Presidential Immunity - Part III (Let's Get Real)

In a July 2 Wall Street Journal editorial, reported online, they referred to something called the "Empirical SCOTUS" blog.  According to that site, 45.8% of the cases decided in the 2023-2024 term were unanimous.  Yes, I know.  Unanimous decisions often result from cases with less controversial issues.  Nevertheless, unanimity is unanimity.  And all nine justices agreed that states could not decide to keep Trump off the ballot.  And, all nine refused to give standing to pro-life doctors who wanted to sue the FDA and keep the abortion pill mifepristone off the market.

The paper notes that 22 cases were decided by a 6-3 decision; but only half of those were along ideological lines of 6 conservatives vs. 3 liberals.  Then, of course, there were the 8-1 decisions and 7-2 decisions.  So, let's get real with regards to the Democrats' self-professed panic mode.  They are the ones undermining the legitimacy of the Court for their own political ends.  

In dissent, Justice Sotomayor gave the most extreme possible examples of the abuse of presidential power, and then claimed a president could get away with it.  Such as a president ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, or organizing a military coup.  Please.  Notwithstanding his protestations about the fairness of the 2020 election, Trump left office with doing no such thing as a military coup.

The New York Post's July 1 editorial had it right.  "The best course now would be for Smith to drop the (January 6) case altogether and for prosecutors, and their Democratic patrons, to swear off the use of further lawfare to take down political foes once and for all."  And:  "All that continuing this prosecution does is continue to sow division and weaken the nation's already shaky political institutions."  

What the Democrats and the left ignore are all the remedies still available to protect the country from a power hungry president.  A president can be impeached by the House, and if convicted by the Senate, is removed from office.  I fully acknowledge that those voting must be people of good will - but that's a problem with the Congress, not the presidency.  A president may also be removed from office by a vote of the people.  It's called an election.

And, in their July 2 editorial in their paper, the Wall street Journal noted:  "Another principle is that the burden is on the prosecutor to show that an official act doesn't deserve immunity."  They were referring to a quote from Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion:  "At a minimum, the President must therefore 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."  An exception to every rule.  

In reply to Justice Sotomayor, the Chief Justice opined:  "As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."  I am, curious, however, as to which of her fellow justices she believes would find that using Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival (no, I cannot imagine any president doing that) to be beyond prosecutorial reach.  I wish she had shown the courage to have named them.