Chuck Schumer sparks debate as she vows to challenge SCOTUS's immunity ruling on Trump with new bill
WASHINGTON, DC: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declared his plan to advance legislation to strip former President Donald Trump of immunity protection in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling. The conservative majority of the SCOTUS on July 1 ruled in favor of the GOP presumptive nominee's immunity argument that the presidents have immunity for their official acts under constitutional authorities and presumptive immunity for other official acts.
Trump, who faces multiple criminal charges for his acts during the first days of his presidency, had been pushing for protection from prosecution, claiming all he did fell under official acts. Pushing for legislative action, Schumer accused the Supreme Court's conservative justices of granting Trump impunity to commit crimes by installing "a crown on Donald Trump's head," according to NBC News.
Chuck Schumer plans to classify Trump's election interference acts as unofficial
"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," the top Democrat announced on the Senate floor on Monday, July 8. "I will work with my colleagues on legislation classifying Trump's election subversion acts as unofficial acts not subject to immunity," Schumer said.
Schumer emphasized that his move against the Supreme Court ruling was based on the American belief that "no president should be free to overturn an election against the will of the people," irrespective of the conservative justices view.
He noted that along with the looming legislation, the Democrats would also continue their work to reaffirm the authority of the Congress on Article I to check the abuse of the federal judiciary. "The American people are tired, just tired, of justices who think they are beyond accountability," the Senator asserted.
Details about the bill have not yet been determined. However, Schumer would undoubtedly face obstructions in advancing it in the Senate, where Democrats hold only a slight majority.
Schumer was among the prominent Democrats who condemned the Supreme Court's ruling that favored Trump. Writing on his X (formerly Twitter) account, the New York congressman deemed it a "sad day" for America and the nation's democracy.
This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) July 1, 2024
The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law.
Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president. https://t.co/wCNI42U5Ki
Internet split as Chuck Schumer plans to introduce legislation to strip Trump's immunity
Social media users weighed in on Schumers' move. Although some criticized it as a "tantrum," another group opined the bill was "necessary."
A user deemed the move as "Political posturing!" While another said, "Get it done. Judges should know that no one is above the law."
Get it done. Judges should know that no one is above the law.
— Bull's-eye (@RifleRangeshoot) July 9, 2024
"Day late and a dollar short. Classic move by the Dems. Instead of doing something earlier, they wait until it’s too late. RIP Democracy - We had a good run while it lasted," added a third user.
Whereas a fourth response read, "The immunity granted by the Supreme Court to Donald J Trump is quite ambiguous and certainly needs to be reviewed and clarified!"
Day late and a dollar short. Classic move by the Dems.
— Henry Bruno (@Bruno4USA) July 8, 2024
Instead of doing something earlier, they wait until it’s too late.
RIP Democracy - We had a good run while it lasted
The immunity granted by the Supreme Court to Donald J. Trump is quite ambiguous and certainly needs to be reviewed and clarified!
— Raj Bangia (@theguru541) July 9, 2024
"This would be good. We can't allow one man to be above the law," someone else opined.
"Baby rage legislation. An actual congressional tantrum over the inability to prosecute a political opponent," an individual argued.
This would be good. We can't allow one man to be above the law. https://t.co/3CbjZqezIL
— CCM (@CCM902920252464) July 8, 2024
Baby rage legislation. An actual congressional tantrum over the inability to prosecute a political opponent. https://t.co/W1SaOkDiDc
— biteecee (@biteecee) July 9, 2024
On the other hand, a user remarked, "What a complete waste of time..."
Another remark read, "It would have to be an amendment and certainly couldn’t look backwards. That would violate ex post facto.."
It would have to be an amendment and certainly couldn’t look backwards. That would violate ex post facto..
— Randy DeSoto (@RandyDeSoto) July 9, 2024
This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.