This may seem like a minor point. But I thought it’s worth saying because I have seen a minor rearguard argument to this effect: that the SCOTUS immunity decision doesn’t actually change any laws, doesn’t change what a president can and can’t do. It simply removes the possibility in many or most cases for post-presidency prosecution, something which has actually never happened in American history until last year. This is notionally a good point, but in a purely notional way. It’s true as applied to presidents who didn’t need this kind of hammer hanging over them. All of us are constantly through every day abiding by laws even though we’ve never been prosecuted — or at least most of you, maybe some have been prosecuted before — for breaking a criminal law. We report all our income on our taxes; we don’t fraudulently sign documents; we don’t steal from the store. Most of us act that way just because it’s the right thing to do, though most of us have been tempted at the margins. But laws work in complicated ways. Much of our understanding of what is the right thing to do is in fact conditioned by the laws themselves. As we’ve noted before, laws and prosecutions are not only to keep people in line and punish wrongdoers. They are how societies speak to themselves about what is acceptable and what is not.
One must-read delivered daily to your inbox
SCOTUS, 18th Century Kings and The Dangers of an Unbound Presidency
Member Newsletter
July 3, 2024 2:27 p.m.
Want to keep reading?
Join TPM and get The Backchannel member newsletter along with unlimited access to all TPM articles and member features.
Latest In The Backchannel
-
More From The Ed BlogI'm already subscribed
Not yet a TPM Member?
I'm already subscribedSign up for the FREE weekly edition of The Backchannel
One must-read from Josh Marshall delivered weekly to your inbox
One must-read from Josh Marshall delivered weekly to your inbox
Masthead Masthead