John Kennedy contends Justice Department got what it asked for with Supreme Court immunity decision

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) argued that the Department of Justice “overreached” when it asked for the Supreme Court to weigh in on presidential immunity and ended up getting what it asked for.

Kennedy made his statement in response to a claim by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who argued that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court will be seen as “extreme & nakedly partisan hacks” after its decision in Trump v. United States. The Louisiana senator contended that Blumenthal is incorrect in his assessment and that the Justice Department brought this upon itself.

“Number one, remember that it was the Justice Department that overreached and asked for this opinion, and the Justice Department got it; they got it good and hard,” Kennedy said on The Story With Martha MacCallum. "Number two, you didn’t have to be Oliver Wendell Scalia to see this opinion coming, it was predictable because it’s the law. The Constitution and common sense demonstrate that the Justice Department can’t prosecute a president, not criminally, for an official act. It can for a personal act. Now, if the Justice Department wants to prosecute a president for his behavior, the Justice Department has the burden of proving that it’s a personal act and the Supreme Court said, ‘We’re not going to do your work for you.’”

Kennedy then claimed that the Supreme Court sees that President Joe Biden is losing the 2024 presidential election and that this case was “designed” to help the president’s reelection bid. He contended that Trump v. United States was politically motivated from the start and that it was not hard for the Supreme Court to come to its conclusion.

The Louisiana senator was also asked about a recent statement from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) that said House Democrats would engage in “aggressive oversight and legislative activity” regarding the Supreme Court. In response, Kennedy argued that Jeffries believes that Supreme Court justices are “politicians in robes” and stated that instead, it is up to the justices to explain what the Constitution means and that they did this with their “very balanced” decision.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The court’s decision on Trump v. United States revealed that presidents are entitled “to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution” for official acts during their presidency, with the decision coming to a 6-3 opinion by the court. The decision is expected to delay special counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump .

Alina Habba, Trump’s campaign adviser, has doubted that a trial for Smith’s case will be held before the 2024 election , calling Trump’s legal battles “election interference at its finest.” She also thanked the Supreme Court for recognizing the constitutional rights of presidents.