There are many ways to say it
Regarding the July 2nd news article “Supreme Court: Official acts are immune from prosecution – Supreme Court rules 6-3 that former US presidents enjoy broad protection from prosecution.”
We the people have been deceived, deceived, tricked, deceived, deceived, deceived, deceived, deceived.
Jess Wade, Fairview
Ignoring history
I agree with the Supreme Court's minority opinion on presidential immunity. I believe the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was correct in its decision on immunity. The Supreme Court majority made a political decision in favor of Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court considered history when considering the constitutionality of gun control. They did not consider history when considering presidential immunity. The Founding Fathers did not want a monarchy and wrote the Constitution to limit the power of the President. There is no history that would require presidential immunity until the 45th President was indicted for acts committed while in office, before or after he left office. I think it was misguided for the Supreme Court to say it must consider future and current presidents when making its decision. The Supreme Court definitely considered only Trump.
From now on, prosecutors and courts will have to consider whether a president's actions are official or private, and leave it to lower courts to determine the difference. Can deliberately illegal acts be considered official presidential acts protected by presidential immunity?
Even if Trump retakes the White House, it may never be known whether he will be convicted of the crimes he is charged with.
Richard Bach, Garland
Presidential Victory
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that presidential immunity is legal, it is time to respect that decision. I have always believed that the Framers of the Constitution supported presidential immunity. James Madison and George Washington wanted immunity to protect the president, not weaken him.
The ruling protects former presidents including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Richard Nixon had immunity from prosecution in the Watergate scandal, but the court did not rule on that.
Even Joe Biden would be immune from prosecution and protected in the future, even if he were to lose or withdraw from the election.
The ruling is a comprehensive victory for the presidency.
John Huerta, Merced, California
Where does this lead?
If the president is omnipotent and immune from the rule of law, what would stop President Joe Biden from using executive power to remove former President Donald Trump from the November ballot? At least half of the American people believe that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. The other half believe that Biden lost the election. How can our democracy survive if the president is not accountable to the rule of law?
Georgian Elliot Moss, Sunnyvale
What is a “public act”?
Future historians, if allowed to tell the truth, may record this date as the day the nail was driven into the coffin of the U.S. Constitution. While a president certainly has the right to make decisions that many people don't like, he cannot ignore the law.
Former President Richard Nixon broke the law by inciting a mob to steal from the Democratic Party. That was political and against the national interest. Former President Donald Trump broke the law by inciting a mob to try to overturn the results of a free election. That was political and against the national interest.
Unfortunately, that same Supreme Court will ultimately have to define “official acts.” It's doubtful that it will.
Steve McClure, Far North Dallas
The real reason for opposition
Those who oppose the Supreme Court granting presidential immunity sound hysterical. They have never heard of checks and balances, journalists, congressional oversight bodies, the 25th Amendment, the media, inspectors general, or simply the American people who don't allow the president to do whatever he wants.
Let's be honest, the main reason so many people disagree with the Supreme Court's decision is not for posterity's sake, but because they want Donald Trump's head on a platter, and are willing to do any kind of permanent damage to the institution of the presidency to get it.
It's ridiculous. As for the Supreme Court's actions, former President Barack Obama should approve the ruling. Remember when 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman Awlaki was killed in a drone strike on President Obama's watch? If the Supreme Court had not granted immunity to Trump, Obama and Trump could have been in the same cell one day.
David Mark Turanian, Henderson, Nevada
Unlikely? Very unlikely
The Supreme Court's rulings on presidential immunity give the president free rein to become a dictator if he so chooses, something that Chief Justice John Roberts argues is highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, history denies this position. This has already happened in Venezuela, where Nicolas Maduro turned a democracy into a dictatorship and jailed his opponents.
It would be irresponsible to believe this is not possible in America.
Michael Burger, Plano
“This decision makes me cry”
The Supreme Court's decision on Presidential immunity brought me to tears. This not only affects Donald Trump's current problems, but all future presidents. No one should be above the law. Our country was founded on this principle, and granting immunity gives room for choices and decisions that are selfish and not in the best interest of the country. I fear for the future of our democracy.
Heidi Ruez, Flower Mound
A new sad era
The latest Supreme Court decision on Presidential Immunity is a game changer!
Currently, a sitting president can kill or imprison his opponent for national security or other reasons, avoid debates, and win an election with no legal consequences. This is true for the current president and all future presidents.
This is indeed a new era in US presidential politics. A very sad era. It creates the possibility of the US becoming a third world dictatorship in the future. Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues should long be remembered for this.
Jim W. Assaf, Dallas/Design District
vice versa
It is ironic to watch the liberal outrage at the Supreme Court's decision to grant immunity to the former president as they begin to understand how most of the country felt watching Black Lives Matter rioters burn, loot and destroy multiple cities and police stations, causing ten times the damage in every respect of January 6th, with total impunity.
Janet Worthington, Plano
Nixon would be laughing.
Since the signing of the U.S. Constitution 237 years ago, freeing the nation from the rule of an autocratic king, the Supreme Court has granted presidential immunity for “official” acts regardless of motivation, providing legal support for Richard Nixon's argument that “nothing the president does is illegal.”
Paul Halebian, Dallas
Act before your opponent
The US Supreme Court's ruling that the President has immunity from liability for his official acts, regardless of their legality, has given Democrats a solution to Donald Trump. The President's duty is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. As Commander in Chief, he has a duty to protect the nation from insurrection.
President Joe Biden has made it clear that he believes Trump is an existential threat to democracy, and roughly half of the nation agrees. Therefore, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the President is constitutionally bound to arrest, detain, or even assassinate Trump, regardless of the lawfulness of doing so, because he is acting on his constitutional duty to protect and defend the Constitution.
Despite the fact that such action would turn the United States into a third-world dictatorship, Biden should consider using that power, because it is clear that he will do so if Trump wins the November election.
Robert M. Franklin, Far North Dallas
Righteous Verdict
The US Supreme Court is right. It is the whining, corrupt left wing media and Democrats who are complaining that a constitutional decision goes against their hatred of the former president.
As a conservative Republican, my only regret about this ruling is that the corrupt traitors Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have rightfully been exonerated and will continue to be exonerated. Also, threatening to impeach a Supreme Court Justice of the United States is illegal and treasonous.
Donald Jones, Wiley
Let the jury decide
Causation: The Department of Justice indicted a former president for insurrection, and the Supreme Court ruled that the president has conditional immunity. I am one of those concerned that this decision gives new immunity to presidents, especially Donald Trump.
I made two points: if the Department of Justice had not indicted Trump, he would have effectively enjoyed criminal immunity for his actions, and second, if the Department of Justice had not indicted Trump, he would have vociferously protested his innocence, citing the lack of an indictment.
Let a jury of his peers decide his fate.
Keith Crum, Downtown Dallas
We welcome your comments via letters to the editor. Please see our guidelines. Send your letter hereIf you have any problems with the form, please email us. Email:
