![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.gopplaybook.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/90-1-1024x683.webp?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nDemonstrators rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, when the court released its ruling in Trump v. United States, stating that a former president has broad immunity from prosecution for acts while in office.\u00a0Image Credit Chip Somodevilla\/Getty<\/p>\n\n\n\n Exploring critical issues facing our democracy and searching for solutions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Everyone who takes Civics 101 learns this basic concept: In America, no one is above the law, not even the person who holds the nation\u2019s highest office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Without that principle solidly in place, is America still America? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Or is it a nation where \u201cwhen the President does it, that means that it is not illegal,\u201d as disgraced former President Richard M. Nixon infamously said to British journalist David Frost<\/a>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, the Supreme Court\u2019s conservative supermajority didn\u2019t go quite as far as Nixon did when he spoke to Frost in 1977. But the court came alarmingly close, in a ruling that deals a major blow to the bedrock American notion that a crime is a crime, no matter who commits it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Trump v. United States<\/a>, the court\u2019s six conservatives \u2014 three appointed by former president Donald Trump \u2014 ruled that ex-presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution. As Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the majority, \u201cthe nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.\u201d Only \u201cunofficial acts\u201d are not immune from prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling adds another hurdle for Special Counsel Jack Smith as he pursues the case against Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election. The case was sent back to the lower courts to determine whether the conduct at the center of the charges against Trump was official or unofficial. Smith, we think, should plow ahead full speed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The case, originally scheduled <\/a>to go to trial in March, now clearly will not wrap up in time for voters to know Trump\u2019s guilt or innocence before casting their ballots.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Trump\u2019s strategy of delay, delay and delay some more should not be allowed to succeed, at least not without a fight. Americans deserve to know whether the candidate who wants to return to the presidency is guilty of trying to overturn the election that threw him out the first time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By siding to a large degree with Trump \u2014 despite Roberts\u2019 insistence that \u201cthe President is not above the law\u201d \u2014 the ruling will further cement the court\u2019s worsening reputation for partisanship and bias among much of the general public<\/a>. The days when Gallup polls showed that significant percentages of Americans had a \u201cgreat deal\u201d or a \u201cfair amount\u201d<\/a> of trust in the nation\u2019s highest court are long gone \u2014 and a lack of trust in an independent judiciary is a bad sign for democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dictator nations have judges and courts, but without independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, did not mince words about the majority\u2019s view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law,\u201d she wrote. \u201cOrders the Navy\u2019s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s not hyperbole, as one constitutional law expert told us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling is \u201cegregiously wrong,\u201d Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, told us. \u201cThe ruling will have very serious short and long-term negative consequences. There have been other Supreme Court decisions that have damaged democracy. This is the first one that leaves me feeling really pessimistic about its prospects. Once you assign the chief executive this kind of power, how do you keep a democracy?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s a lawless decision, that sets up a lawless presidency,\u201d Huq added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s an example: Suppose an employee of the National Security Agency is asked by the president to spy on his political enemies, and says no. \u201cAfter today, that answer is no longer available,\u201d Huq said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In siding largely with Trump, the court paid no heed to the meticulous arguments against presidential immunity made by a group of top historians in a friend of the court brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice<\/a>. In it, the scholars outline, point by point, why the Founding Fathers never intended to grant sweeping immunity to the president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhile the Founders had a range of ideas about the scope of executive power, none of those ideas included conferring immunity on the President in the circumstances at issue here. Petitioner\u2019s argument to the contrary is not historically credible,\u201d the brief reads. \u201cIt violates common understandings of executive power in the new republic and contradicts basic values that have defined American democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere are reasons to be nervous about prosecuting former presidents. So some standards make sense,\u201d Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center, wrote on X<\/a>. \u201cHere, though, the Court has issued an instruction manual for lawbreaking presidents. Make sure you conspire only with other government employees. You\u2019ll never be held to account.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Constitution states that the president has a duty to \u201ctake Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.\u201d On Monday, the Supreme Court rewrote that clause to read, \u201ctake Care that the Laws be faithfully executed … by everyone else.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Send letters to <\/em>letters@suntimes.com<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/cst.brightspotcdn.com\/dims4\/default\/793f997\/2147483647\/strip\/true\/crop\/346x210+0+0\/resize\/132x80!\/quality\/90\/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchorus-production-cst-web.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com%2Fbrightspot%2Fb0%2F7c%2Fe226a5eb4bbea54c40de7365d1e8%2Fhorz-4c.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nEditorial<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\u2018How do you keep a democracy?\u2019<\/h3>\n\n\n\n