The ongoing debate surrounding the ability of democratic restraints to keep Donald Trump in check upon his return to the White House in January has brought attention to a controversial Supreme Court ruling that some believe could potentially enable his more extreme tendencies.
Trump's decisive election win has reignited concerns among those on the left about a president with increased power who may push the boundaries of his authority, especially with a precedent that provides extensive immunity from criminal prosecution.
This combination of political and legal circumstances is expected to grant Trump unprecedented power during his second term in office.
Neil Eggleston, a seasoned attorney who previously served as White House counsel during the Obama administration, expressed his apprehension, stating, 'For 250 years, the possibility of criminal prosecution served as a safeguard on the behavior of our presidents. That safeguard is now gone, and I see few, if any, others that will limit President Trump.'
In a highly anticipated decision that was opposed by the three liberal justices, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump has 'absolute' immunity from prosecution for actions within his core constitutional powers and a more restricted immunity for other official actions.
During oral arguments, it was evident that several conservative justices viewed the ruling not as a favor to Trump but as a means to prevent escalating and potentially politically motivated prosecutions.
While this ruling may indeed prevent such prosecutions - complicating any future attempts to prosecute Biden after he leaves office, for example - it is also widely perceived as eliminating a boundary that previously constrained a president who resisted the idea of limits on his authority.
