The media have been going berserk talking ad nauseum about Presidential immunity. But it seems there are many questions that they are not asking.
- Is immunity from prosecution the same as immunity from impeachment?
Does this ruling mean that there can be no more impeachments of Presidents? Can the Republicans forget about impeaching Joe Biden?
If so, can a former President be un-impeached? Trump’s infamous phone call to Ukraine, offering the release of US weapons if they would dig up dirt on Biden, was an official act, therefore immune. Can that impeachment be reversed? Would it matter?
2. Suppose Trump, as President, orders a Navy Seal to assassinate Biden. OK, he is immune from prosecution, I get that. But what about the Seal? If he carries out the (legal) order, he himself is committing a crime, and he can be prosecuted, even if the President cannot. Or if he refuses to carry out a legal order, can he be court-martialed and thrown into jail?
And by the way, if the President orders an assassination, is that order itself now legal? Or is it illegal, but the President cannot be prosecuted for his crime, which is still a crime? Is the President a criminal or not?
3. In its decision, SCOTUS made a big deal about the separation of powers. The logic seemed pretty vague to me, but it appears to boil down to the fact that a President’s official acts are part of the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch has no business meddling in that separate Branch.
If that’s the case, what about Cabinet members and other members of the Executive Branch? Are they also immune on the same grounds? Suppose the Vice President orders someone to shoot Biden; is s/he immune from prosecution?
In its recent decisions, SCOTUS has been tying itself into legal knots trying to twist obvious truths into convoluted confusions. I can’t resist mentioning the recent decision on obstruction of a political process. The lower courts simply read the clear-cut law that states that the Jan. 6 rioters obstructed the Congressional certification of votes. But, no, SCOTUS found a way around that one.
They reasoned that the obstruction law was enacted to punish offenders back in the ENRON case, where the obstruction was of documents, not actions. Even though the law itself didn’t mention documents, SCOTUS reasoned that the law must have been about documents only, and that the Jan. 6 rioters were not obstructing documents, and were therefore not guilty under the law.
How’s that for a twist of the law? It makes a mockery of the ‘originalist’ interpretation of the Constitution. When the Second Amendment was written, the only ‘arms’ were muskets, and so, SCOTUS might argue, the Amendment applies only to the right to bear muskets, but not to semi-automatic assault rifles.
Unfortunately, I along with millions of other Americans, have lost all faith in the Supreme Court. It has become just another wing of MAGA.