The Supreme Court decision prompted the usual emotional and over-the-top reactions from Democrats and the left. In a 6-3 decision, along ideological lines (mostly), the Court held that a president has absolute immunity in carrying out the core functions of the executive. See Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution for those core functions. The Court further held that a president has "presumptive immunity" from criminal prosecution for official acts that are outside of the core functions. Finally, there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
I suspect that the Court was concerned about the extensive lawfare being conducted against former President Trump, with a possible tit for tat reaction the next time Republicans gained control of the White House. Here is what the ACLU said in November, 2010: "The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat." Without immunity, Obama could be prosecuted for murder. How about prosecuting Biden for failing in his duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.)
Biden has certainly not taken care that our immigration laws be enforced. Wasn't it foreseeable that large amounts of illegal drugs, especially fentanyl, would be smuggled into our country - resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Biden had no authority to forgive student loans. After all, someone ends up paying those loans - the taxpayers. To come with that money requires an act of Congress. Article I, section 7, states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..." It is a simple separation of powers issue. Yet, the Democrats and the left had no problem with Biden having that power, because they agreed with the policy. And Biden ignored the Court's decision. As always, the ends justify the means for the left.
Laurence Tribe is a well known left-wing Professor (now Professor Emeritus) at Harvard Law School. In a July 2 Op-Ed in the New York Times, he called the immunity decision an "outrage." Tribe expressed his concern that if Trump returned to the White House, he would use "the Justice Department to engage in politically motivated prosecutions." Isn't that ironic? Recall that the New York Times had reported increasing pressure on AG Merrick Garland to prosecute Trump over the events of January 6.
As reported by the New York Post in 2022, a front page article of the New York Times said: "As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted , according to two people familiar with his comments. And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6."
Isn't that interesting? Biden tells his inner circle that Trump is threat to democracy. He clearly wants to see Trump prosecuted. How convenient then, that some aides then tell the New York Times what Biden said privately, and Merrick Garland gets the message. This way, Biden can claim that he never directed his AG to prosecute Trump. But Tribe is worried about Trump using the Justice Department to prosecute people...really? Tribe's solution is awful. He suggests a permanent and separate branch of government, "charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal laws." Then what would be the responsibility of the AG and the 93 United States Attorneys (and all the associate attorneys) spread out across the country? Unless Tribe has in mind that this separate branch would target members of Congress and presidents only. Also a terrible idea. It would be the equivalent of round the clock special counsels, likely interfering with the president and the Congress carrying out their duties.
Erwin Chemerinsky was no better. In his June 30 Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times (not directly discussing the immunity decision, but indicative of left-wing thinking), he criticized recent SCOTUS decisions as being "simply a matter of conservative justices imposing conservative ideology to come to conservative results." Just an obvious attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, because he's just another leftist unhappy with there being a conservative majority on the Court. And what was Roe v. Wade, other than liberal justices imposing liberal ideology to come to liberal results. There was no constitutional basis for that decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment