Very rarely does the United States Supreme Court have a ruling that can truly fashion the future of our Republic, but here we are. This is regarding presidential immunity. News/Talk radio needs to understand that the presidential immunity ruling is very important. I am going to give you the three scenarios and what I think about them. You may have different thoughts and feel free to comment.
Scenario #1
The Supreme Court punts and sends this down to a lower court. I think of this as the least likely of the rulings but here is why this could be plausible: The John Roberts Supreme Court allowed Obamacare by making a somewhat flimsy ruling saying that the health insurance mandate was based on the taxation and spending clause was legal. Obamacare enthusiasts felt a certain amount of pride and vindication over this ruling.
Judicial Conservatives thought Roberts was pressured and made this ruling upon an imaginary reason. Sending this back to the lower court is a Pontus Pilate washing of the hands move.
Could it happen? I will give this a 20% chance of happening.
Scenario #2
The 2nd scenario is either eliminating or seriously weakening presidential immunity. I think that this would be the worst thing. You may not like Trump. That is fair and you are welcome to not like Donald Trump. This is America. Totally allowed.
If presidential immunity is weakened, this opens the door for prosecuting any former President.
Let’s talk about President Barack Obama. He approved the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. Al-Awlaki was an American citizen. He was not on the battlefield. Al-Awlaki was denied due process that is afforded to every American citizen.
In the ordering of the killing of a U. S. citizen, corroding presidential immunity could lead to Obama’s prosecution. Obama made the right decision, but civil libertarians could argue that the legal process should be followed.
If you don’t buy what I am saying, you are living in a fantasyland. What crimes did Jimmy Carter commit in office? What about Bill Clinton? W? We could be prosecuting Presidents for decades. It has often been cited that political professionals are not our best and brightest. Clintonite Paul Begala once uttered that Washington D.C. was “Hollywood for ugly people.”
Eroding presidential immunity will lead to weak Presidents who will shy away from making legitimate and difficult decisions. We don’t want that. Presidents are elected to make tough calls. If the USA is attacked, I want our President to respond immediately. I don’t want our President to meet with a team of attorneys to determine if a decision has legal ramifications after he/she leaves office. I know that agreement is often a difficult task in 2024.
If we can prosecute someone just because we don’t like them personally or politically, our nation is doomed. I give this a 40% chance of happening.
Scenario #3
Presidential immunity is upheld. I know that this may seem like a Pollyanna statement, but I want to believe that our presidents think of Americans first. If there is a unanimous ruling, this will protect all current and future presidents regardless of party. This would be the ideal position. Presidential immunity protects our country. There is no expiration date on prosecuting murder.
As I described above, Barack Obama ordered the killing of not just one American citizen but his children. Would some prosecute Obama for this? I would hope not, but the option should not be there. If presidential immunity is compromised, Joe Biden could and probably would pardon Obama.
As we know, pardons are often a political exercise instead of a principle of justice. I give this a 40% chance of occurring.
I am not a formally educated constitutional scholar, but I have read The Federalist Papers. If you have never read these, you must. It gives you context for how the United States Constitution was crafted. We can all agree or disagree on various issues.
Some of my best friends, I agree with on very little. I enjoy their intellect and I hope that they say the same. I actually like the conversations with people I disagree with more than people that I actually agree with. It allows me to sharpen my thoughts.
Here is what this means for your radio show. You have never been more essential. You provide your opinions that help people analyze their thoughts, biases, and opinions. This ruling could be a match to already unprecedented times. If my first two options are the ruling, the United States of America could very well be neutered. It will create an isolationist nation that will create a void in the world where justice will no longer prevail.
Peter Thiele is a weekly news/talk radio columnist for Barrett Media, and an experienced news/talk radio programmer. He recently served as program director for WHO/KXNO in Des Moines, IA. Prior to that role he held programming positions in New York City, San Francisco, Little Rock, Greenville, Hunstville, and Joplin. Peter has also worked as a host, account executive and producer in Minneapolis, and San Antonio. He can be found on Twitter at @PeterThiele.
