Supreme Court's checks on presidential power out of balance

Steering through truly uncharted waters, the Supreme Court Monday expansively defined the constitutional protection presidents have from criminal prosecution for their official acts, yet narrowly allowed that immunity to be pierced for unofficial ones.

The ruling guts much of the federal indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith against Donald Trump for trying to stop the certification of the election he lost in 2020 and his role in the violence surrounding Jan. 6, the day his supporters attacked the Capitol. There is a narrow path for Smith’s prosecution to continue in the exception the court established if the president “speaks in an unofficial capacity — perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader.”

Even if Trump is ultimately to be held accountable for interfering with the last election, it is highly unlikely there would be any reckoning before the next election when the nation decides whether to return the presumptive Republican nominee to office in November.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing for the majority, declared no president is above the law. But thanks to the court’s ruling, our democracy’s traditional system of checks and balances may not be able to effectively check the power of a president who flouts its laws and norms, or even commits a criminal act.

Certainly, a president must be free to act decisively in carrying out his duties without fear of prosecution afterward, but it’s worth heeding the voice of the three dissenting justices who warn of the risks of an imperial presidency. Especially concerning is the language in the ruling that dismissed any notion that a president should not be involved in internal Department of Justice decisions regarding criminal prosecutions.

The historic decision comes at a fraught time when voters soon decide who will next hold the most powerful job in the world. Should it be Trump — the former, twice-impeached president who is talking about a revenge tour against his political opponents if he returns to the White House? Or Joe Biden, the Democratic Party incumbent, whose disastrous debate performance last week elevated already considerable doubt about his ability to effectively continue on the job for four more years.

This sense of jeopardy for the nation comes amid a world in turbulent realignment as a far-right movement further entrenches itself in Europe, the Israel-Palestinian crisis boils in the Middle East — and as America’s ideological enemies, Russia and Iran, and its economic ones, such as China, seek to undermine Western democratic ideals and alliances.

What dangers could future presidents impose because of Monday’s ruling? Voters have their ballot-box power to choose a president less likely to place his own political, personal or financial interests above that of the nation. Now, they must also make a deliberate effort to choose members of Congress who will place the interests of the nation above party loyalty when it’s necessary to exercise their constitutional duties as a check on excessive presidential powers.