SLOBODIAN: What the president does is legal because he's the president

A monumental 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that a US president has immunity from prosecution for official acts in office is either a “big win” for democracy or sets a “dangerous precedent.” Opinion is sharply divided along party lines.Predictably, the decision sent the Democrats, already going after former president Donald Trump in multiple courtrooms in different states, into a hysterical tailspin. It sure throws a wrench into the November ‘convict Trump’ election strategy they pinned their hopes on.So what if experts like respected constitutional scholar Gregg Jarrett agree the decision is sound? It thwarts the Democrats’ underhanded efforts to weaponize the justice system to win the election. Now they may have to rely on their abysmal record and the faith of American voters in President Joe Biden’s abilities as support evaporates in swing states and among formerly reliable voting blocs — black, Hispanic, suburban women and youth. Uh-oh.Trump v United States asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether a president can be criminally prosecuted for crimes committed in office as part of “official acts.”Trump’s legal team argued that immunity from prosecution protects any president making decisions in office. Fear of possible prosecution could hinder, impair, interfere with good judgement — and harm the country.Trump’s attorney John Sauer argued in April that without this protection a president cannot do the job, if he's always facing the prospects of charges and imprisonment. And that it would “distort the president’s decision-making, precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed.”The ruling impacts criminal cases against Trump, centering on Special Council Jack Smith’s dogged and almost manic determination to prosecute him for allegedly trying to overthrow the 2020 election results (he departed the White House on schedule) and causing the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capital (he told supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.”)It could also affect criminal prosecutions underway against Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents and the controversial Georgia Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ 13-count racketeering and conspiracy case against him citing election interference allegations uncannily similar to those by Smith.The Democrats salivating over Trump’s recent 34 felony convictions (to be appealed) fervently hoped he’d be hauled back into court and kept off the campaign trail before the election. That likely won’t happen now.“I think the immediate take away is that this DC prosecution is on life support. It may even be in hospice care,” Trump attorney and former prosecutor Will Scharf told FOX News.But even with the highest court weighing in no one underestimates the politically motivated Smith and Democrat cronies.“Solid SCOTUS ruling today,” posted Don Trump Jr on X. “I’m sure the corrupt prosecutors and DC judge will work overtime to continue their lawfare. It’s all they have left.”Chief Justice John Roberts penned the ruling inclusive of all presidents.“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.”The Supreme Court didn’t hand any president carte blanche powers.“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,” he wrote. “But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the constitution.”“But under our system of separated powers the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower district court in Washington to determine what are “official” and “unofficial” acts by Trump.Roberts also wrote: “At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose ‘no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’”Dissenting liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: "It makes a mockery of the principle that no man is above the law.” Sotomayor and fellow dissenting liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson argued the ruling was a threat to democracy.Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh supported the ruling.“The President must be able to perform his constitutional duties without undue interference from prosecutorial scrutiny,” opined Thomas.All six concurred that to “eviscerate” immunity would give prosecutors too much power — exactly what Smith helped himself to.“It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly — invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge,” deemed the ruling.Biden was not pleased.“It's a terrible disservice for the people of this nation. So now, now the American people will have to do what the courts should have been willing to do but will not — the American people will have to render a judgment about Donald Trump's behavior.”Careful what you wish for. Trump’s favourability increases with every attack by Ol’ Joe and the gang.Biden also warned that Trump “will be more emboldened to do whatever he wants” if he gets back into the Oval Office.Democrats and lapdog media have long been spinning the fear factor — that Trump will seek revenge on his opponents, even arrest and lock them up.Last February, at a town hall in South Carolina, when asked if “settling old scores” would interfere with his policies when he’s #47, Trump replied: “I don’t care about the revenge thing. Success will be my revenge.”Trump was pleased with the ruling.“Big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American,” he posted on Truth Social.“Hyper-partisan prosecutors like Jack Smith cannot weaponize the rule of law to go after the administration’s chief political rival, and we hope the left will stop its attacks on President Trump and uphold democratic norms,” said Jim Jordon, Republican House of Judiciary Committee chair.“The Democrats have proven they will do everything in their power — including weaponizing our justice system — to destroy their top political opponent Donald Trump,” said Republican House Majority Whip Tom Emmer. “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a positive step in the right direction of ending their senseless lawfare.”So, the Democrats and their legal puppets got their fingers slapped by the highest court. Did they learn their lesson? Will they play nice now?Of course not. New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wailed that the decision was an “assault on democracy.”“The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control,” she wrote on X on July 1.“It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”

SLOBODIAN: What the president does is legal because he's the president

Related Stories