Andrew Weissmann, The New York Times ; How to Get Voters the Facts They Need Without a Trump Jan. 6 Trial
"The benefit of an evidentiary hearing would be enormous, giving the public at least some information it needs before going to the polls in November. The hearing would permit the airing, in an adversarial proceeding with full due process for Mr. Trump, evidence that goes to the heart of the most profound indictment in this nation’s history."
Michael D. Shear , The New York Times; Biden Warns That Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Will Embolden Trump
"President Biden warned on Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity meant that there were “virtually no limits on what the president can do” and urged voters to prevent former President Donald J. Trump from returning to the White House freed from the constraints of the law.
“The American people must decide if they want to entrust the president once again — the presidency — to Donald Trump,” Mr. Biden said during brief remarks, “knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.”"
Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; God save us from this dishonorable court
"Smith’s office is now consigned to assess the tatters in which the court’s ruling has left its prosecution and determine, like a homeowner after a tornado has touched down, what can be salvaged.
The country is now left to worry about whether Trump will ever be held accountable — and about the implications of the court’s ruling for future presidents, including, most chillingly, Trump himself.
As Jackson wrote in a separate dissent, “Having now cast the shadow of doubt over when — if ever — a former President will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act ‘manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority,’ they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike.”
Sotomayor was similarly apocalyptic. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she closed her dissent. Both Sotomayor and Jackson abandoned the customary “respectfully” — for good reason.
God knows what a reelected Trump would do in a second term. God save us from this dishonorable court."
Laurence H. Tribe, The New York Times ; The Trump Decision Reveals Deep Rot in the System
"The American people can still vote this November to reject what would be a devastating blow to the survival of government by and for the people. But whatever one believes about the likely outcome, we can and should also begin talk of amending the Constitution to repair these structural flaws. Whether Trumpism implodes later rather than sooner, we must remember that over the course of our history, we have made progress toward a “more perfect Union” only by imagining a better future and struggling to embody it in our fundamental law. Sometimes we’ve amended the Constitution after a national upheaval as convulsive as the Civil War. At other times, however, less traumatic events affecting the presidency, in particular, have prompted constitutional reform.
To repair the profound and growing problem of presidential unaccountability, we must dare to design a separate branch of government, outside the existing three, charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal laws."
The Editorial Board , The New York Times; The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents
"As of Monday, the bedrock principle that no one is above the law has been set aside. In the very week that the nation celebrates its founding, the court undermined the reason for the American Revolution by giving presidents what one dissenting justice called a “law-free zone” in which to act, taking a step toward restoring the monarchy that the Declaration of Independence rejected."
Amy Davidson Sorkin, The New Yorker; The Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling is a Victory for Donald Trump
"The conservative majority answered their alarm with sarcasm, dismissiveness, and, perhaps most disturbingly, glorification of the personage of the President—swooning about a “vigorous” and “energetic” executive while warning of the dangers of one who is “feeble.” (Those words, in light of Biden’s debate struggles, might provoke a range of painful reflections.) Roberts wrote, of the dissents, “They strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.” He’s wrong about that. The Court went further than it would have needed to, even if the goal was simply shielding Trump from Jack Smith."
REBECCA BEITSCH AND ZACH SCHONFELD , The Hill; Supreme Court delivers big win for Trump on immunity: 5 takeaways
"The majority’s decision provides a broad shield to former presidents for their conduct while in the White House."
Ryan Tarinelli, The Roll Call; Historians, legal experts express dismay at Trump immunity ruling
"Historians and legal experts warned Monday that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling opens the door to dangerous abuses of power and strikes against foundational American principles of accountability under the law...
Presidential historian and author Michael Beschloss was among those who referred to the idea that the decision cut against the intent of the nation’s founders.
“Thanks to Supreme Court today, Presidents in future will have access to far more unaccountable power than they ever have had in American history,” Beschloss posted on social media. “Founders wanted a President, not a King.”...
Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas governor who ran unsuccessfully in the GOP 2024 presidential primary, said the Supreme Court gave presidents greater control of the Justice Department. That’s because, Hutchinson argued, the decision says an “official act” that gets immunity includes threatening to fire the attorney general if he does not take an action.
“I can only imagine how this may be abused,” Hutchinson tweeted...
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a statement that the ruling “makes perfect sense to me” because core constitutional authorities must come with absolute immunity and other official acts will be determined by factual analysis.
“The Supreme Court’s dissent in this case is foolish in every way, particularly Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson’s argument that this decision allows a president to assassinate their opponent,” Graham said. “The liberal members of the Court and the Left have lost their minds when it comes to President Trump.”...
A White House official responded to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision by noting Biden has said “nobody is above the law.”
“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works,” spokesman Ian Sams said in an email. “We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down.”"
Mike Wendling , BBC News; Justices 'fear for democracy' in dissent on Trump immunity
"Six conservative-leaning justices signed the majority opinion, but the three liberals dissented.
Led by Sonia Sotomayor, they expressed "fear for our democracy".
"Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?" Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Immune."
"Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
"Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."
She was joined in her dissent by the court's two other liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan."
Ian Millhiser, Vox; The Supreme Court’s disastrous Trump immunity decision, explained
"Trump v. United States is an astonishing opinion. It holds that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution — essentially, a license to commit crimes — so long as they use the official powers of their office to do so."
