SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"Why would the conservative justices do all this to protect Trump?" asks Zimmerman. "So they can continue to impose their right-wing power on America."
(Illustration: Created With StableDiffusion)
Supreme Court Welcomes Back the King—Happy Independence Day, America!
A dangerously unhinged Supreme Court makes clear the future of democracy is on the ballot in 2024.
Jul 04, 2024
If you hadn’t read the news in four years — or just arrived from another galaxy — the Supreme Court’s de facto grant of immunity to Donald Trump for his alleged federal crimes might sound almost reasonable.
There are “unique risks,” six right-wing justices warned, that if a president were required to answer criminal charges, his energies would be “diverted.” He might become “unduly cautious,” less willing to take “bold and unhesitating action.”
But if you’ve followed even a shred of news, you know this reasoning is utterly unhinged — and dangerous. The risk the right-wing majority refuses to consider is that a president might “boldly” and “unhesitatingly” try to overturn our constitutional democracy.
The real danger isn’t that an “unduly cautious” president will worry too much about being charged with crimes. The danger is that a faithless president can use the enormous powers of the presidency to overturn an election he lost. That’s what nearly happened after the 2020 election — a matter the majority says not one word about..
Nonetheless, the six hold that when a president is performing “core constitutional powers” — engaging in actions which the Constitution says he can do — he is totally immune to criminal prosecution.
Where does this outrageous theory come from? Not the Constitution.
In the oral argument of the case, Trump’s attorneys were asked about the seemingly absurd notion that a president would be immune to prosecution if he officially ordered the assassination of a political rival. They didn’t dispute it. And now the Supreme Court just adopted that absurd theory.
Similarly, a president would now enjoy “absolute immunity” from prosecution if he told the attorney general, “Forge evidence that my opponent sold secrets to China and arrest him for treason.” He could freely sell national secrets to Russia. Auction pardons. Or assassinate unfriendly judges.
Where does this outrageous theory come from? Not the Constitution.
The six right-wingers’ ruling has no basis in law or logic — and turns the lessons of our history upside down. The Constitution includes no language granting the president immunity from criminal charges, and the Founding Fathers were dead set against an all-powerful executive.
The Founders considered it a feature, not a fault, that under the proposed Constitution the president would be restrained. They maintained the president wouldn’t pose a threat to liberty because he wouldn’t be above the law, unlike the King of England.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote, former presidents who’d committed crimes during their presidency would thereafter be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
The upcoming election could determine whether the far-right majority is flipped on its head — or paves the way for a deeper assault...
The conservative majority of the Supreme Court acknowledged, in theory, that a president is not 100 percent above the law. Even Trump’s own lawyers conceded the point.
Nonetheless, the six ignored Trump’s concessions and will now require his federal criminal trial to go through a time-consuming process to assess the immunity claims. That will delay the trial until after the election — which could give Trump the power to fire all of the prosecutors and dismiss the charges against himself if he wins.
Why would the conservative justices do all this to protect Trump? So they can continue to impose their right-wing power on America.
The extremists currently enjoy a six-three Supreme Court majority. But Justice Thomas is 76 and Justice Alito is 74. Their seats could become vacant in the next four years and potentially flip. By protecting Donald Trump from prosecution, they’re trying to prevent that outcome.
The upcoming election could determine whether the far-right majority is flipped on its head — or paves the way for a deeper assault from extreme judges and politicians.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This column was distributed by OtherWords.
Mitchell Zimmerman
Mitchell Zimmerman is an attorney, longtime social activist, and author of the anti-racism thriller "Mississippi Reckoning" (2019).
If you hadn’t read the news in four years — or just arrived from another galaxy — the Supreme Court’s de facto grant of immunity to Donald Trump for his alleged federal crimes might sound almost reasonable.
There are “unique risks,” six right-wing justices warned, that if a president were required to answer criminal charges, his energies would be “diverted.” He might become “unduly cautious,” less willing to take “bold and unhesitating action.”
But if you’ve followed even a shred of news, you know this reasoning is utterly unhinged — and dangerous. The risk the right-wing majority refuses to consider is that a president might “boldly” and “unhesitatingly” try to overturn our constitutional democracy.
The real danger isn’t that an “unduly cautious” president will worry too much about being charged with crimes. The danger is that a faithless president can use the enormous powers of the presidency to overturn an election he lost. That’s what nearly happened after the 2020 election — a matter the majority says not one word about..
Nonetheless, the six hold that when a president is performing “core constitutional powers” — engaging in actions which the Constitution says he can do — he is totally immune to criminal prosecution.
Where does this outrageous theory come from? Not the Constitution.
In the oral argument of the case, Trump’s attorneys were asked about the seemingly absurd notion that a president would be immune to prosecution if he officially ordered the assassination of a political rival. They didn’t dispute it. And now the Supreme Court just adopted that absurd theory.
