Sen. Schumer’s Planning a Bill to Defy SCOTUS’s Immunity Ruling

5
195

On Monday, Sen. Chuck Schumer falsely claimed the Supreme Court crowned Donald Trump by allowing him to “commit crimes with impunity. In response, he plans to pass a law negating the court’s ruling.

“We Democrats will not let the Supreme Court’s decision stand unaddressed. The Constitution makes plain that Congress has the authority to check the judiciary through appropriate legislation. I will work with my colleagues on legislation classifying Trump’s election subversion acts as unofficial acts not subject to immunity,” he said.

The Supreme Court did not rule specifically on Donald Trump’s case. They ruled that the president has immunity when carrying out official acts as president. Official acts can never be defined as “to commit crimes with impunity.” That has never been an official act of the presidency.

SAVING DEMOCRACY BY DEFYING SCOTUS

“We’re doing this because we believe that in America, no president should be free to overturn an election against the will of the people, no matter what the conservative justices may believe,” Schumer said. “As we work on this important matter, we’ll also keep working on other proposals to reassert Congress’s Article I authority to rein in the abuse of our federal judiciary. The American people are tired, just tired, of justices who think they are beyond accountability.”

Most of this is for show.

To save democracy, he will defy the Supreme Court and attempt to corrupt the Constitution.

We don’t know the specifics of the bill yet.

Apart from Congress, the White House told NBC News that it is exploring its own options for how to respond.

“We are reviewing the decision and certainly will be exploring what could be done to address it to better safeguard democracy and the rule of law in the future, given this dangerous precedent,” White House spokesperson Ian Sams said.

The White House wants to preserve the rule of law by defying the third branch of govenrment.

NBC falsely claimed that the decision of the court was ideological.


PowerInbox
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments