>>> I CONCUR WITH JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR'S DISSENT TODAY. HERE'S WHAT SHE SAID. IN EVERY USE OF OFFICIAL POWER, THE PRESIDENT IS NOW A KING ABOVE THE LAW. WITH FEAR FOR OUR DEMOCRACY, I DISSENT, END OF QUOTE. SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD DISSENT. I DISSENT. >> PRESIDENT BIDEN TONIGHT AT THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONDING TO THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING THAT HANDS PRESIDENTS, INCLUDING HIMSELF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR ANYTHING THEY CAN SUCCESSFULLY ARGUE WAS AN OFFICIAL ACT. THE PRESIDENT NAME CHECKED JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR'S BLISTERING DISSENT, WHICH SHE DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT THE COURT TODAY THAT DISSENT STARTED, QUOTE, TODAY'S DECISION TO GRANT FORMER PRESIDENTS CRIMINAL IMMUNITY RESHAPES THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY. IT MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONAL TO OUR CONSTITUTION AND SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW, RELYING ON LITTLE MORE THAN ITS OWN MISGUIDED WISDOM ABOUT THE NEED FOR BOLD AND UNS HE HESITATING ACTION BY THE PRESIDENT, THE COURT GIVES FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ALL THE IMMUNITY HE ASKED FOR AND MORE. BECAUSE IT CUZ NOT SHIELD A PRESIDENT FROM ANSWERING FOR CRIMINAL AND TREASONOUS ACTS, I DISSENT, AND SHE LAID OUT THE BASIS FOR HER DISSENT. NORMALLY WHEN SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DISSENT, THEY USE THE WORD RESPECTFULLY, SAYING I RESPECTFULLY DISSENT. TODAY JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR AND ALSO JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON EACH STRUCK THE WORD RESPECTFULLY AND JUST WROTE DISSENT. THAT IS THE KIND OF REACTION WE'RE SEEING FROM LEGAL SCHOLARS AND EXPERTS EVERYWHERE TODAY. NPR'S VETERAN LEGAL CORRESPONDENT NINA TOTENBERG TELLING US MOMENTS AGO THAT LEGAL OBSERVERS AND EXPERTS DESCRIBING WHAT SHE DESCRIBED AS BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE MEANING BOTH SIDES OF THE IDEOLOGICAL NUMBER LINE WERE IN HER WORDS ASTONISHED BY HOW RADICAL THIS RULING WAS TODAY. SHERRILYNN IFILL, SHE RESPONDED TO THE RULING TODAY BY SAYING. THIS SHE SAID, QUOTE, TODAY'S DECISION IN TRUMP VERSUS THE UNITED STATES IS A GROTESQUE AND HIDEOUS DISTORTION OF THE RULE OF LAW BY A MAJORITY OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE MOST POWERFUL DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD. THE NATIONAL AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS OF UPENDING THIS CORE PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY IS POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC NATIONAL AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS. CATASTROPHIC. JOINING US NOW IS SHERRILYNN IFILL. SHE IS NOW THE VERNON E. JORDAN JR. DISTINGUISHED CHAIR AND CIVIL RIGHTS AT HOWARD LAW SCHOOL. MS. IFILL, IT MAKES ME HAPPY TO SEE YOUR FACE. I'M HAPPY YOU COULD BE HERE TONIGHT OF ALL NIGHTS. THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE TIME. >> OF COURSE. >> SO JUSTICE ROBERTS CRITICIZED THE LIBERAL JUSTICES' DISSENT TODAY, SAID THEY WERE STRIKING A TONE OF CHILLING DOOM, ESSENTIALLY SAYING CALM DOWN, LADIES. ACCUSING THEM OF OVERREACTING AND PORTRAYING THIS RULING'S CONSEQUENCES AS SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE NOT. YOU CLEARLY THINK THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS RULING ARE, IN YOUR WORDS, POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK SO? >> YEAH, I DO, I DO. THANK YOU SO MUCH, RACHEL, FOR HAVING ME. THAT IS PART OF WHAT WAS SO DISTURBING ABOUT CHIEF ROBERTS' DECISION. IF YOU'RE GOING BURN THE HOUSE DOWN, DON'T BE MAD THAT PEOPLE CALL IT ARSON. YOU KNOW, THIS DECISION IS -- I TALKED ABOUT IT BEING -- HAVING CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE PRECISELY OF WHAT JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR SAYS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THE RULE -- WHAT THE RULE OF LAW MEANS. IT MEANS THAT THE LAW APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL, RICH