. Oftentimes, it has been the judiciary tossing wrenches into the gears of big government during times of unfettered Democrat control of the other two respective branches.
Most people forget about the power of that third, understated branch that accentuates the Founders’ intentions of an equally checked and balanced constitutional government. When the legislative and executive branches, assuming they are both controlled by the same party, go running mad with unbridled power, the judicial branch is charged with the agency to humble both of them within the bounds of the Constitution.
Although Democrats pose control of both the White House and one house of Congress, that pesky Supreme Court was likely to shut them down on their biggest oversteps. They understood this predicament well, which is why they campaigned so harshly in 2020 on packing the Supreme Court with liberal judges to cancel out Donald Trump’s conservative picks, taking a tactic out of socialist President Franklin Roosevelt’s playbook.
That is also why AOC tweeted out the call for impeaching SCOTUS justices after the ruling. The Left just can’t stand when their authority is questioned.
Now that the Supreme Court has essentially trashed the prosecution’s argument against Trump, Democrats are bound to continue their crusade against the highest court in the land. From AOC’s intent to impeach SCOTUS justices to calls of packing the court, elected Republicans must hold the line to protect our prestigious Judicial Branch from the same corruption that has ravaged the Legislative and Executive branches respectively. It is imperative to saving our Republic.
