The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity is remarkable in it favors expedience over the rule of law, which makes it the most astonishing and singular embrace of despotism in our republic’s history.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling incorporates the relativist notion that there are no absolute truths. When circumstance warrants, according to Roberts, the president may order others to commit crimes or commit them himself. He may do so with impunity. The president cannot be prosecuted. After two and a half centuries, the nation has a king in every respect but the title.
Once upon a time, conservatives argued relativism was a godless communist centerpiece. Today, relativism is an especially flexible philosophy — anything goes. Relativists justify war, genocide, hate and destruction. And Supreme Court decisions.
The Constitution abhors relativism. It stands for basic human rights, well-worn democratic principles that have survived since 1776.
Nina Totenberg, the longtime Supreme Court reporter for National Public Radio, has noted that the five male members of the Roberts majority spent part of their careers in the executive branch. In the course of their service, she said, they seemingly acquired deep hostility toward congressional and judicial meddling (aka checks and balances) in executive affairs.
It’s highly unlikely that this view of the meddlesome branches of government is the only point of unanimous agreement. These five white guys share a lot, similar conservative values and judicial philosophy. They are clearly of like mind. Two justices are Harvard law school alumni and three graduated from Yale law. While Thomas is the oldest, the others are closer in age.
All these like-minded traits seem to be the ideal condition for the perfect Groupthink storm.
The social psychologist Irving Janis studied Groupthink in governance. In 1972, he found common patterns, not the least of which was the group’s collective belief in its invulnerability. That applies to all justices of the court for they serve a lifetime unless impeached. A second trait is a shared belief in the inherent morality of the group, which unquestionably applies to the court majority.
The classic instance of Groupthink was the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. It was planned by the Eisenhower administration and accepted by President Kennedy.
It was many months in the planning. Many, if not most, thought it was a bad idea. But no one spoke up. The disaster was complete.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, passed by Congress in 1964, authorized President Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam war. The resolution passed the House of Representatives without dissent (416-0). Two senators voted against it, Democrats Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska. Gruening was indeed far removed from this group’s thinking as to declare on the Senate floor that all of Vietnam was not worth the death of one American soldier.
As much as this decision reeks of relativism as its unprincipled anchor, the last paragraph of Roberts’ decision reveals an arrogant belief that the American people are stupid. There is no other explanation for the first three sentences of Roberts’ conclusion:
“The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”(Italics added.)
The first italicized sentence contradicts the second. It is cravenly dishonest to write such contradictory malarkey and pretend no one will notice.
At least the nation is safe from the Supreme Court until October when it will begin a new term. And what then? If the court can reverse Roe, if it can extoll the virtues of despotic government, then why not nullify Brown v. Board of Education? Indeed, the court could revive Plessy v. Ferguson and segregate schools, all in the name of “separate but equal” schools.
But perhaps the best indication of the court’s next assault are the hate-filled state laws being passed to restrict LGBTQ communities.
Experience has taught us that whatever the Roberts court’s agenda, it will involve pursuing the right’s culture wars and its crusade against majority rule. The nation has arrived at a unique crossroad with liberty one way and despotism the other.
It is a fearful time.
Follow these steps to easily submit a letter to the editor or guest opinion to the Arizona Daily Star.
