If you hadn’t read the news for four years, or had just come from another galaxy, the Supreme Court would de facto Granting Donald Trump immunity for his alleged federal crimes may sound like something almost reasonable.

There are “unique risks,” six right-wing justices warned, that if a president were to answer to criminal charges, his energy would be “dissipated.” He could become “unnecessarily cautious,” less willing to take “bold and unwavering action.”

But if you’ve followed even a shred of news, you know that this reasoning is utterly insane — and dangerous. The risk that the right-wing majority refuses to consider is that a president could “boldly” and “without hesitation” attempt to overthrow our constitutional democracy.

The real danger is not that an “unnecessarily cautious” president will worry too much about being charged with crimes. The danger is that a faithless president can use the vast powers of the presidency to overturn an election he lost. That’s what almost happened after the 2020 election — an issue the majority is silent about.

Nevertheless, the six believe that when a president exercises “significant constitutional powers” ​​— by performing acts authorized by the Constitution — he is completely immune from criminal prosecution.

During oral arguments in the case, Trump’s lawyers were asked about the seemingly absurd notion that a president would be immune from prosecution if he officially ordered the killing of a political rival. They didn’t dispute it. And now the Supreme Court has adopted that absurd theory.

Likewise, a president would now enjoy “absolute immunity” from prosecution if he told the attorney general, “False evidence that my opponent sold secrets to China and arrest him for treason.” He would be free to sell national secrets to Russia. Auction off pardons. Or assassinate unfriendly judges.

Where does this outrageous theory come from? Not the Constitution.

The statement by the six right-wingers has no basis in law or logic — and turns the lessons of our history on their head. The Constitution contains no language which made the president immune from criminal prosecution. The Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to an all-powerful executive branch.

The Founding Fathers considered it a feature, not a flaw, that the president would be limited under the proposed Constitution. They maintained that the president would not be a threat to liberty because he would not be above the law, unlike the king of England.

If Alexander Hamilton wroteFormer presidents who committed crimes while in office would thereafter be “prosecuted and punished in the ordinary course of law.”

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority recognized in theory that a president cannot 100 percent above the law. Even Trump’s own lawyers conceded the point.

Nevertheless, the six ignored Trump’s concessions and will now have to go through a time-consuming process for his federal criminal case to review the immunity claims. That will delay the trial until after the election — giving Trump the power to fire all the prosecutors and drop the charges against himself if he wins.

Why would conservative judges do all this to protect Trump? So they can continue to impose their extremist views on America.

The extremists currently hold a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court. But Justice Thomas is 76 and Justice Alito is 74. Their seats could become vacant in the next four years and possibly flip. By protecting Donald Trump from prosecution, they are trying to secure succession to the Supreme Court to ensure that the right wing retains its power.

The upcoming elections could determine whether the far-right majority is turned on its head, or whether this paves the way for an even greater onslaught from extreme right-wingers and politicians.

Print friendly, PDF and email