Fresh off an urgent campaign by numerous powerful Democrats to align behind President Biden after his universally ridiculed debate performance — name brand Democrats such as California’s Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, and Eric Swalwell have all backed the President’s continuing candidacy so far — some of the same Dems are telling their constituents not to panic again.
This time the warning concerns the Supreme Court’s controversial decision to grant presidents and former presidents, including Donald Trump, criminal immunity from prosecution for “official acts” undertaken while in office.
Many Democrats and legal analysts — already critical of the current Supreme Court’s ethics and “originalism” — are crying that the sky is falling in the wake of the immunity decision. Withering dissents by the three liberal SCOTUS Justices provide ample fuel for their sense of impending doom.
[NOTE: Calling the decision “disastrous,” Harvard Law School eminence Laurence Tribe referred to dissents by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson that “pointedly” omit the customary protocol of dissenting “respectfully.”]
The dissent by Justice Jackson is at least as powerful and persuasive.
— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) July 1, 2024
And, like that of Justice Sotomayor, it pointedly — and, with all respect, justifiably — omits the word “respectfully” before the final word “dissent.” https://t.co/p7686kIIFX
FBI Agent turned attorney Asha Rangappa was unabashed in expressing her alarm about the license the high court has, in her view, delivered to a potential second Trump presidency, while at the same time increasing the likelihood of that presidency coming to pass.
The Court has handed Trump, if he wins this November, carte blanche to be a "dictator on day one," and the ability to use every lever of official power at his disposal for his personal ends without any recourse.
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) July 1, 2024
This election is now a clear-cut decision between democracy and…
But these hot takes, high on doom and hand-wringing, were in contrast to the reaction of Congressman Swalwell (D-CA), who told his followers “don’t panic on Trump immunity case” and insisted: “This is not a Trump victory.”
Swalwell reminded that the SCOTUS did not grant absolute immunity to the Oval Office occupant, but instead limited the immunity to “official acts” — a distinction that is not a surprise and that prosecutors have prepared for.
Special Counsel Jack Smith “will argue Trump’s actions were not ‘official acts’,” Swalwell writes, firmly believing that an attempt to subvert the election will fall far outside that distinction. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote plainly in the decision: “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
🚨Don’t panic on Trump immunity case. Jack Smith will argue Trump’s actions were not “official acts.” There’s precedent on this from a J6 civil case *that I know a thing or two about* that was unanimously upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is not a Trump victory.
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) July 1, 2024
.jpg){kind=link}