Sonia Sotomayor: Supreme Court just gave presidents power to assassinate political rivals
The Supreme Court justices who dissented to Monday's ruling on former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim called it a mockery of the Constitution that reshapes the institution of the presidency.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented to Chief Justice John Roberts ruling that Trump was entitled to absolute immunity for actions carried out in his official capacity as president — but not all presidential actions were official.
"Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency," Sotomayor wrote.
"Orders the Navy’s 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."
The justices condemn their six colleagues — whose argument was penned by Chief Justice John Roberts — for a decision they say condones treason.
"The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power," wrote Sotomayor. "Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."
This dark tone was met with a glib response from Roberts in his ruling.
"As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today," writes Roberts. "[We] 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."
While the question of immunity still remains unclear, legal experts say its increasingly unlikely Americans won't see their presumptive Republican nominee stand trial on election interference charges before election day in November.
The Supreme Court spent two months deliberating the presumptive Republican nominee's argument against the federal election interference case — raising concerns of deliberate delay as Trump could kill the case if he reclaims the White House.
While Trump argued he cannot be prosecuted for any official acts as a standing U.S. president, special counsel Jack Smith countered the former president acted as a private citizen pursuing his own personal gain.
ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans subpoena ex-Capitol Police intel head for Jan. 6 inquiry
The argument stalled the Washington D.C. case for months as the argument worked its way through the appeals court system.
Three of the nine judges were appointed by Trump — Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.
Justice Clarence Thomas faced direct calls for recusal over the conflict of interest presented by his wife Ginny's participation in Trump's efforts to challenge the 2020 election.
ALSO READ: ‘Creepy weirdos’: Senator fears Trump WH staff would destroy government from ‘inside’
On Monday, Sotomayor argued the majority's decision "completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability."
"Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force," she concludes. "Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble."