OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling on former President Donald Trump’s claims of “immunity” from prosecution as the fate of at least two federal cases filed against him hung in the balance.
The justices ruled 6-3 that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.
The Supreme Court ruled that Trump cannot be prosecuted for actions he took as president if those actions were part of his official duties. However, he can be prosecuted for things he did that were not part of his job as president. The lower courts must carefully examine each action to determine whether it is official or not.
Fox News host Jeanine Jeanine Pirro argued that the ruling would protect a president from prosecutors with an “agenda” to indict.
During a segment on America’s Newsroom, Pirro and many others celebrated the decision as necessary to prevent “political prosecution” against Trump.
“The idea that prosecutors who may have another agenda want to go and indict a president or an ex-president for actions while he was president, this court is basically saying there is presumptive immunity,” Pirro said.
Pirro called the ruling a “brilliant decision” that “helped protect the republic,” adding, “This court had a job to do and they did it today. And they deserve our praise for doing it.”
Many other legal experts and pundits applauded the Supreme Court for its decision.
Fox contributor Andy McCarthy claimed the U.S. is in “a new era of politicized prosecutions” and the court needed to “protect the executive branch,” adding, “The most important thing about this case, which Judge Gorsuch — Justice Gorsuch — noted that they were writing for the ages, was the need to protect the executive branch from what I think we’re in, which is a new era of politicized prosecutions.”
Fox News legal expert Jonathan Turley said, “If they want to look at the implications of leaving presidents without protection, they just need to look around the country.” Turley added: “Even though Manhattan was not a federal case, it was a political prosecution in the view of many of us that was rather raw and open.”
Fox host and former Trump White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany responded to the dissent’s concerns by saying that “we have checks and balances in the form of Congress’ check on the executive all throughout the Constitution.”
WATCH:
On Fox News, former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky said, “It is really important to emphasize how nonpolitical this is.” Cherkasky claimed that “there is reasonableness to this decision,” adding, “That’s not political. I think that shows that the court wasn’t willing to just slap down this prosecution in full, you know, in a total slapdown. They’re leaving room for prosecutions in some cases, in these outlying conditions. And that shows that it’s really not a political decision we saw today.”
Fox host Trey Gowdy noted, “What the court is saying is we’re not going to allow you to go inside the mind of a president and try to figure out whether this was — I mean, what president does not act in his or her own best political interest? What president has ever said, ‘You know what? This is going to cost me reelection, but I’m going to do it anyway.’ I mean, to me it is obvious that motive should not be part of this.”
Fox guest Brett Tolman said, “We are seeing that they have been using and manipulating our criminal laws to try to take out a political opponent” and that the ruling is “literally the definition of democracy working.”
Tolman said, “They came down exactly where the Constitution is on it, where the law is, and it’s not a slam-dunk, 100% win for President Trump. It is a 90% win for President Trump. … That’s the way it should be. We are seeing that they have been using and manipulating our criminal laws to try to take out a political opponent.”
