Donald Trump’s success before the Supreme Court is a scary preview of his second term

If you ever wondered just how much in the tank the conservative Supreme Court justices are for the Republicans who paved the way for their ascent, look no further than last week’s argument about presidential immunity. Donald Trump, who will always assume the maximum brazen position, was essentially arguing that a president is above the law. Based on the oral arguments, the justices are likely to agree.

The precise legal argument that Trump was claiming was that he was acting as president when he was attempting to overthrow the election of Joe Biden and that because he was acting in his official capacity, he could do as he pleased. Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, had even argued that a president could assassinate a political rival and not be prosecuted.

Related: The odds of Donald Trump being convicted in his New York trial are actually pretty strong

Republicans should be worried.

The justices had already done Trump a solid by dragging the case out. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled against Trump’s argument last December, saying that being president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.” Trump’s lawyers appealed, and prosecutor Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to take the case immediately instead of having the U.S. Court of Appeals review it.

Dive deeper every day

Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues

Daily Weekly Good News

The justices declined. Delay is Trump’s ally, as he hopes to win the election and then dismiss the case against himself. The justices know that but apparently don’t care. Still, the appeals court unanimously ruled against Trump. “It would be a striking paradox if the president, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity,” the three-judge panel wrote.

Many constitutional scholars, as well as prominent historians, believe that Trump’s argument is outrageous. The liberal justices on the Court clearly agreed.

Almost totally absent from the conservatives’ questions was Trump himself. Instead, the justices ignored the fact that Trump tried to pull a coup and worried instead of far-fetched hypotheticals. One was the possibility of a president being prosecuted for participating, in Neil Gorsuch’s hypothetical, “a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress” that delays Congressional business.

“We are writing a rule for the ages,” Gorsuch intoned.

Indeed, they are. And the rule is that there are no rules when it comes to the president – or at least a Republican president.

The immediate effect of the Court’s decision, which won’t come down for a few more months, is likely to send Trump’s case back to the lower court to sort out what constitutes an official act and a private one. That means that the trial wouldn’t take place before the election.

More importantly, the ruling sends a message to Trump that he can tell the Court that he is essentially a monarch, and the Court will agree. The right-wing justices will not put limits on his powers because they agree with his policies.

“As we heard today, Donald Trump is trying to take the most maximal approach to executive power,” Deana El-Mallawany, counsel for the bipartisan group Protect Democracy, told The Atlantic. “If the Supreme Court is willing to give an inch, then I think he’ll take a mile in a second term.”

During the arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “A stable democratic society needs the good faith of its public officials.” Unfoertunately, good faith is in short supply among her peers.

Don't forget to share: