"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity, If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
and
“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
“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.”
It seems like perhaps that power has been considerably weakened if the President is literally allowed to assassinate political rivals (as is mentioned in the dissent). You might vote not to impeach in fear, similar to jury intimidation. Hell, why even wait, what’s to prevent a President from going for it before the vote even happens? I find it hard to believe that this was meant to be a component of the impeachment process by the founders. To make it more exciting, I guess?
Once they are impeached they would presumably be subject to criminal prosecution under the Impeachment Judgements Clause [1] which states:
"but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
I don't think this ruling is, on the surface, exactly what people are making it out to be. It certainly maintains a high bar for criminally prosecuting the president for something they do in office, but it is not allowing them to commit crimes with impunity.
> but it is not allowing them to commit crimes with impunity
Well it kind of does, because the president has the power to stop impeachment from ever happening in the first place, if they're willing to command the military to.
With the speed at which the impeachment and removal can take, with this new interpretation, it seems significant and lasting damage take take place before anything could be done.
If we refuse to recognize that harm under the current Rule of Law, then who is going to identify and prosecute "harm" besides politically motivated ideologues? It sounds like a surefire way to cement the separation of the Executive office from it's respective checks and balances.
"The opposing party's candidate was involved in activities that posed a grave and immediate threat to national security, and we took action to mitigate that threat. This is an official act, and no you can't see the evidence because it's top secret."
With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
and
“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” “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.”
- Justice Sotomayor