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

Rachel Maddow discussed Trump vs US on MSNBC's 'All In' expressing disbelief at the SCOTUS's acceptance of ex-prez's absolute immunity claim
UPDATED JUL 2, 2024
Rachel Maddow delivered a stark warning, criticizing the recent Supreme Court decision granting US presidents extensive legal immunity (MSNBC, Getty Images)
Rachel Maddow delivered a stark warning, criticizing the recent Supreme Court decision granting US presidents extensive legal immunity (MSNBC, Getty Images)

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.

(Getty Images)
The US Supreme Court has ruled that former president Donald Trump is entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution (Getty Images)

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."

(MSNBC)
Rachel Maddow called Trump's immunity ruling a 'death squad ruling' (MSNBC)

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.

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

MORE STORIES

The President bypasses a Supreme Court setback by utilizing Section 122 and launching Section 301 probes to protect American trade interests
10 minutes ago
Trump accuses justices of fear, uses 1962 & 1974 trade acts to revive blocked tariffs
16 minutes ago
With no roadmap from the Supreme Court, lower courts are set to decide how the collected funds will be handled, setting up complex litigation
36 minutes ago
Donald Trump weighs action, warns 'bad things' if Tehran misses 15-day deadline
1 hour ago
'Trump's chaotic and illegal tariff tax made life more expensive and our economy more unstable. Families paid more', Chuck Schumer said
2 hours ago
Donald Trump hits judiciary after tariff loss, teeing up a tense State of the Union
2 hours ago
Some GOP lawmakers said that repeated unanswered requests had complicated budget oversight and limited their ability to publicly defend the department
2 hours ago
DLCC President Heather Williams called the May 5 contest for Michigan’s 35th Senate District 'the most competitive special election in a battleground state this year'
3 hours ago
In a 6–3 ruling, the justices said that the 1977 emergency powers law did not authorize sweeping trade duties, limiting presidential use
3 hours ago
Court findings cited video evidence contradicting Bovino's claim that he was struck before deploying tear gas, prompting limits on use of force
4 hours ago