The Supreme Court says America now has a king. In November, it could be Donald Trump | Opinion

America has a king after all.

Make no mistake: That’s the ugly result of Monday morning’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump is entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal charges for using the powers of his office to try to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

The nature of presidential power “requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecutions for official acts during his tenure in office,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 6-3 court majority. “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his court constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”

It’s a ruling that would have shocked America’s founders.

They waged a revolution designed to throw off the tyranny of an unaccountable king, and built a Constitution expressly intended to empower a president to govern energetically but not abusively. There had to be accountability. There had to be restraints.

“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers in 1788, trying to convince his countrymen to adopt the Constitution.

Hamilton contrasted those restraints on the presidency with “the person of the king of Great Britain” — whom, he noted, “is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable.”

So much for that.

Thanks to the court’s ruling, the distinction between king and president is now much less clear. The results are dangerous — and possibly even fatal — to one of the foundational ideas underpinning American democracy: the idea that no person is above the law.

And it leaves presidents — not just Donald Trump, but any president — newly free to weaponize the powers of the office.

“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

‘Unofficial acts’ caveat little consolation

Roberts argued the court’s ruling was more limited than the dissenters recognized. “Absolute immunity” applies only to a president’s “official” acts. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

That is small consolation.

Among Trump’s “official acts” during the weeks leading up to Jan. 6: He attempted to order the Justice Department to convince Republican-run swing states to replace their legitimate representatives to the Electoral College with a new slate of electors that would fraudulently push the election from Biden to Trump. When Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen resisted those efforts, Trump tried to oust him — and backed down only when department lawyers threatened to resign en masse.

This was a clear abuse of presidential power, based on false allegations of election fraud, to set aside the will of the American voters in 2020. It was a direct assault on the country’s democratic functioning.

But Trump cannot be punished for it.

“Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials,” Roberts wrote.

Trump can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts” committed in the course of trying to overturn the election. But as legal observers noted in the ruling’s aftermath, distinguishing between official and unofficial won’t be easy or obvious — and in any case, the time needed to parse the two will push any trial for the remaining charges well past this November’s presidential election.

Justice delayed is, in this case, quite literally justice denied.

Kansas City-area Republicans back Trump’s push

We must observe that Donald Trump’s victory over accountability comes with the full support of Kansas City-area Republicans who have spent years assuring us of their utter devotion to the United States Constitution. Of particular note: Kris Kobach and Andrew Bailey, the attorneys general of Kansas and Missouri, both signed onto a brief supporting Trump’s claim of immunity. Will Scharf, Bailey’s opponent in the GOP primary for attorney general, also played a major role in Trump’s case.

That advocacy should serve as a black mark on the careers of all three men.

Monday’s ruling should also smash to bits any remaining notions that the U.S. Supreme Court is an apolitical “balls and strikes” institution focused merely and modestly on enforcing the law as written. The Constitution says nothing about presidents being immune from criminal charges for abusing their power. That’s a doctrine created by the conservative justices. We wonder: Would those justices have granted such expansive immunity to a Democratic president facing similar charges?

We cannot mind-read, of course. But we’re skeptical.

What’s more, the immunity ruling doesn’t come in a vacuum. It comes just a few days after the court overturned one of its own precedents, the so-called “Chevron deference” doctrine that previously gave executive branch agencies a wide berth to interpret Congress’ intent when translating broadly written laws into specific rules and regulations affecting every facet of American life.

Taken together, the court’s rulings in recent days have made it more difficult for presidents to battle climate change and easier for them to mount a coup. It’s a stark legacy for the Roberts court.

We do not want any president — not Joe Biden, not Donald Trump, not any of their successors — to hold office with the broad grant of immunity. No leader of a democratic country should have such unrestrained power.

But let’s be honest: We’re not so worried that Biden will abuse his powers to pursue and punish his political enemies. It is Trump — who already did so in his first term, and who has campaigned for the presidency this year on a platform of vengeance against his critics — who presents the most immediate threat. Trump over the weekend posted an image to his social media platform Truth Social that called for former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney to be tried by a military commission on charges of treason.

The question after Monday is this: What’s to stop him?

The U.S. Supreme Court did perform one small service with its ruling. The stakes of November’s presidential election are clearer than ever. Do voters really want Trump to reoccupy the Oval Office without any constraints whatsoever on his behavior?

Donald Trump upended American democracy as president. Make him a king and he’ll finish the job.