I THINK REPUBLICANS ARE WORRIED ABOUT THIS IMMUNITY RULING -- WITH GOOD REASON (updated)

The Speaker of the House thinks the public needs reassurance:

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Monday shrugged off Democrats’ concern over the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, calling their fears of future presidential criminality “madness.”

“Look, there’s all sorts of hyperbole tonight…and just this, fantastical, these hypotheticals they’ve made up [that] future presidents are going to turn into assassins and all the rest,” Johnson said Monday in an interview on Fox News. “It’s madness.”

“Listen, remember this. The president and vice president are the only two officers in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people, no one who is elected to that office going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity,” Johnson added.

Speaker Mike Johnson on Fox News: "The president and VP are the only two offices in our constitutional system that are elected by all the people. No one who is elected to that office is going to be prone to this kind of crazy criminal activity." pic.twitter.com/jxb3yWBJz0

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 2, 2024

We know that the authoritarian plotters who hope to work in a second Trump administration are thrilled by yesterday's ruling:

“It’s like Christmas,” a conservative attorney close to Trump tells Rolling Stone on Monday afternoon....

Plans are already in motion to use this new, historic court decision as a legal shield to help a potential second Trump administration implement his extreme policy agenda with less concern for rules and laws, sources with knowledge of the matter say.

But does Speaker Johnson represent a faction of Republicans who are concerned that the ruling will worry middle-of-the-road voters, specifically the ones who aren't big Trump fans but have been leaning toward Trump because they want change? Johnson knows that most voters don't like Trump and see him as a person who doesn't play by the rules. Does Johnson think he needs to say "Nothing to see here, move along" because those voters might be uncomfortable handing unlimited power to Trump?

Johnson knows that the Dobbs decision has helped Democrats win elections. I hope he's right to worry that this ruling could help President Biden and other Democrats in November. Is it possible that this is the Democrats' "They're coming for you" moment?

right. the president could order troops to suppress protesters using live fire and the supreme court would extend that absolute immunity

— b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie.bsky.social) Jul 1, 2024 at 5:07 PM

Most Americans aren't political, but some apolitical suburban moderates might have attended a George Floyd rally in 2020, or might have a kid who attends Gaza demonstrations. Do they want a Tiananmen Square on America soil?

Do they want Trump legally cleared to commit the kinds of crimes they know or suspect he's committed? Financial crimes? Sex crimes? Bribery?

Last night on social media, I posted this:

A one-sentence constitutional amendment: "The president of the United States is not a monarch, and is subject to the rule of law like any citizen." It couldn't pass soon, but it's reasonable, and advocating for it would make opponents - i.e., all Republicans - seem unreasonable.

— Steve M. (@stevemnomoremister.bsky.social) Jul 1, 2024 at 8:31 PM

(I went with "monarch" rather than "king" because I don't want a future President Marjorie Taylor Greene -- come on, you know it's possible -- to wield the power that the Supreme Court just gave Trump.)

A Democratic backbencher in the House had the same idea:

Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) said Monday he will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court ruling issued Monday, which largely shields former presidents from criminal prosecution for actions in office.

“I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” Morelle wrote on the social platform X.

Can this pass? Of course not. It can't possibly get a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. (It would also need to be ratified by 38 state legislatures.)

But ratification isn't the point. The point is to write an amendment that's extremely even-handed and 100% consistent with American norms, and then say to Republicans (who will oppose it as a bloc), "Every time a Democratic president does something you don't like, you call him a dictator. So why don't you support this? All it says is that any president, Republican, Democratic, or otherwise, is subject to the rule of law. How could you possibly object to that? Why did we fight the British if you think we should have a king?"

Democrats should be putting Republicans on the defensive on this issue. The president started the process with his speech last night. The next step should be hearings and a floor vote on a constitutional amendment to nullify this decision. Every Democrat should vote for the amendment. And then every Democrat should run on it.

*****

UPDATE: The ACLU is also calling for a constitutional amendment.

A president who knows they can commit crimes with impunity is dangerous.

Tell Congress: We need a constitutional amendment reestablishing criminal accountability for the president NOW.https://t.co/7FqxdUH7TK

— ACLU (@ACLU) July 2, 2024