The Internet Says ‘We Are in Real Danger’ After Controversial SCOTUS Ruling on Trump's Immunity

In a turnabout in the lawsuit against Donald J. Trump for his efforts to undermine his 2020 electoral defeat, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that ex-presidents have immunity for 'official acts.' A 6-3 partisan split on the court's decision upheld the immunity of presidents for acts that are within their 'core constitutional' responsibilities. There has been much confusion online due to the decision, and some worry it would spell doom if Trump is reelected.

One user on X wrote, "How bad was today's Supreme Court decision? If reelected Trump could assassinate his political opponents as long as he cited a statute or constitutional provision for doing so." People went on to share a similar sentiment as someone added, "They need to call their bluff now. Expand the court to 13, and throw anyone in jail who was involved in Jan 6th." One more critic chimed in, "This dangerous SCOTUS ruling may actually gin up the Democratic base. You thought Trump was awful in this first term? Watch what happens when he knows he can rule like a dictator with impunity. November is all that stands between the nation we have and the nation we use to have."

Another user brought up the fact that the current president also enjoys immunity, which he may utilize against Trump. The critic wrote, "Not if the current President took action against a clear and present danger to our country. We've been talking since the debate about how President Joe Biden has had such long service to the country. What a way to go out."

Another critic shared, "Actually, this decision is the best possible thing for team blue and the GOP Supreme Court once again got it right. First off, Biden himself now has immunity, and he and his administration are now protected from any Republican retaliation should they win. And retaliation is certainly on the minds for many. Second, it bounces the decision back to a left wing partisan judge, who has already made a good living tossing 1/6 protestors in jail for exceptionally long sentences. But once again, Democrats are so racist, their thinking is so clouded by hate, that they cannot even see the gift they just got."

In his 43-page judgment, Chief Justice John Roberts referred to several cases, precedents, and fundamental principles. But the main idea was that a president couldn't do their job well if they were always worried about being prosecuted. He referred to a 1982 decision that established presidential immunity from civil suit, which was brought against former president Richard Nixon. As reported by the Telegraph, the judge wrote, "Potential criminal liability…are plainly more likely to distort presidential decision-making than the potential payment of civil damages."

An associate judge who disagreed with the majority view, Sonia Sotomayor, said that the decision might empower presidents to carry out assassinations of political opponents. As per the outlet, she stated, "Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises a military coup to hold onto power? Immune."