The Supreme’s Ruling on Presidential Immunity

Good news! The Supreme Court Justices seem to be acting reasonably for a change, by confirming that one can’t indict a president for, well, being a president!

If our presidents were criminally liable for their official acts as president, given the high degree of rancor and vindictiveness in American politics, we’d be hard pressed to field any presidential candidates at all—except perhaps for low IQ DEI types.

But leave it to John “the weasel” Roberts to make sure there’s a loophole somewhere.

Here’s an excerpt from the Court’s 6-3 ruling:

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Here’s Roberts’ weaseling act:

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the ultimate analysis on which of the allegations in Trump’s indictment are considered official acts subject to immunity is “best left to the lower courts.”

And while Roberts affirmed that Trump’s discussions with the Justice Department meet the standard of “absolute immunity,” those involving his interactions with his Vice President, state officials, and even his public comments, “present more difficult questions.”

Hmmm…. So the president’s interactions with his own VP and state governors, and even what he says, for example, at public rallies—perhaps including one on January 6th, 2021—may not be protected by presidential immunity? Why should his interactions with the DOJ be immune from prosecution, but not his interactions with his own VP?

Could that possibly be because he asked his VP Judas Pence to do the right thing by denying certification to the battleground states whose 2020 elections were riddled with highly suspicious  “anomalies”?  After all, why go through the motions of certification if you’re never going to call out flagrant election fraud and request an investigation, a recount, and/or a one-day redo of the election in the relevant states?

But the award for hypocrisy goes not to Roberts but to Sotomayor. In fact, I’d give her a Nobel Prize for Irony, for the following comments in her dissent as she laments the supposed dire results of the Court’s majority ruling:

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.  …the President is now a king above the law.

Hmmm…. Has Biden, not to mention Obama before him, ever violated the law? Ever weaponized the Justice Department? Ever exploited the trappings of the office? Ever used his official power for evil ends, such as aiding and abetting a huge invasion of our nation through our southern border, etc.?

It seems Justice Sotomayor somehow missed these pesky details.  But of course she’d never want a president to be “a king above the law.” 

Unless he was a Democrat!

©2024. Cherie Zaslawsky. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: SCOTUS Weighs in on Presidential Immunity in Trump v. United States

Please follow Cherie Z’s Truth Be Told Substack.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *