This is a shame.
House Democrats, who apparently haven't read the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, say they will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that President Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution on his core constitutional powers.
Former presidents are entitled to immunity at least for their official acts.
The Supreme Court ruled that there is no immunity for informal acts.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on January 6 in Washington, D.C., to hear President Trump's claim of presidential immunity in a lawsuit filed by special counsel Jack Smith.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the court's majority opinion.
“We have concluded that the nature of the presidential power, consistent with the separation of powers, requires that a former president enjoy some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office. At least with respect to the president’s exercise of core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. He is entitled to immunity for his remaining official acts. But it is not necessary, and we do not, to determine at this stage of the case whether that immunity must be absolute or whether a presumptive immunity will suffice,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
Judge Roberts also chastised Judge Tanya Chutkan for failing to analyze the conduct alleged in Jack Smith's indictment.
“Despite the unprecedented nature of this case and the extraordinary constitutional questions it raises, the lower courts have acted with remarkable speed. Because the court categorically rejected any form of presidential immunity, it has not analyzed the alleged conduct in the indictment to determine what should be classified as formal and what as informal. Neither party briefed us on this issue (but discussed it in oral argument on the question). And like the fundamental immunity issue, this classification raises a number of unprecedented and significant questions about the president’s powers and the limits of his authority under the Constitution,” Roberts wrote.
The Supreme Court has never said that the President is above the law.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, Jack Smith's DC case will be sent back to Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Rep. Joe Morrell (D-NY) embarrassed himself by suggesting he would introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling.
“I will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS’s harmful decisions and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do: put our democracy first,” Rep. Joe Morrell, D-N.Y., said on X.
I will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS’s damaging decisions and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do: put our democracy first.
— Joe Morel (@RepJoeMorelle) July 1, 2024