President John Pudner continued on his radio tour across our Republic, traveling to St. Louis, Missouri to continue his analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and it’s implications for this year’s presidential election, conduct by President Biden or whoever is elected this fall, and how liberals up and down the ticket are reacting to the Court’s ruling. However, one of the less discussed parts of analyzing the ruling is viewing it in the wider context of what has become an increasingly historic period for the Judiciary and our Republic’s highest Court.
Despite the naysaying from partisans, The Roberts Court has presided as an even-handed check and balance to today’s highly-charged political environment, deciding some of the most important cases in modern judicial history, many of which have, and will continue to, shape our politics and way of life. On the one hand, conservatives have gained major victories on issues such as the Second Amendment, for the first time officially declaring an individual's right to a gun, and on abortion, returning a state's right to determine their fate on the issue and re-enshrining the constitutional right to life. On the other, liberals have also seen major progress, with the Court ruling to protect key components of Obamacare and enshrining the right for gay couples to get married nationwide.
While even we at TBOR Action have had our disagreements with the Court, namely with its ruling in favor of Citizen's United, the effects of which were a key component for our founding and have been a core part of our efforts, there's no argument that the Roberts Court has been a surprisingly steady voice for our Republic in a time when it's needed most, and as Pudner and host Mike Austin discuss, the court's decision on presidential immunity continues this record and re-establishes a uniting precedent in a time of great division.
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
Supreme Court, Roberts, ruling, decisions, immunity, precedent
SPEAKERS
Mike Austin and TBOR Action John Pudner
Mike Austin 00:00
The ruling came down yesterday, we knew it was going to because it was the last day the Supreme Court could do that, and they had other rulings, but this was the big one, and as we call it, the sexy one - presidential immunity. It wasn't a new law, the Supreme Court can't make those, this has always been around, they just interpreted it, and we're gonna get with John Pudner, now. John Pudner has been on with us before, president of Take Back Our Republic Action, an analyst, and weighs in on this. Hey John, good morning.
John Pudner 00:29
Good morning, thanks for having me!
Mike Austin 00:32
This whole thing yesterday...this sort of is a double-edged sword, all of the folks who are saying this just opens the floodgates, doesn't it really do that?
John Pudner 00:43
No, the Supreme Court addresses things, as you said in the lead-in when they come up. For hundreds of years, there was the assumption that you wouldn't just try to imprison your political prisoners. If Jack Smith had been a prosecutor 100-150 years ago, I'm sure the Supreme Court would have had to come up with a similar decision so we wouldn't be trying to throw political buttons in prison. I mean, Jack Smith was overruled nine to nothing when he got a prison sentence against the Virginia Governor 10 years ago. I mean, this is nothing new. You don't have to have a Supreme Court decision until something that seems obvious is challenged.
Mike Austin 01:21
It actually opens up a few more questions, though, I think. The official capacity, when a president is in his official capacity, official decisions, he is immune, because you can't otherwise presidents will be sued like every day. But, now comes the question of what is the official capacity? How are we going to weed through that now? What's the next thing?
John Pudner 01:46
The Supreme Court deliberately wanted lower courts to be able to do that. The Court only tries to only go as far as they think they need to, so certainly, Jack Smith can make the case these two items seem to be not in any kind of official capacity, and prosecute on them, and that can be heard and they can be part of the process. But this isn't giving someone a blank check. I had to laugh a little bit as a Catholic, because we would get this question on the pope, who can make all kinds, it's only not what he's making a ruling on church doctrine, like being pro-life or something, but a pope can make mistakes every day of his life, and people talk about Papal Infallibility. This is only in the role as the president that he has immunity. You can't be charged with murder because of the Vietnam War if you were president at the time and that's what you need to protect against.
Mike Austin 02:40
I wasn't going to bring it up, because I have a Roman Catholic as well, and I was gonna bring up the pope thing, but you're right. It's virtually it's the same thing, only on a religious side. The easiest thing for me, I was explaining it the other day to a guy, the president can't get mad at somebody outside the White House, go out there and punch him in the face, or harm him, break his leg or whatever. He can't do that, he'd be prosecuted for that, he could be sued even though he's saying he is the president and I am an official, it doesn't matter. It's these state decisions and such. So now, we got to figure out what was and what wasn't, the lower courts are going to do that, but the big thing I think, though, for the election is none of this is going to happen until after the election probably.
John Pudner 03:29
That's right, and referring to Jack Smith's case and Bob McDonnell, which is basically getting him two years in prison for talking good about the business guy who he got nothing back from. The goal there was to bankrupt him, which caused McDonald to spend $28 million to defend himself, and take him down as a potential US Senator, same thing here. The goal of this was political, it was to try to hurt Trump on the election, they've always thought being able to say he is a convicted felon would kill him off as a candidate. That hasn't worked, so this takes away the big part of that strategy and have it cost him the election whether or not there's really a chance of convictions.
Mike Austin 04:12
Well, speaking of convicted felon, there is a sentencing coming up just in a few days, and here's the thing...after that debate the other night, I said the Democrats are now backed into a corner with that performance by President Biden. And, I want your opinion on this, give me about 30 seconds on it, are they going to try and put him in jail?
John Pudner 04:40
I don't think so. The judge even tried to get on the defense during the trial saying that's not likely, so he keeps using the words slim to none, but the word slim is in there. These guys live in another world in the New York Court System.
Mike Austin 05:00
John Pudner, one of our good friends and president of Take Back Our Republic Action. Where do we find you on the web?
John Pudner 05:10
takebackaction.org and we have some detail on Jack Smith on the current posting, so if you want to read more, it's all there.
Mike Austin 05:18
All right, John, we appreciate it. Have a great day and happy Fourth of July!
Comments