The Issue: Democrats’ criticism of the Supreme Court ruling granting limited immunity to presidents.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Chuck Schumer, who have voiced outrage over the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the president’s entitlement to immunity for official acts, need a simple civics lesson to remind them that there are three branches of government to ensure a system of checks and balances that limits the power of each branch (“It’s what court was made for,” Jonathan Turley, July 2).
AOC has vowed to file articles of impeachment against at least one justice, and Schumer called the decision “disgraceful.”
These politicians are constantly claiming that democracy is under threat. But Schumer once stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and verbally attacked Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
As public officials, they must respect the rule of law and the Constitution and set better examples for others to emulate.
Michael Headley
Brooklyn
Democrats have only themselves to blame for the recent decision on presidential immunity by the Supreme Court.
If they didn’t fall all over themselves in an effort to indict former President Donald Trump for anything and everything and in any way possible, this question would’ve never come before the Supreme Court.
The ruling protects all presidents, and the Democrats are too shortsighted to understand.
Jeff Yuzuk, Manhattan
The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity has effectively put the presidency above the law. President Biden’s outrage at the decision was sincere.
In order for Biden to prevail in November, he must put aside his outrage at the court’s ruling and not waste time trying to convince the public of the dangers this ruling presents.
Instead, he needs to see the ruling as an unintended gift.
Being president, Biden is in a position to demonstrate just how obnoxious the court’s ruling is.
What better way to illustrate the idiocy in the recent Supreme Court ruling than by example?
Irving A. Gelb
North Bergen, NJ
The SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity prompted Biden to hold a press conference where he misrepresented the majority decision, stating it granted total immunity for all actions.
That opened the flood gates for a plethora of false claims and misrepresentations.
The court merely ruled that when a president acts in an official capacity he enjoys immunity.
For example, Biden can’t be charged with homicide for the ill-advised Afghanistan withdrawal that resulted in the deaths of 13 Marines, a decision opposed by all his military advisers.
Nor can former President Barack Obama be held liable for ordering the drone counterterrorism attacks that tragically killed innocent civilians as collateral damage.
Actions taken not in an official capacity enjoy no such immunity.
In the majority opinion, it actually states: “The president is not above the law.”
Tommy Smith
Sarasota, Fla.
The implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing vast immunity to the president is akin to forming an authoritarian government in the United States.
Although most people are afraid to admit it, giving carte blanche to any government official is the demise of the American political system of checks and balances.
If the president is afraid of a political opponent, any acts to quell support for him or her might now be covered by the new understanding of the immunity ruling.
Is this how far the nation has fallen from the ideas of our Founding Fathers?
Alan Swartz
Verona, NJ
Did Biden even read, let alone understand, the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity before lambasting the decision?
This not a ruling that is limited to Trump.
It protects current and past presidents from criminal prosecution for official acts.
This could protect Biden from being criminally charged for many of his unconstitutional and nation-damaging actions over the past four years.
Robert Neglia
The Bronx