OUCH! Supreme Court Majority ZINGS Sonia Sotomayor in Blistering Opinion

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts, according to the high court.

Sotomayor proved how stupid she is in her hysterical dissent. “The President is now a king above the law,” Sotomayor said as she echoed Judge Florence Pan’s SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical.

“Orders the Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power?” Immune,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Sotomayor said (she was probably crying as she dissented).

The Court’s majority absolutely torched Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberal justices for fearmongering, ignoring the Constitution, and ignoring the separation of powers.

“As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today — conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority.”

Chief Roberts slapped down Sotomayor for ignoring the Constitution.

“Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President “above the law.”” Roberts wrote.

“The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” Roberts wrote.

Roberts said the Framers did not intend to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers in the hands of prosecutors.

“The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors,” Roberts wrote.


Photo of author
Cristina began writing for The Gateway Pundit in 2016 and she is now the Associate Editor.

You can email Cristina Laila here, and read more of Cristina Laila's articles here.


Thanks for sharing!