Once again Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, not only ignored the Constitution but also lied about the Supreme Court’s Presidential decision. The court ruled that a president has total immunity when exercisizing his official duties, but the lying jackals in the Democratic Marxist Party continue to insist he can rob banks and assassinate political rivals. The Supreme Court was very specific that he caqn be arrestd for such crimes. But true to their Nazi roots they continue to spread the big lie.
The Hill reported:
In her first public remarks since President Trump took office about two weeks ago, Sotomayor said she worried the Supreme Court has departed too far from public sentiment, when asked about dwindling public confidence in the court.
“If we as a court go so much further ahead of people, our legitimacy is going to be questioned,” Sotomayor told an audience in Kentucky on Wednesday evening.
“I think the immunity case is one of those situations,” she continued. “I don’t think that Americans have accepted that anyone should be above the law in America. Our equality as people was the foundation of our society and of our Constitution.”
“I think my court would probably gather more public support if it went a little more slowly in undoing precedent,” she said.
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Sotomayor proved how stupid she is in her hysterical dissent:
“The President is now a king above the law,” Sotomayor said as she echoed Judge Florence Pan’s SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical.
“Orders the Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power?”
“With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
The Court’s majority and Chief Justice Roberts absolutely torched Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberal justices:
“As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today — conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority.”
Roberts Wrote:
“Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President “above the law.””
“The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’”
“The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors.”