AND POOR, HIGH BORN AND LOW BORN, BLACK, WHITE, LATINO. IT MEANS THAT THE ONE, THAT ONE PRINCIPLE OF LAW APPLIES TO EVERYONE EQUALLY. AND THE PRESIDENT, ONCE HE IS NO LONGER A PRESIDENT IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THEREFORE THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT HE IS COVERED AS WELL BY THE RULE OF LAW. TO SHATTER THAT TODAY IS SO INCREDIBLY SHOCKING THAT I THINK MANY PEOPLE ARE BACK ON THEIR HEELS. AND I SAY THAT IT HAS GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY IS A TREMENDOUSLY INFLUENTIAL COUNTRY BECAUSE OF OUR POWER, BECAUSE OF OUR HISTORY, BECAUSE OF OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY THAT WE HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO PRESS TO OTHER NATIONS. WE HAVE HELD OURSELVES UP AS AN EXEMPLAR OF DEMOCRACY. AND FOR THE HIGHEST COURT IN OUR LAND TO SEND A SIGNAL NOT ONLY TO THOSE IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT THE RULE OF LAW IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE INTERRUPTED FOR A PRESIDENT OF YOUR SAME POLITICAL PARTY IS INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS. AND THE WORST PART OF IT, RACHEL, IS THIS IS NOT A THEORETICAL CONVERSATION. WE ACTUALLY HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP. WE KNOW WHAT HE IS CAPABLE OF. WE KNOW THE KIND OF EXCESSES THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO AND DID ENGAGE IN AS PRESIDENT. SO THIS IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH THE COURT DID NOT HAVE BEFORE IT THE EVIDENCE OF SOMEONE WHO WOULD DANGEROUSLY USE THE POWER THAT THEY SO RECKLESSLY PUT IN THE HANDS OF ANY PRESIDENT TODAY. >> I WAS INTERESTED IN THE WAY THAT JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR IN HER DISSENT KEPT GOING BACK TO THE PARTICULARITIES OF THE INDICTMENT AND TRUMP'S CONDUCT, AS IF TO SAY THIS IS NOT A THEORETICAL MATTER. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE ARE DESCRIBING OR DECIDING IN THE ABSTRACT. I THINK MAKING THAT EXACT POINT IMPLICITLY. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE VERY DARK POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE OF THIS, AND THIS WAS RAISED AGAIN BY JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE HYPOTHETICAL ASSASSINATION SCENARIO, YOU KNOW. LET'S SAY A PRESIDENT ORDERED AN ELEMENT OF THE MILITARY TO CARRY OUT AN ATTACK ON SOMEBODY WHO HE SAW AS A DANGER OR AS A POLITICAL RIVAL. THE JUSTICES SEEM TO HAVE MADE CLEAR THAT THAT -- IF THE ORDER TO KILL THE PERSON COULD BE CONSTRUED AS SOMETHING THAT WAS OFFICIAL, THAT THE IMMUNITY MATTER IS SETTLED AND THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE SOMETHING FOR WHICH A PRESIDENT COULD NEVER BE PROSECUTED. IS IT THAT SIMPLE? HOW WOULD THAT ACTUALLY WORK IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM? >> YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE THAT THAT COULD BE WHAT THEY MEAN, BUT THE PLAIN WRITING OF WHAT THEY WROTE, THAT IS WHAT THEY MEAN. WE HAVE A FORMER PRESIDENT ASK HIS DEFENSE SECRETARY WHY THEY COULDN'T JUST SHOOT PROTESTERS, BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTERS IN THE LEGS. THIS IS SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY THINKS IN THAT WAY. NOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HELD TRUMP BACK WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT WAS THAT VERY OFTEN THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM WOULD NOT CARRY OUT THE THINGS HE ASKED THEM TO DO. HE ASKED HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO FIRE JEFF SESSIONS, AND THEY WOULDN'T DO IT. HE CONSTANTLY ASKED PEOPLE TO DO THINGS, AND THEY WOULD IGNORE HIM, KNOWING THAT HE WOULDN'T DO IT HIMSELF. HE WOULDN'T DO IT HIMSELF BECAUSE HE WAS AT THAT TIME UNSURE OF HIS LIABILITY. NOW HE IS SURE THAT THIS SUPREME COURT THINKS HE WOULD HAVE NO LIABILITY. SO FIRST OF ALL WE HAVE A CATEGORY OF THINGS HE CAN DO HIMSELF. HE CAN STRIP A MILITARY MEMBER FROM THEIR RANKS FOR NOT FOLLOWING HIS ORDERS. HE CAN ACCEPT CASH BRIBES FOR PARDONS. THERE IS A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS HE CAN DO. BUT THEN HE ALSO CAN ORDER OTHERS