Trump’s former White House lawyer Ty Cobb criticized Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent on the high court’s presidential immunity ruling, calling it “a little hysterical.”
“So I thought her dissent was a little hysterical and didn’t really offer any analysis, a lot of…screaming, no analysis, and I think that was unfortunate,” Cobb said Monday in an interview with CNN.
In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for actions that fall within the essential responsibilities of their office and are “at least presumptively immune” for all other official acts. .
Sotomayor, in a vigorous 30-page dissent, said the Supreme Court’s decision granting former President Trump immunity from official acts “completely isolates[s] criminal liability presidents.” She was joined by fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The dissent listed a number of hypothetical crimes that presidents could potentially be protected from under the ruling, such as ordering Navy Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival.
Cobb said he was “disappointed” in Justice Elena Kagan for not writing a dissent that “focused heavily on separation of powers issues,” which he said were the “central issues.”
“You cannot conceive of a rule that is just about Trump without putting democracy at risk and eliminating some of the restrictions that have historically helped us for 250 years. The separation of powers is the cornerstone of the Constitution,” Cobb said. “And as much as I wish Trump would receive due punishment for his misconduct, the reality is that you simply cannot go out and have a results-oriented effort from the Supreme Court.”
“It needs to be based on principles and precedents, and I think, for the most part, I was disappointed that Justice Sotomayor did not address the issue of separation of powers, which was the issue that decided the case,” he added.
Cobb said he hoped the high court would “draw a line” at official acts concerning a president
“It was quite clear from the oral argument and the precedents that they were working with, particularly US v. