Chaos: AOC Calls for Supreme Court Impeachment

The far Left is outraged over the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding presidential immunity for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden claims that the Justices have created a lawless country for U.S. Presidents, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) threatened to impeach the Supreme Court Justices.

Fox News reports on President Biden’s outspoken disgust with the decision:

“This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent, because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden said. . . .

“The American people must decide if Trump’s embrace of violence to preserve his power is acceptable. Perhaps most importantly, the American people must decide if they want to entrust the presidency to Donald Trump once again. Now knowing, he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases, whenever he wants to do it,” Biden said.

Now the normal behavior of the far Left is to voice outrage at the institution of the Supreme Court every time a decision comes out that it disagrees with. This vehement outrage became commonplace after the Dobbs decision that rightfully overturned Roe.

And President Biden is not above such behavior, as seen in his White House address. Ironically, the Supreme Court protects President Biden from prosecution as well. Some could argue that he’s been a lawless President in unleashing an open southern border on the U.S. The ACLJ certainly believes so and has filed numerous lawsuits against his Administration.

As mentioned, AOC is having a meltdown over the immunity ruling: “Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.” The far Left has banded together to proclaim that the high Court’s decision is the worst thing in the world and that democracy is over.

Many on the Left can’t seem to understand that a President having immunity from “official acts” while serving in office is much different than blanket immunity from crimes committed on a personal level. Even the Huffington Post featured an article arguing that Presidents can now assassinate their political opponents and get away with it. It’s also likely that much of the mainstream media understands the issue fully but simply wants to fire up their base for the 2024 election.

It’s worth noting for those who are leery that this Supreme Court decision somehow turns Presidents into kings: Immunity means the President doesn’t go to jail for making a bad decision in his official capacity (an official act) as President. It does NOT prevent that unconstitutional or unlawful decision from being struck down and invalidated. The Supreme Court simply put a stop to weaponizing criminal law to prosecute Presidents criminally for their policies and official acts in office.

The Court’s immunity ruling does have an immediate impact on many of Trump’s legal cases, and that’s what the Left is actually angry about. As we pointed out yesterday, the decision is a potential death blow to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election case and classified documents case, as well as DA Willis’ Georgia election interference case.

Could the immunity ruling also affect Trump’s conviction in New York? His attorneys are already contesting his conviction by arguing that some of DA Alvin Bragg’s evidence was precluded from being introduced as it stemmed from “official acts” and that the Supreme Court’s ruling confirms that position. In fact, after news came out that Bragg was actually open to delaying Trump’s scheduled July 11 sentencing, the court postponed the sentencing to September 18.

ACLJ Senior Counsel and Director of Policy Harry Hutchison commented on this new development:

Alvin Bragg adduced evidence that basically was procured after Donald Trump took office. And so Donald Trump engaged, arguably, in “official acts” with respect to election finance and other related matters, which Alvin Bragg referred to at trial. So even though the conduct at issue that was charged against Donald Trump basically referred to conduct that occurred before he took office, some of the conduct actually occurred afterward. So if Alvin Bragg still wants to rely on the evidence tied to Trump’s conduct after he took office, then it’s very possible that we need to delay the sentence. We may need to reopen the trial in order to basically terminate the evidence on which the jurors relied.

Now that the sentencing hearing has been postponed, we will have to wait to see what happens in Trump’s New York case going forward.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included a full analysis of the far Left’s disgust at the Supreme Court’s decision and threats against the Justices. ACLJ Senior Counsel CeCe Heil reacted to Britain’s challenging the International Criminal Court’s claim to jurisdiction over Israel and explained how the ACLJ would seek leave to file a brief to defend Israel. Also, ACLJ Senior Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy Ric Grenell commented on conservatism surging in France.

Watch the full broadcast below: