Which Democrat Will Rid Me of this Supreme Court?

The Unethical and Unconstitutional S. Ct. decision in Trump v. US on Presidential Immunity: How to Rid Us of this Disgraceful Act of Judicial Hubris

Chief Justice John Roberts led his band of Conservative-Reactionaries to issue a political statement, masquerading as a judicial decision, and entitled to no force of law, in holding that former president Trump is entitled to absolute immunity for any official act he performed as president, regardless even if he violated clear criminal law applicable to everyone in the United States. If Trump, while president, is walking down Fifth Avenue and sees a political opponent who opposes some action Trump intends to take, he can declare, “this is an official act” and shoot the political opponent. According to these pretenders as jurists, Trump would be absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for killing his political opponent so Trump can achieve his agenda.

Could Trump order the Vice-President or the Speaker of the House to shoot Trump’s political opponent, and would they also be entitled to extra-constitutional immunity?

This “opinion” (and it is a political opinion and not law), issued by self-proclaimed textualists and originalists, has no basis in the actual Constitution, and, in fact, it flies in the face of the express text of the actual Constitution: the one adopted by the States after its writing at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It is an attempt at judicial nullification of the actual Constitution and to replace it with the political opinions of six conservative-reactionaries, wearing black robes, but who are entitled to no respect as actual jurists stating the law. They have abdicated judicial legitimacy.

The actual Constitution has no provision for bestowing absolute presidential immunity. In fact, it has no provision at all providing any immunity to the president. To the contrary, it has a provision in the Impeachment Clause saying that Congress can impeach a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but after any such Impeachment the president is still subject to prosecution for violating the law.

Article I, Section 3 states:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The real Constitution says that if a president is impeached, he is still subject to criminal prosecution. If he has not been impeached, there is no provision providing the president any immunity for his acts, official or unofficial.

The founders at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia understood the concept of immunity and only conferred it on members of Congress for their speeches and debates under the Speech and Debate Immunity in Article I, Section 6. They provided no such immunity for the president.

But Chief Justice Roberts and his Conservative-Reactionary colleagues made their version of judicially granted Absolute Immunity from whole cloth without any authority from any part of the Constitution. These same six “Justices” could not find the word “abortion” in the Constitution, so they overruled a 50-year precedent of Roe v. Wade. But not finding presidential immunity in the Constitution, they chose to make one up without any foundation in the text, history or understandings in the Constitution. And these six did so despite the contrary language in the Constitution in the Impeachment Clause.

The decision in Trump v. U.S. was a political act not entitled to any legitimacy. The Constitution only gives the president the power to grant pardons, and no provision allows a president to give himself a pardon, so the Six Justices decided to give Trump a pardon without any Constitutional authority to do so.

The Six Justices did so flying in the face of history, the intent of the Framers to not have the president be a king, and the Constitutional text which provides no support for this extra-constitutional power grab.

So what can we, the citizens of the United States, do about it? Impeachment is not an option in this Congress with its political composition and division, and Republicans would object to any Impeachment action against the Justices.

What we the citizens can do is elect a Democrat as the next president in the November 2024 election. But we also need to elect a Democratic majority to the Congress in order to pass legislation invalidating the power grab by the Six. In order to do so, the Democratic Senators will need to vote to finally eliminate the un-democratic filibuster from the Senate rules. We need a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

With the slate then clean, the Congress could agree to legislation expanding the number of Justices on the Supreme Court to Thirteen Justices, and the Democratic President would sign the Thirteen Justices legislation. The new Justices would be nominated by the Democratic president and confirmed by the Democratic Senate. They would then have the votes to overturn Trump v. U.S. In doing so, the Congress would need to find that the decision of the Six had no support in the Constitution and is in fact completely contrary to the actual text of the Constitution: it is extra-constitutional.

Now which Democrat has supported legislation to expand the Court to Thirteen Justices? President Biden has previously declined to support such an effort. But perhaps with the presidential immunity decision, the revocation of Chevron deference to the interpretation of federal agencies, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, and the Bump Stock equipped semi-automatic rifle is not a machinegun decision by Justice Thomas, President Biden might agree to approving and promoting the Thirteen Justice legislation. I think that a President Newsom, Shapiro, Whitmer, Harris or others might and should support the Thirteen Justices legislation.

To help resolve the current imbroglio in the nomination of the Democratic candidate for President, each of them should be asked to support and promote the Thirteen Justices legislation.

For me, this would be a determinative answer as to whether Biden will support the Thirteen Justices legislation. If he is so willing and commits to support and promote the Thirteen Justices legislation, that would provide support for retaining him as the Democratic candidate. If he does not agree to so support and promote the Thirteen Justices legislation, then I say we need a new Democratic nominee.

The decision in Trump v. U.S. was a political power grab, and as such it should be promptly revoked and overruled by the newly constituted Thirteen Justices so that the President would lose his judicially granted Crown as King of the United States and returned to be the democratically elected President, subject to the laws of the United States just like every other citizen.