George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley (Fox News)

Jonathan Turley Challenges “Hyperbolic Claims” From Left-Wing Media On SCOTUS Immunity Ruling

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley (Fox News)
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley (Fox News)

The United States Supreme Court addressed the contentious issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. The 6-3 decision sparked a firestorm of reactions, with some claiming it granted former presidents sweeping immunity while others vehemently refuted such assertions.

Amidst the polarized discourse, renowned attorney Jonathan Turley offered a nuanced analysis in an opinion piece with The Hill, challenging what he deemed “hyperbolic claims” from various quarters.

At the heart of the matter lies the Court’s determination that former presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, but not for unofficial or personal actions.

Read: Op-Ed: Biden May Help Create A Generation Of New Republicans

This ruling emerged more than nine weeks after former President Donald Trump, the presumed 2024 GOP presidential nominee, brought his presidential immunity case before the nation’s highest judicial authority.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion added fuel to the fire, lending credence to the concerns raised by critics. In her dissent, Sotomayor painted a grim picture, stating, “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.”

She went on to offer hypothetical scenarios, asserting, “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Turley, a self-described Libertarian who testified in Trump’s impeachment proceedings, acknowledged the weight of Sotomayor’s dissent while challenging its broader implications.

Read: Jonathan Turley Says Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Is Blow To Jack Smith

In his op-ed for The Hill, titled “Hold off the death squads: Highly misleading coverage of SCOTUS immunity decision,” Turley wrote, “The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims.”

“On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow warned that the Supreme Court had just unleashed death squads to roam our streets. CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen announced that murder was now legal (at least for presidents), while others predicted that the ruling on presidential immunity would invite “tyranny,” Turley wrote.

“Anyone reading the coverage would conclude that James Madison has been replaced by John Wick in a new “Baba Yaga” Republic,” said Turley.

He highlighted a crucial aspect of the majority’s ruling, stating, “Indeed, the majority stated that Trump’s alleged ‘private scheme with private actors’ to create alternative slates of electors ‘cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function.’ If that is established by the trial court, then Trump’s actions would not be protected by any sort of immunity.”

Read: Florida Rep. Greg Steube Slams Democrats’ “Fearmongering” Over Supreme Court Immunity

The reference to alternative slates of electors alludes to allegations that Trump and his allies created and submitted fraudulent certificates falsely claiming he had won the Electoral College vote in certain states, thereby disrupting President Joe Biden’s election victory.

Turley contended that the Court’s ruling does not provide a “green light for death squads.”

“In defining official functions, the Court referenced constitutional and statutory authority. It also recognized that a president must be able to speak to the public on matters of public interest, as Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021. While some of us believe that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment, the justices suggested that it was also protected as a matter of immunity,” Turley wrote.

Amidst the heated rhetoric and polarized viewpoints, Turley’s assessment serves as a measured counterpoint, urging caution against exaggerated claims and emphasizing the nuances inherent in the Court’s ruling.

Help support the Tampa Free Press by making any small donation by clicking here.

Android Users, Click To Download The Tampa Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. Follow Us On Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our free newsletter.

Login To Facebook To Comment