Our Opinion: The king's court: Immunity ruling is reckless and dangerous

Of all the looming threats that gnaw at the moorings of our democracy, one of them definitely isn't the need for the president — any president — to have more power and less accountability.

And yet, here we are.

In a breathtaking stroke of poor judgment and reckless overreach, the U.S. Supreme Court has presumed that a president should be protected from being charged with crimes by political rivals for actions he or she takes as part of the official duties of the office.

Monday's stunning 6-3 decision grants broad immunity to presidents past and present, all but guaranteeing that Donald Trump will not be held accountable for his efforts to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election before this year's election. If ever.

What the court seems to be saying, in starkly vivid terms, is that no one is above the law — except the president, who now has vast latitude to commit illegal acts with impunity, so long as he does so within the scope of his official duties.

In defense of its solution to a problem that does not exist, the court has decreed that the president needs assurances that he can "execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly."

The ruling, which falls strictly along partisan lines, clearly favors protecting the president over protecting the country, assuming that he or she would be reluctant to make tough decisions for fear of being prosecuted once his term is over.

And it clearly ignores the flip side of that argument ... namely the damage that can be done by a president who feels unfettered by the law, with authority to do nearly anything he pleases.

Small wonder Trump was elated by the ruling.

"Big win for Constitution and our democracy," Trump posted on social media.

It is, of course, anything but that.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts offered a flimsy rationale for digging a moat around the presidency.

The president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers," Roberts wrote, "and he is entitled, at a minimum, to presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."

Attorney Stan Brand, who has represented several Trump associates, put it another way: "It's to allow him to operate without looking over his shoulder," Brand told The Wall Street Journal, "or hearing footsteps every time he does so."

You'd think that the most powerful leader of the free world was cowering in a corner somewhere, terrified of acting for fear of retribution. Or in the case of Trump, where retribution against his enemies is practically a campaign motto, that the bully suddenly became the victim.

Who honestly believes that?

In a scathing dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it well.

"Today's decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency," Sotomayor wrote. "It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution, our system of Government, that no man is above the law."

As for what the Founders intended, the Constitution says an impeached president removed by the Senate "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Here's how scarily ridiculous this ruling is.

During oral arguments in this case, the question was raised of whether the president can legally order the assassination of an opponent by, say, Navy SEAL Team 6.

Trump's legal team has said yes.

And so, apparently, does the nation's highest court, since the president's role as commander-in-chief is an official duty.

Let that marinate for a minute.

As a more urgent and practical matter, there is the pending Jan. 6 investigation.

Even given in its urgency during an election year, the court has slow-walked the immunity case from the start and made it almost a certainty that it will not be resolved before Nov. 5.

Remember the old Four Corners delay in Carolina basketball? This sure seems to be the judicial equivalent.

Now the high court has left it to lower courts to determine which of Trump's alleged actions were or were not part of his official duties, a task Roberts concedes is as about as clear as the coal ash in the Dan River.

"Distinguishing the president's official actions from his unofficial actions can be difficult," Robert writes in the opinion.

But the decision deals a serious blow to any efforts to hold Trump culpable for many of his efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election.

For instance, the majority opinion says, Trump's attempts to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to change the election results, possibly were a part of his official duties. "Whenever the president and the vice president discuss their official responsibilities," it says, "they engage in official conduct."

The high court has left it to the trial judge to sort that out.

Meanwhile, the court has added so many more obstacles and delays in the path of special counsel Jack Smith that his Jan. 6 investigation will be significantly stalled, if not derailed altogether. The same holds for the pending election interference case in Georgia.

The upshot of this dangerous pivot toward kingmaking in America is deeply disturbing and highly significant.

It comes against a backdrop of a court that has ceded credibility through ethical lapses and its stubborn refusal to abide by the same ethical standards and conflict-of-interest rules that govern lower courts.

And it raises a chilling question: While the court shamelessly contorts the law to have the president's back, who's got the backs of the American people?