In reading the summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s immunity decision and the subsequent comments from politicians, news analysts, legal experts and law professors, one would think that democracy is over.
But let’s be reasonable and look at this court. Most Supreme Court watchers expected a middle-of-the-road decision. The president has no immunity from “unofficial acts.” Now the huge question is: What are those?
This court is famous for passing decisions back to the states and/or lower federal courts. The justices did that with redistricting and with abortion, to name two examples. This time, they said the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia could decide which acts the president performed on Jan. 6 were “unofficial.” So far, that court and the appellate court in D.C. have been tough on Jan. 6 defendants.
Multiple justices on today’s Supreme Court came from the Federalist Society. This group follows the originalist theory of the Constitution. Its members believe that the words are clear and not open to much interpretation. If one looks at Article II of the Constitution, one finds the presidential official acts listed plainly.
Richard Nixon once said, “If the president does it, it is not a crime.” Even if Gerald Ford had not pardoned him, the D.C. court would have found that paying off burglars to not speak in court was not an official act.
The president takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. That document states that the president must execute the laws passed by Congress. If he fails to do that, he can be impeached and thrown out of office.
So if people are upset about the two choices at the top of the ticket, let’s concentrate on Congress.
— Jan Goldberg, Riverside
System working as designed
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump had immunity from prosecution for any “official” acts while he was in office, which could include sending fake electors to Congress.
Some people are shocked and appalled by this decision. But, in my opinion, it clearly demonstrates that the system is working exactly as it was designed. The Federalist Society packed the court with right-wing radicals, and they continue to perform as expected.
Let’s all remember this when we vote in November.
— Bob Chimis, Elmwood Park
Ruling applies to Biden, too
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that Joe Biden, in his official constitutional capacity to protect the general welfare of citizens, could now order the extermination of Donald Trump.
The ruling applies to all presidents.
— Susan Haley, Oak Brook
Biden is protected as well
Like many of the writers to the Tribune, I am also upset about the Supreme Court’s recent decision on immunity.
After his term ends, Joe Biden will be able to use this decision to stop prosecution of his refusal to enforce immigration laws and his unconstitutional acts to eliminate student debt. This decision, along with special counsel Robert Hur’s evaluation that Biden is not competent to stand trial for his possession of classified documents back to when he was a senator, will allow Biden to finally, completely retire to the beach.
— Dale Brown, Gurnee
Advice for President Biden
According to the Supreme Court, presidential immunity is now a reality, and the president of the United States is above the law.
For the sake of our nation and to preserve democracy for future generations, President Joe Biden should have citizen Donald Trump arrested for crimes against America and declare himself president for life or until all charges against Trump are settled. Biden shouldn’t even hesitate because he knows Trump would do it to him in an instant if their roles were reversed.
— Tom Witte, Batavia
Upending the rule of law
“No man is above the law” — except if you are the president of the United States and particularly if you have managed to appoint enough Supreme Court justices who are willing to interpret the law in a way that expressly benefits you.
If reelected, Donald Trump would be free to carry through with plans to weaponize the Justice Department to persecute anyone who has displeased him, as part of his “official duties,” and with the approval of the John Roberts Court.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has upended the rule of law as it was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Thus, this court reveals the wink and nod behind its “originalist” interpretation of our Constitution. While previous Supreme Courts have delivered shameful decisions, with this immunity decision, along with the Chevron decision and, of course, the Dobbs decision, the Roberts Court has indeed proved itself to be one for the ages, in terms of its activism and its magnification of the power of the presidency. Shameful!
— Mary Testa, Darien
What is Biden thinking?
President Joe Biden’s claim that the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity limiting it to “official acts” means the end of democracy as we know it because a president can no longer be held to account for anything, is beyond the pale.
Desperation? Floundering? What are he and his staff thinking?
But setting that aside, you can expect the Republican House to start demanding many documents, emails, etc., to which the president will of course claim immunity.
— Neil Gaffney, Chicago
Sad and frightening time
So it has happened in our lifetime. The Supreme Court decision basically bestowing immunity to any elected president has nothing to do with a functioning democracy. The American system of checks and balances has largely been destroyed. Any elected president has now become our monarch.
This is a sad and frightening time for our country.
— James Ritter, Chicago
Is president above the law?
In fifth grade, we studied the U.S. Constitution. How shameful that the Supreme Court does not know our forefathers made legislative, judicial and executive branches. Are we supposed to be ruled by a dictator or a president? Is it true that no one is above the law?
Perhaps we should move to Canada.
— Barbara Limburg Mancini, Burr Ridge
Giving president a crown
Our Founding Fathers fought a revolution to get away from a king with absolute authority. The Supreme Court just gave an imperial crown to whoever sits in the Oval Office.
The ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said a president could be prosecuted for unofficial acts that violate the law but not official acts. The ruling even declares that a president can’t be prosecuted for any acts that are connected to his official duties.
If a president sold presidential pardons in exchange for bribes, court conservatives indicate that he couldn’t be charged with a crime because issuing pardons is an official act.
Roberts wrote that a president’s immunity is so absolute that courts can’t even question why he took a particular action: “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives.”
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent, this ruling means a president would be immune from ordering the military to assassinate a political rival or from organizing a military coup to stay in power, because issuing military orders is part of a president’s official duties.
Donald Trump has vowed that if he wins in November, he will use his office to persecute his political adversaries — and the Supreme Court just gave him the right to do so.
Trump also hasn’t ruled out trying to overturn the election if he loses again. For the sake of our democracy, I hope Trump loses by such a large margin that even he can’t dispute the results.
— Mike Mosser, Chicago
Is this what we call justice?
Hey! I’ve got a great idea. Let’s take the most unscrupulous guy we can find and make him president. Let us then watch him make a mockery of that high office by spewing one lie after another. Let us then watch as he incites an insurrection, claiming a stolen election. Let us further watch him get convicted of a felony, yet remain the presumptive presidential nominee of one of our “esteemed” political parties. Let us watch then as what used to be the highest court in the land, but which has now sunk to the level of lowest court in the land, grants him substantial immunity for “criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” when he was president.
And, finally, let’s call that justice!
— Chuck Kessler, Northbrook
Ship Trump to Moscow
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that presidents have “absolute” immunity for clearly official acts but no immunity for unofficial acts. That suggests to me that for Joe Biden to remain president, he should sit tight and proceed with the election.
If Biden wins, fine.
If he loses, he will have 2 1/2 months while he remains president to have Donald Trump shipped to Moscow, where no doubt Russian President Vladimir Putin would cheerfully grant him asylum. (That action would likewise be strategic if Biden wins, because Trump already has shown he does not go gentle into the good night of election defeat.)
What could be more an “official act” of the president than repelling pretenders to his office?
— Nancy Meyer, Mundelein
Ballot box gives us power
I was baffled that the Tribune treated the ruling by the Supreme Court in such a low-key manner. Yes, it was the main headline of the newspaper. But the consequences of the conservative and Republican-leaning Supreme Court’s action regarding presidential immunity has changed America’s future forever and how it is governed.
I was also dismayed that so many news outlets were discussing the consequences of this ruling without talking about how Democrats can reverse it. There seems to be several paths forward. First, an amendment to the Constitution could prevent future presidents from using absolute immunity for their own benefit. Second, the Supreme Court could be enlarged to help prevent personal bias from controlling the destiny of our nation.
In either case, these solutions could be achieved only if Democrats gain a supermajority in Congress and control two-thirds of the vote, along with a sitting Democratic president. While possible, this is highly improbable.
Nevertheless, it has become obvious to me and millions of other Americans that the only remedy for returning our country to a more centrist and normalized rule of law is through the ballot box on Nov. 5. This has always seemed obvious, but never has it been more essential than now.
— Rick Weber, Northbrook
Paving way for a dictator
The Supreme Court’s ruling of presidential immunity was a violation of the principle of Magna Carta, which served as a template for our Constitution. The Magna Carta states that no one, even the king, is above the law. This principle is embodied in the Constitution.
The court’s ruling gives the president enormous power and is the route to dictatorship.
— Michael Lee, Morton Grove
Try flipping the script
In his confirmation hearing in 2005, John Roberts said, “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. … It’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”
In his majority opinion on the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that his desire was to enable the president to take “bold and unhesitating action” required for the office, leading the majority of the Supreme Court to extend absolute presidential immunity for all “official acts.”
Trump took “bold and unhesitating action” when he tried to coerce many others, including members of his Justice Department, to overthrow his duly elected successor. Roberts declared Trump has absolute immunity for those communications.
Roberts should have clarified what he meant during his confirmation hearing: “My job is to call balls and strikes, except for the president.”
Imagine a ballgame where one batter is allowed to smash an umpire with his bat and not face any consequences, as long as he’s in an official ballgame.
Imagine if the script were flipped, and Al Gore or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Joe Biden were the one working to overturn his duly elected successor, even after the Supreme Court had ruled on his case and the Electoral College had voted. Would this Supreme Court continue calling every pitch a ball, no matter if many of them went right down the heart of the plate?
— Kevin Coughlin, Evanston
Allowing Trump full rein
Chief Justice John Roberts called dissent to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling “fearmongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.”
There can be no extreme hypotheticals when Donald Trump’s involved. He’s a guy who tried to overturn an election he clearly lost, summoned a mob to support him, expressed support for hanging his own vice president, sided with a dictator over U.S. intelligence, called Americans who died in war “suckers” and “losers,” and has had dinner with white nationalists. This is in addition to his conviction on 34 felony counts, four indictments, 88 criminal charges, four bankruptcies, infidelity, two impeachments, a court settlement requiring him to pay millions for sexual abuse and misuse of charity funds.
There can be no extreme hypotheticals when Trump’s involved. He’s capable of anything.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, he can indulge in his darkest fantasies if he wins in November.
— Michael M. Bates, Tinley Park
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
