House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) is accusing Democrats of overreacting to the U.S. Supreme Court's "common sense" 6-3 ruling in Trump v. the United States.
Prominent Democrats, from President Joe Biden to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), are vehemently critical of the decision — which says that presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for "official" acts but not for "unofficial" acts. And Johnson, during a Fox News appearance, claimed that "no one who is elected" president "is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity."
But according to progressive legal expert Elie Mystal, the "scope" of the High Court's decision is even worse than what Democrats have been saying.
READ MORE: Sonia Sotomayor: Supreme Court just gave presidents power to assassinate political rivals
In a thread posted on X, formerly Twitter, on July 2, Mystal writes, "I understand why Republicans are invested in downplaying the scope of the immunity decision. If people understood what just happened they might want to do something about the Supreme Court. I really don't understand why Democrats are downplaying the scope though."
Mystal, known for his articles for The Nation and his MSNBC appearance, continues, "My only guess is that Democrats think that if people understood how much power the Supreme Court just handed to the President, they might expect their President to use it…. The Supreme Court handed the POTUS 'absolute immunity' for an unknowable sphere of 'official acts,' thus changing the rules of law and democracy."
In a July 1 tweet, Mystal called for Democrats to "pack" the U.S. Supreme Court" if they ever get the chance. And he calls for Democrats to "reform the Supreme Court" in his July 2 thread.
"That's going to require Democratic majorities, and then pressure on those majorities to USE their power instead of giving it away to norms and traditions," Mystal writes. "Every political discussion that isn't focused on HOW TO STOP THE UNELECTED PEOPLE from ruling over our politics is a sideshow and a waste of everyone's time…. As I've been trying to explain, what they gave presidents was not 'qualified' immunity (which can be pierced in certain situations) but *absolute immunity* which can never (be) defeated."
READ MORE: Calls grow for Dems to 'pack the Court' after SCOTUS immunity ruling
Mystal explained the difference between "absolute immunity" and "qualified immunity" in an article published by The Nation on July 1.
Mystal wrote, "Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the Court's ruling here: The immunity is absolute. There is no legislative way to get rid of what the Court has given. On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities."
The legal expert continued/AlterNet%20Folder%202024%20(PC)/v), "Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to 'absolute' immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear."
READ MORE: 'Room to maneuver': Ex-federal prosecutor details Jack Smith’s narrow path forward