TO DO THINGS. AND THE PEOPLE THAT HE IS GOING TO HAVE, IF HE IS ELECTED IN HIS CABINET IN HIS SECOND ROUND ARE GOING TO BE PEOPLE OF CONSIDERABLY LESS RESTRAINT THAN THOSE HE HAD THE FIRST TIME AROUND, AND THEY WERE NOT PARTICULARLY RESTRAINED. SO WHAT THIS COURT HAS OPENED UP TO US IS A TRUE DANGER. IT IS UNLEASHED THE FULL POWER OF SOMEONE WHO HAS SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE UTTERLY UNFIT TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY, SOMEONE WHO HAS NO REGARD FOR RESTRAINT OR ETHICS, AND THE FACT THAT YOU CAN LITIGATE IT LATER, THE FACT THAT YOU CAN RETURN TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR THAT YOU CAN ADDRESS THESE MATTERS IN A LOWER COURT TO MAKE THEIR WAY BACK UP TO THE SUPREME COURT WON'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WILL BE HARMED, THAT PEOPLE CAN BE HARMED, AND THAT OUR SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT AND THAT THE RULE OF LAW CAN BE EVEN FURTHER DEGRADED. SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY, THERE ARE A MAJORITY OF JUSTICES ON THIS COURT WHO DECIDED THAT THEY NEEDED TO BE THE LAST WORD ON EVERYTHING, THAT THEY COULD NO LONGER TRUST THE APPARATUS OF DEMOCRACY. THEY COULD NO LONGER TRUST FEDERAL AGENCIES, THUSOVER TURNING CHEVRON. THEY COULD NO LONGER TRUST WOMEN TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR BODIES. THEY COULD IN LONGER TRUST UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS TO DECIDE HOW TO BUILD THEIR CLASSES, AND THEY COULD NO LONGER TRUST THE POLITICAL SYSTEM TO DECIDE FAIRLY HOW TO PICK THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SO THEY COULDN'T INTERFERE WITH PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING. NOW THEY HAVE DECIDED THAT DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW COVERS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HOW MUCH IT DOES AND WHEN IT DOES AND WHEN IT DOESN'T IS FULLY IN THEIR HANDS, AND THEY HAVE JUST CUT A WIDE SWATH OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS, POWERS, OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL THAT THEY HAVE DEEMED BARRED FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. IT'S STUNNING, AND I HOPE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW SIGNIFICANT THIS IS, HOW MUCH THIS DAY IS ONE THAT WILL BE REMEMBERED AS ONE THAT HAS VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY. WE HAD BETTER WAKE UP AND UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ELECTION AND UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING ALLOWED A SUPREME COURT TO HAVE THIS KIND OF POWER IN WHICH THEY BELIEVE THEY CANNOT BE CHECKED BY ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT IN OUR SOCIETY AND NOT TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES. I'M SO ALARMED. I'M SO DISTURBED. BUT I WOULD SAY I FEEL ALSO A SENSE OF RESOLVE. I THINK THEY HAVE FULLY SHOWN THEMSELVES. THIS COURT HAS PLAYED ITS HAND. ANYONE PRETENDING THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS COURT IS DOING THAT, IS PRETENDING. AND I THINK WE NOW HAVE TO GET VERY SERIOUS WHAT IT MEANS. WE ARE ALLOWED TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY, AND WE HAVE TO DO SO. WE HAVE TO DO SO AT THE BALLOT BOX, AND THEN ONCE WE PREVAIL IN ELECTIONS, WE HAVE TO MAKE REAL DECISIONS WHAT WE WANT TO DO TO ENSURE THE SUPREME COURT IS ETHICAL, THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS ACTING IN A WAY THAT IS DEMOCRATIC, AND WE HAVE TO PASS LAWS THAT WILL CLOSE ALL OF THESE LOOP HOLES THAT HAVE BEEN LEFT OPEN BECAUSE WE HAD THE TEMERITY TO BELIEVE THAT NORMS AND ETHICS WOULD GUIDE CERTAIN KINDS OF CONDUCT THAT HAS NOT PROVEN TO BE TRUE, SO WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO. >> IN THE VERY NEAR TERM, IN FOUR MONTHS WE WILL BE MAKING A DECISION ABOUT WHO SHOULD BE IN THE OVAL OFFICE HOLDING WHAT IS UNLIMITED AND TYRANNICAL POWER AND WHAT KIND OF PERSON OUGHT TO BE ENTRUSTED WITH THAT, WHICH NOBODY SHOULD EVER BE ENTRUSTED WITH, BUT NOW THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. SHERRILYNN IFILL, HOWARD LAW SCHOOL. AGAIN, SEEING YOU HERE IS A COMFORT TO ME BECAUSE I
