Rachel Maddow slams 'death squad ruling' granting presidents extensive legal immunity and Internet agrees

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: Rachel Maddow issued a stark warning to Americans criticizing the recent Supreme Court decision that grants US presidents extensive legal immunity.

In a conversation with MSNBC's Chris Hayes, Maddow labeled the move as "a death squad ruling," emphasizing the profound implications it holds for presidential power.

Rachel Maddow challenges SCOTUS's grant of presidential immunity in Trump v US

During the segment on 'All In,' Maddow discussed the case of Trump v US, which addressed Donald Trump's assertion of absolute immunity for presidential actions, even potentially including criminal acts.

Maddow expressed disbelief at the Supreme Court's decision to take up such a radical argument, noting that previous courts had unanimously dismissed similar claims.

Maddow conveyed her concerns about the practical consequences of the ruling, suggesting that it could delay prosecutions and provide temporary immunity to Trump ahead of the 2024 election.

She criticized the Court for effectively granting Trump and future presidents unprecedented immunity, far beyond what even Trump's legal team had requested.

Rachel Maddow condemns unprecedented ruling on presidential immunity

Maddow highlighted Trump's legal arguments saying, "Donald Trump and his counsel asked for this 100 per cent absolute immunity thing, which was insane. I would say they got 105 per cent of what they were asking for."

She stressed that the ruling not only shields presidential actions within an official capacity but also legitimizes potentially extreme executive actions. Maddow stated, "This is a death squad ruling. This is a ruling that says that as long as you can construe it as an official or quasi-official act, you can do absolutely anything, absolutely anything, and never be held accountable, not only while you are president, but forever."

In a particularly dire assessment, Maddow argued, "This explicitly immunizes anything the President wants to do through the Justice Department, but all but explicitly justifies anything the President wants to do full stop to anyone, and that is as serious as it gets."

Rachel Maddow warns of unchecked authoritarian power 

Maddow criticized the ruling for enabling authoritarian abuses without accountability, stating, "The only solution to this, the only way out of this, is to have non-criminals and non-authoritarian minded would be dictators win presidential elections. That is the only way to fix this because if you have somebody who is a criminal or is authoritarian-minded when they get in there armed with this ruling, there is nothing they cannot do."

Maddow concluded by urging a focus on future presidential elections as the sole path to mitigate the ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision, stating, "There’s no fix to this that involves a new argument or a new case. The only fix to this is to put someone in the White House, from here on out, who will not abuse the absolutely tyrannical power. They have just been legally granted in perpetuity."

Americans outraged over Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling

The Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity has sparked widespread public outcry, with Americans expressing shock and outrage over the implications of the decision.

One user wrote, "This is worse than Trump. I don't want this kind of unchecked and unethical power in the hands of anyone."

Another commented, "PLEASE stop using the word "conservative". THIS IS FASCISM  - IT IS HERE NOW."

One said, "We need a balanced SCOTUS, no political majority!"

Another added, "It's hard to even listen to this. It makes me sick to think that that person got another pat on the back from the Supreme Court."

One user replied, "How can one man and six judges destroy over 200+, years of Democracy."

One stated, "You let Trump in your house and now see what happened. What a mess, is an understatement."

One wrote, "This is abhorrent and unacceptable!"

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.