Chuck Schumer's new bill challenging Supreme Court's immunity ruling on Trump dismissed as 'baby rage'

Chuck Schumer is considering a bill that would counter the Supreme Court's ruling on Donald Trump's presidential immunity
Senator Chuck Schumer proposed legislation to challenge Donald Trump's immunity ruling (Anna Moneymaker, Steven Hirsch - Pool/Getty Images)
Senator Chuck Schumer proposed legislation to challenge Donald Trump's immunity ruling (Anna Moneymaker, Steven Hirsch - Pool/Getty Images)

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.

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 05: The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on October 05, 2021 in Washington, DC. T
The US Supreme Court ruled presidents enjoyed immunity for official acts (Getty Images)

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.

WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 2: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a press confe
Senator Chuck Schumer said that no president had the freedom to overturn an election (Getty Images)

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.



 

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."



 



 

"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!"



 



 

"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.



 



 

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.."



 



 

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.

GET BREAKING U.S. NEWS & POLITICAL UPDATES
STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX.

MORE STORIES

'There's a lot of people who want this job, a lot of capable people who want this job', Karoline Leavitt said
50 minutes ago
Karoline Leavitt will return to Trump's super PAC MAGA Inc, where she previously served as spokesperson, while continuing as his top outside adviser
1 hour ago
Since Trump's name was removed, a tarp and scaffolding obscured the area as the Kennedy Center board said roof repairs and water testing were underway
2 hours ago
'This is a bug that history has proved is rarely ended. It is a permanent and often fatal bug', Ted Cruz said
3 hours ago
According to a federal affidavit, the campaign targeted NASA, the US Senate, the Federal Reserve, the Energy Department, and the NIH, among others
11 hours ago
Donald Trump’s lawyers challenged the 'broad' interpretation of New York law, calling the $450 million award excessive, unlawful and unconstitutional
13 hours ago
Michelle joked she 'even know it was possible' to profit from the White House, while Jon Stewart said the Obamas 'left some money on the table'
13 hours ago
About two dozen Democratic states filed a new USPS lawsuit after the Supreme Court rejected their earlier challenge without ruling Trump’s order legal
14 hours ago
Trump confirmed John Ratcliffe’s trip but characterized it as 'semi-routine' and said the visit was connected to efforts to end the war in Ukraine
15 hours ago
This came months after the Supreme Court, at the prosecutors’ request, vacated an appeals court ruling that had upheld Steve Bannon’s conviction
15 hours ago