It has not been a good week for liberal America. Donald Trump drove over Joe Biden with a tank during the first debate, which led to the inevitable meltdown across the Democratic Party. The Supreme Court gutted the core of the nonsense surrounding the January 6 defendants in the Fischer decision, which answered the legal questions concerning the government’s use of charging people through “the obstruction of an official proceeding” statute. That’s one of the charges that Special Counsel Jack Smith filed against Trump. That case might be falling apart—law professor Jonathan Turley described it as the wings being ripped off of Smith’s case.
Katie wrote about the long-awaited decision on presidential immunity, wherein a 6-3 decision, the president, in his official capacity, is immune from criminal prosecution:
The Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 - citing Article II of the U.S. Constitution - that former President Donald Trump in his official capacity, and more broadly the office of the United States presidency, has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
“It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party," the opinion states.
The liberal media reaction would probably be more intense if they weren’t still licking their wounds from last Thursday night’s debate. The Biden campaign is still putting out fires, but Sotomayor’s dissent, which veered into psycho territory, is being peddled by the liberal media as a ruling, which is a little funny. The liberal justice said by this interpretation, presidents can order US Special Forces to assassinate political rivals or something.
Sotomayor's dissent littered with citations to things she heard on podcasts.
— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) July 1, 2024
This, in turn, led to liberals wondering if Biden could kill Trump. As Bonchie at RedState observed, liberals don’t know the difference between a ruling and a dissent. Also, some January 6 ‘survivors’ were triggered by the decision. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said she was going to file impeachment charges against the Court upon her return from recess. Former Obama Eric Holder also went apoplectic.
The ink on the Supreme Court immunity decision isn’t even dry, and the Left is already fantasizing about Biden dropping bombs on the Supreme Court and killing Trump to prevent him from winning the election and becoming president. pic.twitter.com/M687rMcNh4
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 1, 2024
https://t.co/7g28Uvnsdy pic.twitter.com/FueCFknbBH
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 1, 2024
So the Supreme Court just okayed Biden - hypothetically - assassinating Donald Trump? Am I following their legal reasoning correctly?
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) July 1, 2024
Progressives treat politics as an existential battle because they assume the right would create a murderous totalitarian regime if they ever got real power
— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) July 1, 2024
They assume this because that’s what they want to do https://t.co/vZqrNSJIKE
Are all the Hill staffers who lived through J6 ok right now? Asking because as one of them I am very much not.
— Stephanie Perera (@ItsStephPerera) July 1, 2024
MSNBC legal analyst argues Supreme Court decision will allow presidents to order the assassination of anyone deemed a political adversary pic.twitter.com/RcFceFOPHO
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 1, 2024
Judd Legum doesn’t know the difference be between a ruling and a meaningless dissent. https://t.co/f4INw338g3
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) July 1, 2024
Sotomayor: With fear for our democracy, I dissent. pic.twitter.com/Sr5dmv8SoH
— Leah Litman (@LeahLitman) July 1, 2024
The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 1, 2024
Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.
I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.
Our democracy has been gravely wounded
— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) July 1, 2024
The Trump immunity decision says: a president CAN VIOLATE THE CRIMINAL LAW if he acts within his broadly defined “constitutional authority”
Absurd and dangerous
There is no basis in the Constitution for this Court constructed…
It’s been a very good couples of days for America and the rule of law.
***
Not that gold stars are to be awarded to the establishment press, but not everyone freaked out today:
The most agonizing liminal space in American public life: the interval between a monumental Supreme Court decision and a credible explanation of what it means.
— Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) July 1, 2024
Join the conversation as a VIP Member