Trust, expectations of this Supreme Court no longer surprise 

By Royce West
Texas Senate 

As the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released several rulings to close out its 2023 term, I wonder aloud how I can expect less of the judicial body that has the final say when it comes to interpreting the laws of the land. 

Monday’s (July 1) ruling on presidential immunity became the proverbial falling of the other shoe, after the court announced back in April, that it would hear arguments offered by attorneys hired to justify an even lower bar for how a President of the United States (POTUS) can conduct himself. 

Chief Justice John Roberts penned the familiar-cast 6-3 opinion, writing that former U.S. presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution for actions that are within their constitutional authority. 

“The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official,” Roberts wrote. “The president is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution.” 

Let’s hope it’s at least a mixed blessing that SCOTUS sent the case back to a Washington D.C. federal court to further define what the ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ duties of a POTUS are. 

However, it will take a near miracle for this case and other indictments to get to trial against the former leader of the free world – now convicted felon – before the November Presidential Elections. 

But back to the Supreme Court, however difficult it becomes to untangle actions of the two.

Last week (June 28), the Supreme Court issued another – at best ambiguous – ruling in the obstruction case that dates back to the January 6, 2021 attempt to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election. 

Stunned eyes worldwide witnessed “visitors,” and “patriots,’” violent attack on the nation’s capital, ravaging Congressional offices, hunting for former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, shouts of “hang Mike Pence,” and the beating of overwhelmed Capitol police. 

But according to SCOTUS, none of those acts constitute obstruction. 

The court’s interpretation tossed aside the statute used by prosecutors that carried up to a 20-year sentence, saying it was overly broad and over-shadows other applicable statutes. Instead, wrote Roberts in the majority opinion, to apply, the obstructive actions would have had to impede the availability of official documents or proceedings. 

My memories say that official proceedings to certify the results of the November 2020 Presidential Election were obstructed. But am I to believe my eyes, or SCOTUS? 

Think about this. In the obstruction case, the majority ruled that the context and intent of the statute applied was to prohibit the destruction of financial records during the investigation of Enron. 

But in the immunity case, SCOTUS ignores the context of the cases brought by prosecutors to uphold time-honored tenets of American jurisprudence which say that no man is above the law. SCOTUS says breaking the law is fine if the president is performing his official duties. 

That means deploying fake electors in multiple states to interfere with the Electoral College’s count was part of the president’s job. 

Speaking of overturning precedent, this same Robert’s court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortions nationwide. Many will say that the court rules through the lens of politics more than of policy. 

Some will say that some justices also act as if they are above the law. How else would one explain the relationship between Justice Clarence Thomas and a certain billionaire? And why also, has Thomas refused to recuse himself on cases related to the January 6 insurrection when his wife Ginni Thomas’ involvement is documented?

Would the court say that calling the Georgia Secretary of State and demanding officials to “find 11,780 votes” falls within the former president’s official duties? Or could this meet the new legal hurdle for obstruction? 

Court critics say America is yet to recover from the 2010 Citizens United case that opened the door for unlimited corporate campaign contributions. 

A final word of warning, whatever the outcome of the 2024 Presidential Election, the winner will have more opportunities to make lifetime appointments to the United States Supreme Court. VOTE!