Der Furor Gets the Return on His Investment

Historian Heather Cox Richardson began her "Letters from an American" essay last night with these words: 

"Today the United States Supreme Court overthrew the central premise of American democracy: that no one is above the law."

And ended with these words:

"Today’s decision destroyed the principle on which this nation was founded, that all people in the United States of America should be equal before the law."

In a blizzard of highfalutin' language that ignored the lessons of history and the very reason the United States sought independence from Great Britain nearly 250 years ago, the Supreme Court gave Der Furor the gift he wanted, the power that no other president in history has ever felt he needed ... absolute immunity for any action he takes. In the words of the decision in the case of Trump v. United States, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the 6-3 (no surprise, there) majority,

"Held: 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."

And who decides which acts are "official" and which are "unofficial?" The Supreme Court*.

And what of the concept of criminal intent that applies in every other criminal trial? It doesn't apply. In the words of the decision,

"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose ... Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on 'every allegation that an action was unlawful,' depriving immunity of its intended effect."

Other commentators more legally educated and eloquent than I have expressed shock and outrage at this appalling decision that makes a mockery of the words Equal Justice Under Law engraved on the Supreme Court building and contributes to the ongoing destruction of the court's reputation.

If you didn't think it was important to vote in November, and the implications of the ultraconservative Project 2025 don't bother you, think again. As President Biden said in the wake of the decision,

“There are no kings in America. Each, each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States ... (with) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Have a good day, and get angry enough to do your civic duty. Come November, vote like your democracy depended on it, because it does.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* When it's not too busy deciding whether executive agencies can impose rules based on laws passed by Congress, or what reproductive freedoms women can have.