Similarly, a president would now enjoy “absolute immunity” from prosecution if he told the attorney general, “Forge evidence that my opponent sold secrets to China and arrest him for treason.” He could freely sell national secrets to Russia. Auction pardons. Or assassinate unfriendly judges.
Where does this outrageous theory come from? Not the Constitution.
The six right-wingers’ ruling has no basis in law or logic — and turns the lessons of our history upside down. The Constitution includes no language granting the president immunity from criminal charges, and the Founding Fathers were dead set against an all-powerful executive.
The Founders considered it a feature, not a fault, that under the proposed Constitution the president would be restrained. They maintained the president wouldn’t pose a threat to liberty because he wouldn’t be above the law, unlike the King of England.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote, former presidents who’d committed crimes during their presidency would thereafter be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
The upcoming election could determine whether the far-right majority is flipped on its head — or paves the way for a deeper assault...
The conservative majority of the Supreme Court acknowledged, in theory, that a president is not 100 percent above the law. Even Trump’s own lawyers conceded the point.
Nonetheless, the six ignored Trump’s concessions and will now require his federal criminal trial to go through a time-consuming process to assess the immunity claims. That will delay the trial until after the election — which could give Trump the power to fire all of the prosecutors and dismiss the charges against himself if he wins.
Why would the conservative justices do all this to protect Trump? So they can continue to impose their right-wing power on America.
The extremists currently enjoy a six-three Supreme Court majority. But Justice Thomas is 76 and Justice Alito is 74. Their seats could become vacant in the next four years and potentially flip. By protecting Donald Trump from prosecution, they’re trying to prevent that outcome.
The upcoming election could determine whether the far-right majority is flipped on its head — or paves the way for a deeper assault from extreme judges and politicians.
Mitchell Zimmerman
Mitchell Zimmerman is an attorney, longtime social activist, and author of the anti-racism thriller "Mississippi Reckoning" (2019).
If you hadn’t read the news in four years — or just arrived from another galaxy — the Supreme Court’s de facto grant of immunity to Donald Trump for his alleged federal crimes might sound almost reasonable.
There are “unique risks,” six right-wing justices warned, that if a president were required to answer criminal charges, his energies would be “diverted.” He might become “unduly cautious,” less willing to take “bold and unhesitating action.”
But if you’ve followed even a shred of news, you know this reasoning is utterly unhinged — and dangerous. The risk the right-wing majority refuses to consider is that a president might “boldly” and “unhesitatingly” try to overturn our constitutional democracy.
The real danger isn’t that an “unduly cautious” president will worry too much about being charged with crimes. The danger is that a faithless president can use the enormous powers of the presidency to overturn an election he lost. That’s what nearly happened after the 2020 election — a matter the majority says not one word about..
Nonetheless, the six hold that when a president is performing “core constitutional powers” — engaging in actions which the Constitution says he can do — he is totally immune to criminal prosecution.
Where does this outrageous theory come from? Not the Constitution.
In the oral argument of the case, Trump’s attorneys were asked about the seemingly absurd notion that a president would be immune to prosecution if he officially ordered the assassination of a political rival. They didn’t dispute it. And now the Supreme Court just adopted that absurd theory.
Similarly, a president would now enjoy “absolute immunity” from prosecution if he told the attorney general, “Forge evidence that my opponent sold secrets to China and arrest him for treason.” He could freely sell national secrets to Russia. Auction pardons. Or assassinate unfriendly judges.
Where does this outrageous theory come from? Not the Constitution.
The six right-wingers’ ruling has no basis in law or logic — and turns the lessons of our history upside down. The Constitution includes no language granting the president immunity from criminal charges, and the Founding Fathers were dead set against an all-powerful executive.
The Founders considered it a feature, not a fault, that under the proposed Constitution the president would be restrained. They maintained the president wouldn’t pose a threat to liberty because he wouldn’t be above the law, unlike the King of England.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote, former presidents who’d committed crimes during their presidency would thereafter be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
The upcoming election could determine whether the far-right majority is flipped on its head — or paves the way for a deeper assault...
The conservative majority of the Supreme Court acknowledged, in theory, that a president is not 100 percent above the law. Even Trump’s own lawyers conceded the point.
Nonetheless, the six ignored Trump’s concessions and will now require his federal criminal trial to go through a time-consuming process to assess the immunity claims. That will delay the trial until after the election — which could give Trump the power to fire all of the prosecutors and dismiss the charges against himself if he wins.
Why would the conservative justices do all this to protect Trump? So they can continue to impose their right-wing power on America.
The extremists currently enjoy a six-three Supreme Court majority. But Justice Thomas is 76 and Justice Alito is 74. Their seats could become vacant in the next four years and potentially flip. By protecting Donald Trump from prosecution, they’re trying to prevent that outcome.
The upcoming election could determine whether the far-right majority is flipped on its head — or paves the way for a deeper assault from extreme judges and politicians.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.