SCOTUS Justices’ Past Statements Haunt Them in Immunity Ruling

Justices’ Past Claims of Presidential Accountability Conflict with Recent Ruling

The Supreme Court's recent ruling granting absolute immunity to the president for "core" presidential duties has come under fire, with critics pointing to past statements by the conservative justices who made the decision. During their confirmation hearings, five of the six justices who ruled in favor of immunity had made statements suggesting that no one, including the president, is above the law.

• Neil Gorsuch: "No man is above the law."
• Brett Kavanaugh: "No one is above the law."
• Amy Coney Barrett: "The president is not above the law."
• Samuel Alito: "No president...is above the law."
• John Roberts: "The president is fully bound by the law."

These statements stand in stark contrast to the Court's recent ruling, which essentially exempts the president from legal accountability for official acts. Critics argue that this ruling undermines the principle of equal justice under the law and sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.

Justices’ Inconsistencies Call into Question Credibility of Court

The inconsistencies between the justices' past statements and their recent ruling have raised questions about the credibility of the Court. Critics argue that the justices have abandoned their commitment to upholding the rule of law in favor of partisan politics.

Justice	Past Statement	Recent Ruling
Neil Gorsuch	"No man is above the law."	Granted absolute immunity to president
Brett Kavanaugh	"No one is above the law."	Granted absolute immunity to president
Amy Coney Barrett	"The president is not above the law."	Granted absolute immunity to president
Samuel Alito	"No president...is above the law."	Granted absolute immunity to president
John Roberts	"The president is fully bound by the law."	Granted absolute immunity to president

The Court's ruling has also been criticized for its potential implications for future cases involving presidential immunity. Critics argue that the ruling could make it difficult to hold presidents accountable for illegal or unconstitutional actions. They fear that this could lead to a weakening of the rule of law and a decline in public trust in the judiciary.