Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not hold back in her dissent.
“Let the President violate 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 may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
“Let the President violate 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 may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.”
The justice did not end the dissent with the traditional “respectfully” language.
“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Sotomayor wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion for the Court’s majority, said:
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
It is crazy how even the intelectual elite of the liberal world -SCOTUS- engages in fear mongering rhetoric. The majority delivered a balanced approach that would leave room for criminalization without "chilling" the presidency. Somehow, all 3 left judges coincidently think this allows a president to authorize an assignation. Key word by Robert's is "presumptive immune." Some intellectual honesty would be nice for a change.
ReplyDeleteThe court was very careful with its wording - in his official capacity and under the rules of the constitution. So no, he can't order a strike team to take out his opponents.
ReplyDeleteThe court was very careful to show its bias to Trump 1) taking the case against overwhelming precedent 2) delaying ruling 3) commenting on the special prosecutor which wasn't an issue raised by Trump's lawyers 4) dodging defining the issue of official acts so as to delay the process for a very long time 5) he can order assignations and prosecutions by simply claim they are official acts to defend America
DeleteThis is classic liberal acidity. 1. SCOTUS, particularly the conservatives, have long been critsised as favoring vague rulings. 2. As noted in the oral arguments, there is virtually no precedent here (the little precedent is actually pro-Trump). 3. President Obama ordered assassinations and nobody had a problem with it because the justice department was assumed to be neutral and would therefore understand. Now that the Dems have successfully weaponized the justice department, it is necessary to enshrined the immunity of the commander in chief. 4. Nothing really changed because the president has the power of pardon anyways. 5. Everyone under him in the Chain of command is not immune.
DeleteI hope this clarifies things for the fear mongers and willful ignorants.