Meaning of Supreme Court immunity ruling debated

Correction: A previous version of this article and the attached video incorrectly list former federal prosecutor Jay Town is a “surrogate” for the Republican National Committee. WAVY regrets the error.

HAMPTON ROADS, Va. (WAVY) — As families across America are preparing to celebrate Independence Day, Monday’s ruling from the Supreme Court has some casting doubt on democracy as we know it.

In a 6-3 ruling, the high court determined the president has immunity from criminal charges, if he is conducting an official act.

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have some immunity, sends Trump case back to lower court

Stolen is the word former President Donald Trump uses to describe Joe Biden’s presidential win, and a mob, in agreement, stormed the Capitol as fake electors were on standby. The criminal charges that followed January 6 prompted the high court to weigh in. It said presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution.

“The decision on presidential immunity was stunning,” said Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott. “It just suggests that some people are above the law. All the presidents before thought that they were subject to the law.”

A former federal prosecutor appointed by Trump said the high court’s ruling is a victory for the separation of power.

“The decision yesterday does not put the president of the United States, whoever that might be, above the law,” said Jay Town. “What the opinion yesterday actually said is, absolute immunity is the law, or presumptive immunity is the law.”

Town also said to not believe the hysteria being spread about the meaning of the decision.

Could the president, for instance, call in SEAL Team 6 to assassinate an opponent?

“Where in the Constitution does it give the Commander-in-Chief the power to assassinate a political opponent?” Town said. “It’s an absurd sort of example of stretching immunity.”

With constituents by his side, Scott said the checks and balances will hold as long as a criminal doesn’t hold the office of the presidency.

“Richard Nixon would have never suffered through Watergate if he had had this kind of immunity,” Scott said. “So we’d hope that going forward we’ll correct this. But so long as we don’t elect a criminal, I don’t think it’ll make much difference.”

Trump seeks to set aside his New York hush money guilty verdict after Supreme Court immunity ruling

The ruling makes it unlikely that the January 6 case will be heard before Election Day.

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WAVY.com.