The U.S. Supreme Court just told prosecutors licking their lips over another shot at former president Donald Trump to cool off.
In a landmark 6-3 decision, the court stated former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their “official acts” and no immunity for unofficial acts.
Then, in a crushing blow to already rattled liberals, the justices sent the matter back to the lower courts to figure out precisely how to apply the decision to Trump’s case surrounding his 2020 loss.
The lawsuit states that the District Court “denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.” Any acts? That would open up past and future presidents to a lifetime of lawsuits. Who would run for president after that? The justices acknowledged the “chilling effect such exposure” would give to any president. Hench, the do-over.
If there ever was proof of prosecutorial abuse, this decision cements that concept. The justices know anyone can be indicted for anything — yes, even over a ham sandwich, as the saying goes.
So it’s back to the law books for prosecutors while Trump can remain on the campaign trail, depending on what happens next in his New York hush-money case.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in delivering yesterday’s majority decision, wrote the conspiracy charges over losing the election and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol as leaving the door wide open as to what was “official” or not according to the duties of the president.
“The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial
acts committed while in office,” Roberts writes. “They disagree, however, about whether a former President can be prosecuted for his official actions.”
A key passage says it all. Roberts is saying, in our words, that you may not like a sitting president — or hate him, as Democrats do — but you cannot tie him up in a legal swamp over decisions made while in office. Live with it, progressives, let the voters decide the justices as saying.
Let’s let Roberts explain:
“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.”
The three liberal judges, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor penning the dissent, argue the court has just reshaped “the institution of the Presidency.”
She adds the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
Here, we think she is wrong. This decision only states that a president is immune from “official” business, and the rest must be debated. Or, quit trying to hang President Trump for his decisions as president. If you don’t like them, vote him out. And, by the way, good luck with that.
