I would never want to play poker with MSNBC legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg.  Neither his facial expression nor tone/tempo of his voice ever change.  And he is always cordial when discussing the law with fellow attorneys.  That is why I was so surprised when we he vehemently rebuffed former deputy solicitor general Neal Katyal who proclaimed that today’s immunity ruling by the Supreme Court affirmed that a president could order Seal Team 6 to shoot a political opponent and not be charged with a crime.  Rosenburg shot back, “I don’t see anywhere in this opinion where it says that the president can order Team Seal 6 to assassinate an opponent.”

Chuck, the Constitution does not say the president has “the presumption of immunity” for official acts either, but as of 10:40 a.m., that is now the basis on which all presidential acts must be judged. So much for the originalist theory of interpreting the Founding Fathers’ intent. Equally important, the 6-3 majority declared, “Dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into President’s motives.”  I do not see that in the Constitution, either.

So Chuck, I am going to make this really personal so you can understand it.  A president of the United States orders Team Seal 6 to kill YOU, which they succeed in doing!  Isn’t the president commander-in-chief and can therefore deploy the military under Article II of the Constitution?  Furthermore, Article II requires the president, before taking office, to swear that he will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” 

Your ghost believes you were a target because you had criticized the president on “Morning Joe” and demands the president be charged with murder.  However, the president invokes the language in Trump v. United States.  His lawyers argue YOU were a threat to the Constitution which their client swore to protect.  And therefore, the president ordered members of the military, as commander-in-chief, to eliminate that threat.   According to Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion, there is nothing you can do about it.

Even if there was recorded evidence, e.g. taped conservations in which  the president said, “I’m just sick and tired of that SOB Rosenberg calling me out on something,” those tapes would never be heard.  Why?  First, the Court says you cannot question the president’s motive that he responded to a constitutional threat.  Worse yet, the Court further declared that prosecutors cannot use evidence associated with an “official act.”  Therefore, all the president needs to do is claim that this discussion with a staff member was related to the deployment of the military which is authorized under Article II.

Rest in peace, Chuck.

POSTSCRIPT:  WE THE JUSTICES

Over the last five days, the Supreme Court, based on ideological 6-3 votes, has:

• expanded the authority of the president to act with impunity (Trump v. U.S.);
• undercut the Congressional and Executive authority under Articles I and II to write and implement the law (Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency);
• declared that the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2024, does not meet the definition of obstructing an official government action (Fischer v. U.S.).

There is no way to interpret these actions other than as a slap in the face of legal precedence and common sense.  If you ever thought the Supreme Court was the last bastion of hope for protection of the American form of government (as it did during Watergate) and our Constitution rights (reproductive choice and voting in the 1960s and 1970s), that era is history.

One can only hope the American people who share this view will use November 6, 2024, as their opportunity to give the Court, Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society the finger.  The only guardrail left to save the American experiment is us!

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP