United States | Trump’s immunity from prosecution is a decision that revolutionizes the electoral game, believes the professor: “We are living in historic times”

of the United States presidents have immunity from prosecution in their official duties as president, the country’s highest court boat on Monday.

The decision involves the former president Donald Trump activity related to denying the result of the 2020 presidential election, but it applies to all presidents.

“Yes, this is a really big, revolutionary decision,” describes the professor of North American studies at the University of Turku Benita Heiskanen.

According to Heiskanen, a strongly divisive decision might even spark a discussion about changing the Supreme Court. For example, changing the number of judges or limiting the length of their terms may now be on the table.

Currently, Supreme Court justices in the United States are appointed for life.

Immediate change is not likely, as the Supreme Court has such a long history and established position. However, change may come about in some other way, Heiskanen believes.

“Everyone is aware that we are living in historic times,” Heiskanen puts it.

“And historical moments have always resulted in change.”

Heiskanen compares the situation to, for example, the time of the Vietnam War, when the President’s right to take military action without the consent of Congress was limited by the War Powers Act.

The law was enacted only when it became known to Congress that the President Richard Nixon had ordered the bombing of Cambodia without congressional approval.

Judiciary passed the decision by a vote of 6-3 along the conservative-liberal divide. The New York Times describes the dissenting opinion of the minority justices as one of the most damning in Supreme Court history.

Conservative judges think that liberal judges are scaring people for nothing. According to the liberal judges, the decision will give birth to a legally immune king in the United States.

A liberal judge Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in his statement an example where Trump, as president, would use the military to assassinate his political opponent or use force to stay in power with impunity.

Democrats president Joe Biden in the front nose have criticized the decision harshly and a member of the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatened on Monday to start impeachment proceedings against the judges of the court.

“Of course, that’s not realistic now, because the Republicans wouldn’t get behind something like that,” says Heiskanen.

“But this politicization of the higher court has been a fact for a long time. The judges know it themselves.”

Although according to the decision, the president officially does not have protection from prosecution in connection with his activities as a private person, it remains for the lower courts to determine what the president has done while performing official duties and what as a private person.

The trial regarding Trump’s activities in connection with the falsification of the 2020 election results will therefore continue for the time being. Next, a federal lower court judge Tanya Chutkan to find out whether, for example, tweeting was Trump’s activity as president or as an individual.

According to the judges of the Supreme Court, the matter can vary even between individual tweets.

“This is going to be really difficult and that’s what makes this so ambiguous. How can you even begin to figure out when the president acts as a private person and when in an official capacity?”, Heiskanen asks.

Heiskanen is especially looking forward to the next opinion polls.

“First there was the issue of Biden’s election debate and now this. For example, will people be afraid that Trump can change the system in his new term, or will other themes be more visible,” Heiskanen ponders.

Correction 2.7. 2:35 p.m.: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the US House of Representatives, not a senator, as was written earlier in the story.