GOP Celebrates Presidential Immunity-- So Long As It Doesn't Mean Biden
Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity invites the nation’s leader to participate in a four-year crime spree, including doing away with opponents, while secure in the knowledge that they enjoy blissful elevation above the law.
Republicans are, of course, extraordinarily pleased.
Donald Trump started the ball rolling on his Truth Social site, calling the ruling a “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION,” even though there is no direct mention of presidential immunity in the Constitution. Other Republican lawmakers are piling on, expressing their satisfaction with a ruling that sets the president up to be a dictator.
So long as it doesn’t apply to the actual sitting president.
Every Republican lawmaker who’s spoken on the matter seems to agree that this ruling means that special counsel Jack Smith, who has indicted Trump in two different investigations, has to pack it up and go home.
While there are plenty of other Republicans eager to show Trump that they’re happy about his new, shiny armor, two of the responses are extra special.
While House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer shakes a fist at weaponizing the legal system for political gain, and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan takes a punch at “hyper-partisan prosecutors,” neither says a word about the multiple investigations Republicans have run into President Joe Biden and members of his family.
Because, of course, they don’t read this ruling as protecting the sitting president. They read it as being specific to Donald Trump.
Even as they’re cheering for how this ruling allows presidents to act now and worry about the consequences never, Republicans are still complaining that Biden is a “dictator.”
The “Biden dictatorship” has become the way that Republicans talk about the incumbent president. It both gives their base something to whine about, and helps defuse Democratic statements warning about Trump’s actions should he return to power.
Here’s Doug Burgum, North Dakota’s governor and a shortlisted candidate for Trump’s vice president, appearing on Sunday’s edition of “Meet the Press”:
“Going into 2024, I think both parties are going to be very focused on [the election],” Burgum said. “I think the threat to democracy, as a governor in North Dakota today, I’ve been living under what I call the Biden dictatorship because of all the rules and regulations.”
Burgum was called out on this statement by host Kristen Welker, who pointed out that not only has Biden issued far fewer executive orders than Trump, he’s also issued fewer than Burgum has as governor. So does that make Burgum a dictator?
Burgum changed the subject.
To make it a little extra clear, another of Trump’s potential VPs, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, was over at “Face the Nation” on Sunday, explaining that without a ruling of absolute immunity, presidents might be prosecuted for almost anything.
But when it came to Biden, Vance had a different message. When host Margaret Brennan asked if Biden might be prosecuted under a Trump administration, Vance replied that it “would be the responsibility of the attorney general, Margaret.”
Republicans seem to have read this ruling as if it said "Trump" everywhere the Supreme Court wrote "president.” To be fair, that's probably what this partisan court meant. However, there is one former Republican official who seems to understand that this ruling can be applied more broadly.
Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.
