The Supreme Court’s decision Monday in Donald TrumpThe Immunity Case is a 119-page distillation of everything that is wrong with our politics. History will judge harshly the decision that creates an imaginary “absolute immunity” for a president’s official acts.
The Republican majority’s opinion in the Trump immunity case is a disaster of unconstitutional thinking that fails to meet the originalist standards that conservative justices have so convincingly and arduously set as guidance for the highest court of our country. It is a betrayal of the idea that no man is above the law.
The dissent that puts forward compelling originalist thinking about the case, and makes clear that Trump should be criminally indicted like any other American, begins with a blatant lie.
If the public ever realizes the extent to which the Court’s Republican members have abandoned their own standards of judicial decision-making and the extent to which the Democratic members have openly descended into the fantasyland of “resistance,” the Court’s reputation will Supreme as the most trusted branch of government may never recover.
The biggest problem with the majority’s position is that it completely invents immunity. As the dissent argues, the Constitution clearly contemplates the criminal prosecution of a president for wrongdoing when it states that impeachment proceedings do not protect individuals covered by the Impeachment Clause from future criminal liability. This includes presidents.
Moreover, the Founders knew about the immunity of the head of government. King Charles, whom they so despised, had it. In order to distinguish the president of the United States from a king, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers that the president “should be liable to personal punishment and disgrace.”
Disregarding the founders’ vision, the Supreme Court literally gave Trump permission to imprison his political opponents or accept bribes for official acts while in office without fear of prosecution when he leaves its functions.
The dissenting opinion signed by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson launches into a laudable and originalist thesis that Trump is responsible for his criminal misconduct, but begins with a lie: “The (majority) decision Court grants former President Trump all the immunity he requested and more. »
This is indeed the only positive point of the day. The majority did not grant Trump the absolute immunity he requested. For some presidential powers, those least tied to the office, immunity is a “rebuttable presumption” and for “unofficial” acts, such as inciting a mob to storm the Capitol on June 6 January 2021, judges offer even less protection.
This means lower courts will have the opportunity to determine the facts of the cases and decide whether Trump should face a criminal trial for his attempt to overturn the 2020 Democratic election.
This is unlikely to happen before the November election, so voters will ultimately decide Trump’s fate. That’s little consolation, as Trump’s chances of winning are growing while a decrepit president, Joe Biden, crumbles before our eyes by the day.
A dissent has only one mission: to present a clearly correct point of view that will one day rally reformers and save the republic we all love so much. This did not happen today.
David Mastio, a former USA Today editor and columnist, is regional editor for The central square and regular correspondent for Star Opinion. Follow him on X: @DavidMastio or send him an email at dmastio1@yahoo.com
