Monday’s 6-3 Supreme Court decision granting lifetime criminal immunity to presidents for official acts while in office is breathtaking in its dangerous implications for our nation’s future. By rewriting the rule that has governed presidential authority for the past 235 years — that no one, not even a president, is above the law — the court has given a green light to any future president inclined to wield his or her executive authority irrespective of the laws that apply to all other citizens and residents of the U.S. King George III would be pleased.
I have no idea what motivated the majority to endorse such a sweeping display of judicial activism. It is no secret that some of these justices have strongly conservative ideological leanings. Some also have been less than discreet in broadcasting their political views.
I have no idea what motivated the majority to endorse such a sweeping display of judicial activism.
But regardless of motivation, what appalls and worries me most are the abject ignorance and apparent indifference of the six. Their ruling will have deeply disturbing practical consequences if an unprincipled and politically corrupt individual is ever elected president of the United States in the future.
For the first 50 months of the Obama administration, I served as assistant to the president of the United States for homeland security and counterterrorism. In that role, I served as President Barack Obama’s senior counterterrorism adviser, as well as the individual who conveyed to the appropriate department or agency the president’s authorization to use lethal force against terrorists operating outside areas of active military hostilities. In each instance, President Obama was exacting in his insistence that the intelligence be vetted and verified and that the legal review be thorough, well-documented and unimpeachable.
Some have disagreed with Obama’s decisions, but I firmly believe his primary focus, and the focus of all those involved in the deliberations, was to make sure that every act of his presidency was firmly anchored in law. Moreover, the president and his advisers wanted every lawful act of the administration to be principled, ethical, judicious, proportional, fair and necessary to save innocent lives. I bore witness to the president’s moral compass as he used it to guide and inform his actions, counterterrorism and otherwise.
I am confident that President Joe Biden has a similarly strong and unwavering commitment to the rule of law. I am equally confident that he adheres to longstanding American principles and values as he carries out the solemn duties of the presidency. His public criticism of the Supreme Court ruling underscores that commitment.
But what if a future president embraces the ruling? What if a future president with dictator-like ambitions seeks to quash any real or perceived political opposition by using the broad and unrivaled powers of the presidency, up to and including the use of lethal force? Such an individual may well wield the Supreme Court’s “Stay-Out-of-Jail card” as a cudgel and a helpful and expedient opportunity to vanquish adversaries, critics and rivals. For a president without a conscience or a sense of decency, the freedom to exercise limitless and unaccountable power could present too great a temptation to pass up.
So, while a president has now been given immunity for official acts, irrespective of how patently heinous, grievous and criminal they might be, what about the implementers of those orders? What about the individuals, the civilian and uniformed members of the executive branch, who might be called on to break the law on behalf of their commander in chief? Law-abiding individuals would have a choice of unattractive options. If they perceive an order to be unlawful, they might refuse to comply, risking immediate dismissal, as well as potential criminal charges a corrupt and vengeful president could direct the Department of Justice to pursue.
On the other hand, if individuals agree to carry out unlawful actions for which only presidents enjoys immunity, they would leave themselves open to subsequent criminal charges levied by the Department of Justice in future administrations. Perhaps, for some of these loyalists and sycophantic supplicants, a lawless president would be able to extend his nonsensical immunity by pre-emptively issuing pardons. The image of jackbooted thugs carrying out the dirty work of despots in other countries certainly comes to mind.
In writing for the majority, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who until this week had impressed me as a decidedly right-leaning but still generally sensible member of the nation’s highest court, said that the liberal justices’ dissent struck “a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.” The accuracy of that statement, however, is wholly dependent on whether only good and honest individuals who firmly believe in the rule of law take up future residence in the White House.
I was fortunate to serve six presidents — from Jimmy Carter to Obama — all of whom viewed the rule of law as part of the bedrock foundation of our country. Unfortunately, not all current aspirants for America’s solemn office are either good or honest. Donald Trump has already demonstrated his willingness to use every unethical trick in the book not only to skirt the law, but also to undermine it. Thanks to the Roberts court, there is now a ruling to help men like Trump trample it.
This is certainly not the America I thought we would live in as we celebrate the 248th anniversary of our country’s independence.