The Democrats Have Gone Off the Deep End...Again

 A little late, I know, but I wanted to highlight a post by Andrea Widburg at the American Thinker on the Democrats take on the SCOTUS ruling regarding presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court made the very reasonable ruling that a president, acting within the scope of his Constitutional duties has absolute immunity. The post can be found at According to Democrats, Biden has immunity to kill Trump and Supreme Court justices. In fact, no he does not because ordering the extrajudicial killing of Americans is not within the scope of his duties. And if a president acts outside the scope of his duties, he is like any other citizen subject to prosecution and punishment.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court came out with a logical opinion that follows centuries of American jurisprudence: A president has complete immunity when he acts within the scope of his express and implied constitutional powers. Within hours, the Democrats were saying that Biden now has absolute immunity to kill his political rivals, from Trump to the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. I want to say that these are not serious people, but they are—they’re dead serious.

...snip...

This immunity exists because no one else has the constitutional authority to challenge those acts, neither the legislature nor the judiciary, and certainly not the bureaucracy, a non-constitutional entity that merely works for the president. It also exists because a president cannot fulfill his unique responsibilities if he’s worried about being second-guessed or attacked. Sure, it may be an imperfect system, but the alternative is worse.

Alternatively, if a president acts outside of his express and implied powers, he’s an ordinary citizen and is still constrained by all the other prohibitions expressed in the Constitution and the laws of the United States, both federal and state.

As a lawyer, this ruling made sense to me because I’d see the general principle all the time in tort cases in which someone tried to sue a business for the acts of its employee. The question, always, was whether the employee was acting within the scope of his duty when he committed the wrongful act or outside the scope of that duty.

Gentle readers should read Widburg's analysis of the SCOTUS ruling highlighted, as well as reading her longer analysis on July 1, which is linked in the article. The Democrats have once again gone off the deep end, led in this case by Justice Sotomayor, whose dissent is a disgrace.