Let's go to Leah Lipman. I'm actually first.
We're gonna go to Neil Katyal for just a moment.
Neil, I know you wanted to get in on this.
Yeah. I mean, I want to zoom out and not
talk about buckets of evidence or anything like that.
The big picture here is this is a six to
three decision along what look to the American public like
partisan line,
6 Republican appointed justices siding with Trump,
three Democratic appointed justices siding against Trump.
And it is a momentous major decision.
And I want to read to you from what Justice
Otomayor says at the end of her dissent because I've
never seen language like this in a Supreme Court opinion.
She says, quote, never in the history of our Republic
as a president had reason to believe he'd be immune
from criminal
if he used the trappings of his office to violate
the criminal law.
Moving forward, however, all former presidents will be cloaked in
such immunity.
If the occupant of that office misuses official power for
personal gain,
the criminal law that the rest of us must abide
will not provide a backstop.
And here's how she ends her dissent,
Katie, with fear for our democracy.
I dissent. I mean, it doesn't get stronger than that.
Neil,
have you ever heard, have you ever,
sorry to interrupt you, but have you ever heard of
justice be that strongly worded about the state of our
democracy?
I have not. And what she's signaling here is it's
not just about the Trump January 6th case.
It's about every president who goes forward,
indeed possibly Trump next year and being immune now from
the criminal law to be able to use the Justice
Department in ways the court today calls absolutely immune to
undermine in elections to go after individuals.
This is a, you know,
according to the dissent, which,
you know, it was, it seems like as grave a
shift in our constitutional system as any in our lifetime.
Let me
let me bring in a little bit more from
Sotomayor's dissent because she gets into some of the specifics
that were argued in court.
She says looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution,
the long term consequences of today's decision are stark.
The court effectively creates a law free zone around the
president,
upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.
This new official acts immunity now lies about like a
loaded weapon for any president that wishes to place his
own interests,
his own political survival, or his own financial gain above
the interests of the nation.
The President of the United States is the most powerful
person in the country and possibly the world.
When he uses his official powers in any way,
under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from
criminal prosecution.
Orders the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political
rival.
Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power.
Immune takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon.
Immune, immune, immune, immune. Let the president violate the law.
Let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal
gain.
Let him use his official power for evil ends.
Because if he knew that he may one day face
liability for breaking the law,
he might not be as bold and fearless as he
we would like him to be.
That's a quote from the majority opinion that she's using
here.
That is the majority's message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out,
and I pray they never do,
the damage has been done.
The relationship between the president and the people he serves
has shifted irrevocably.
In every use of official power,
the president is now a king
above the law. That is all from Justice
Sotomayor's dissent. Neil, she's arguing that he can't assassinate somebody.
Now, is that what this majority opinion is saying?
Yes, That is basically what she's saying the majority is
saying.
And I'm sure that is how Trump will take it.
And if you ever were thought about the stakes in
November and what they were,
this opinion makes them very,
very clear. The law is not going to be a
check against the next president.
And you have to have someone in power who you
can trust to execute the laws faithfully and to comply
with the Constitution.
And, you know, now the stakes are astronauts comical in
a way they might not have been
before. This is a, you know,
a Clarion call for the American public to understand the
law.
The courts are not going to protect us against a
president who wants to violate the law.
What spring courts basically said you can do that,
just slap the label official act on it.
And maybe there'll be a hearing over some pieces of
it and not.
And there won't even be a hearing when it comes
to things like pressuring the Justice Department to break the
law and to do what you,
you know, want for your personal end.
So this is a really grave decision
and and I think we should be focused on,
you know, the Justice Sotomayor's warning and not that,
you know, technical details just about what this means for
the January 6th prosecutions.