Trump’s verdict would grant immunity for murder, bribery and coups, according to progressive Supreme Court judges

The Supreme Court ruling granting Donald Trump broad immunity for his actions as president marks a turning point in the legal regime applicable to the tenant of the White House. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court exempts the president from responsibility in the exercise of his constitutional authority and declares him presumably immune in all official acts. According to the three progressive judges of the Supreme Court, this opens the way to “nightmare scenarios” in which a president can be declared immune even for the murder of political rivals, the acceptance of bribes and even for staging a coup d’état. The president, following the controversial ruling, has become a “king above the law.” For this reason, they express their “fear for democracy.”

The main dissenting vote It is written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and seconded by Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. It is all written in very harsh terms. “The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly in the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, the majority reasoned, he will now be protected from criminal prosecution,” it says.

“Do you order Seal Team 6 [fuerzas especiales] “Does the Navy assassinate a political rival? Immune. Does he stage a military coup to cling to power? Immune. Does he accept a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the president break the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he might one day face accountability for breaking the law, he would not be as bold and courageous as we would like him to be. That is the message of the majority today,” the judges said in their dissenting opinion on Monday.

“Nightmare scenarios”

“Even if these nightmare scenarios never come to pass – and I pray they never do – the damage has been done. The relationship between the president and the people he serves has been irrevocably changed. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law,” they add.

The judges stress that whether it is described as presumed or absolute, according to the majority’s thesis, “a president’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.” “This is as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless,” they say.

They also criticize another aspect of the ruling that also serves to shield Donald Trump and make it more difficult to prosecute him for the alleged crimes he committed to alter the results of the 2020 election. The ruling declares that evidence relating to acts for which the president is immune can play no role in any criminal proceedings against him. “This assertion, that it will prevent the Government from using a president’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in the prosecution of private crimes, is meaningless,” they say.

The controversial majority decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, holds that “the president cannot be impeached for exercising his fundamental constitutional powers, and is entitled, at a minimum, to presumptive immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts.” It states that as long as the president acts in a manner that “does not manifestly or palpably exceed [su] authority”, is carrying out an official action.

The conservative majority tries to qualify the content of the ruling with some clarifications and obvious statements, such as that “the president does not enjoy immunity for his unofficial acts”, that “not everything the president does is official”, and that immunity “applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of their politics or party”. The ruling directly benefits Trump, but it seems that the judges are forced to say that it is not a decision tailored to him.

No other president has needed to invoke such immunity. The dissenting opinion recalls how President Gerald Ford granted a pardon to Richard Nixon after his resignation over the Watergate affair. Both Ford’s pardon and Nixon’s acceptance of it “necessarily rested on the understanding that the former president faced potential criminal liability,” they explain.

“Never in the history of our Republic has a president had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the circumstances of his office to violate criminal law. However, from now on, all former presidents will enjoy such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide by will not provide protection. Fearing for our democracy, I dissent,” he concludes.

The “keys to the dictatorship”

The ruling comes at a time when Donald Trump is seeking a second term in office in the elections on November 5. In fact, with the delay in resolving the case and the meaning of their decision, the Supreme Court judges have cleared the way for Trump. If we add to that his victory in last week’s debate in Atlanta and the doubts he has sown among Democrats about Joe Biden’s ability to face a second term, the chances of Trump returning to the White House are high. Now, he would do so with that kind of protection granted by the judges, including the three he himself appointed.

“Donald Trump has just been handed the keys to a dictatorship,” Biden’s senior deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks said in a call with reporters. “The Supreme Court has just given Trump a license to murder and imprison whoever he wants to gain power.”

“The Trump court has left our country vulnerable to attack from within. It has removed the barriers that protect us from a president who tries to be a dictator, leaving us at the whims of the person who occupies that office. Now, more than ever, we must come together and prevent Donald Trump from occupying that office again,” Fulks added.

Follow all the international information at Facebook and Xor in our weekly newsletter.