Court crowns the man who would be king

Our Supreme Court has taken a dangerous step toward seating our first king, an absolute ruler [“Court’s checks out of balance,” Editorial, July 2].

The court’s decision Monday declares a president is shielded from prosecution for illegal acts when functioning officially. The ruling, while neglecting to offer any definition of official acts, noted that only a court can define such acts as they occur. No other citizen has this right.

For nearly 250 years, presidents functioned well without immunity. This court has now shown the only president to wage war on a peaceful transfer of power how to lock it in.

Where are we going in our democratic experiment? Have we gone too far, focusing on one man’s desires? How will history reflect this moment?

— Ed Silsbe, Blue Point

The Supreme Court blew the easiest decision ever put in front of a bench. Is the president above the law? We have always understood that the president is a citizen, equal to but not above all other citizens.

The court has basically declared former President Donald Trump was and could again be king.

He has been found guilty on 34 felony charges. He was impeached for attempting to blackmail a foreign leader and for leading an insurrection against our nation.

The Supreme Court always sides with Trump. Perhaps we should issue six of the justices MAGA lapel pins.

— Robert Broder, Stony Brook

July 1, 2024 may go down as a tragic day in American history and jurisprudence, a day in which we went from a democracy to a dictatorship. Three Supreme Court justices, indebted to Donald Trump, gave him unfettered power, with no negative consequences, to do anything job-related. Saying “no one is above the law” is no longer true. God save our nation.

— Howard Mandell, East Northport

It saddens me to realize that even the highest court in the land is so politically polarized that it is making decisions according to its political persuasion instead of the law. In doing so, the justices may be neglecting to look ahead to the future and realizing that the next presidents may be from the other side of the political spectrum.

When a former president is being tried for his reckless behavior and illegal deeds he committed, it is shortsighted to think that giving him a pass would be in the nation’s best interest. I am afraid to think of the consequences.

— Francois Geffrard, Central Islip

Any justice who voted for this ill-advised ruling can no longer claim to be an originalist. Nothing in the Constitution justifies such a ruling, and the Founding Fathers would be aghast. They fought a revolution to free themselves from a ruler they could not hold accountable.

Chief Justice John Roberts spoke of the necessity for an “independent executive.” But the Constitution doesn’t allow for an independent executive. The Constitution provides for a system of checks and balances so that no branch of the government is independent. Therefore, anyone subscribing to the doctrine of originalism could not have approved this ruling.

Of the 46 presidents only two requested or needed immunity. If such immunity was necessary for our government, why was it never truly needed until now?

This country has a principle of no one being above the law, and this court just threw that principle in the garbage.

Trump attempted a coup to remain in office, and now his hand-picked justices have given him that coup.

— Scott Diamond, Levittown

A president inciting a riot against the U.S. government is an “official” act? The court now has become the judicial arm of the Republican Party.

— Robert Goldkranz, Uniondale

The court just turned its back on modern democracy and took one large step back toward the Middle Ages and the divine right of kings.

— Jim Brennan, Rocky Point