The difference between a president and a despot now is almost entirely dependent on the character of the person in the Oval Office.that only the most cynical could believe that the Supreme Court of the United States would hold that a president can use his official powers to violate generally applicable criminal law. But on Monday, in a stunning 6–3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the six Republican appointees decided just that.
For any criminally inclined chief executive, the court put the cherry on top of the sundae by directing lower courts to interpret the scope of “official duty” very broadly and stating that, no matter the charged crime, a trial court may not allow a jury to even hear of a president’s criminal actions if they fall within the broad and indeterminate category of “official” conduct.
This amounts to a form of absolute immunity unheard of in criminal law. The court has now effectively placed the president above the law, no matter the chief justice’s protestations otherwise. Richard Nixon could only have. However sadistic the purpose, however outrageous the conduct, it’s not a crime if the president does it. “Officially” direct a drone strike on a political rival: not a crime. Send federal troops to gun down peaceful protesters in Chicago: not a crime.
The court has written an opinion for a president who respects limits. It’s a tacit recognition that the current occupant of the White House will not abuse his power to remain in power. But, in a further irony, the court has done so in a case that exists only because on Jan. 6, 2021, President Trump demonstrated that he respects no limits and would do anything—even break the law—to remain president.
Because the difference between a president and a despot now is almost entirely dependent on the character of the person in the Oval Office, the Supreme Court has crystalized the choice this election—American democracy and the rule of law are on the ballot come November. Perhaps more terrifyingly, this will be true of every future election.