SD Lawmakers Praise Court’s Immunity Ruling as ‘Decisive,’ Blast as Making President a King

The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday on the scope of a president’s immunity from criminal prosecution drew praise from Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, but was sharply criticized by two Democrats in the San Diego County congressional delegation.

“The Supreme Court today decisively applied decades of settled precedent and agreed upon interpretations of presidential immunity,” said Issa. “It was inevitable that the Democrat campaign of warp-speed warfare and weaponizing prosecutions was going to collide with the Constitution and be halted in its tracks.”

In a 6-3 ruling split down ideological lines with the conservatives in the majority and the liberals dissenting, the Supreme Court decided that former presidents have full immunity from prosecution for actions that were within their constitutional powers as president, but not for private acts.

Issa, who represents the 78th District in rural East County, said the ruling vindicates former President Trump, arguing that “Donald Trump’s only crime is exposing Joe Biden as a failed president and an elderly man with a poor memory.”

But Reps. Mike Levin and Scott Peters, both lawyers by training, castigated the ruling as a threat to American democracy.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity severely undermines our democratic principles,” said Levin, who represents the 49th District in north San Diego and south Orange counties. “Essentially, it grants any sitting president unchecked authority akin to a ‘dictator on day one,’ allowing them to exploit official powers for personal gain without facing consequences.”

Peters, who represents the 50th District in coastal San Diego County, said the ruling effectively makes the the President a king.

“As we gear up to commemorate our nation’s bold move away from the rule of a king, it is cruelly ironic that this court has moved us toward the rule of one man,” he said. “The Supreme Court’s decision excuses President Trump’s corrupt use of power and would allow any future president to abuse their office with no check or balance.”

Peters said he would fight for a code of ethics for the Supreme Court, and Levin urged voters to elect new members to Congress to ensure that future court appointees uphold “Constitutional integrity over personal power.”