Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump immunity embodies the true purpose of the judicial system: unpopular yet constitutionally upheld
Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, there was a swift transition from exaggerated claims to extreme panic amongst liberal politicians and pundits. Amidst the chaos, critics once again prophesied the downfall of the republic.
CNN’s Van Jones expressed his concern by stating that the ruling was “almost a license to thug, in a way.”
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) voiced his fear and anger over the decision, accusing six justices of being “extreme and nakedly partisan hacks — politicians in robes.”
Blumenthal had previously threatened the justices that failure to rule as Democrats desired would result in “seismic” consequences for the court.
Jones cautioned the justices that their ruling was politically disadvantageous.
Many media outlets displayed a distorted perspective of the situation. The Supreme Court, by design, is meant to take constitutionally correct stances even if they are not popular politically.
Independence of the Court
In this instance, the Democrats themselves have emerged as the very threat that the court was established to guard against.
In a previous incident, senators demanded Chief Justice John Roberts to justify his decisions before them (which he wisely declined to do).
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer publicly warned two justices that their actions would have consequences.
Now, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has initiated impeachment proceedings against all six conservative justices, with the support of fellow Democrats.
While scholars have disagreed on presidential immunity, the court’s decision balanced both extreme arguments. However, Ocasio-Cortez deems this decision as an assault on democracy and calls for Congress to intervene.
Ocasio-Cortez has admitted her lack of understanding regarding the purpose of the Supreme Court, questioning its benefit to society.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has proposed expanding the Court to secure a liberal majority that aligns with her preferences.
For these individuals, justice is viewed merely through a political lens, subject to the majority’s whims.
The same critics who scrutinized Judge Aileen Cannon for ‘slowwalking’ her decisions commended Judge Tanya Chutkan for expediently handling certain cases.
Chutkan’s decisions, however, were swiftly overturned by the Supreme Court, highlighting flaws in her reasoning.
The Democrats are providing a lesson in constitutional law by challenging the judicial independence. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78, judicial independence is vital for a fair and impartial administration of justice.
This moment underscores the importance of the Court as a bastion against political interference, as envisioned by the Framers.
An ‘Age of Rage’
In the book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” similar moments in history are discussed. The current backlash against the Supreme Court is not unprecedented.
Voices like Elie Mystal have decried the Constitution as “trash,” while others have called for radical alterations to it.
Ultimately, the Court is designed to uphold the Constitution above all else. It is prepared for this moment.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of public interest law at the George Washington University School of Law.
