NUANCED AND BALANCED SUPREME COURT RULING FAILS TO STOP MELTDOWN IN INCREASINGLY DYSFUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACY

Also available on Substack

by Colin Liddell

The whole point of the Supreme Court is to take the edge of things in a democratic republic, where things can get a bit abrasive from time to time. The role of the Court is to deal with the grey areas and to see that that "fair play" is generally upheld.

It's not as easy as it sounds, as voters are stupid, politicians are venal and self-serving, and we live in hysterical times. Mistakes will be made.

There is a lot to argue about in the Supreme Court's latest decision, which is being widely interpreted as favourable to Trump. But is it? 

The basics, as reported by the BBC:

'The US Supreme Court has said Donald Trump and other former presidents are partially immune from criminal prosecution [...] The 6-3 ruling did not outright dismiss an indictment that charges Trump with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, but it did strip away key elements of the case against him. The justices found that a president has immunity for "official acts", but is not immune for "unofficial acts", and referred the matter back to a trial judge.

The three liberal justices dissented strongly, expressing “fear for our democracy”. “The President is now a king above the law,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. [...] It is the first time since the nation's founding that the Supreme Court has declared former presidents can be shielded from criminal charges."'

That last line denotes the "special nature" of Donald Trump.

But is Trump really that special, or is he just the first President to come to power in a new era of intense asymmetrical warfare, which has understandably caused some distress and confusion to the American Deep State? And, yes, Trump is a pretty unique personality and undoubtedly something of a shit magnet.

But stripping out Trump from the equation, is this really such a "partisan" and "polarising" decision as many are claiming?

In my view, the whole point of the American set-up, whether you agree with it or not, is the division of powers, and that requires a relatively strong President. Gelding the President by allowing him to be all-too-easily prosecuted for this, that, and the other, would unbalance America and make an intrinsically divided legislature ascendent. 

Because of their "collective irresponsibility," you can't prosecute failing Congresses and Senates in the same way.

In essence, what critics of the SCOTUS decision are doing is using the Presidential Office's "individuality" to attack it.

All this might be great if you're into letting a lot of twisted political hacks stick pins into whoever outstrips them to become President, but it is against the clear intent of the US Constitution and the long-standing consensus that the Presidential Office is on a par with the other branches of government.

The real problem with America is the increasing hysteria of its commentariat and the growing apathy of its electorate. As usual: calm the fuck down, folks.

____________________

Follow @cbliddell

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).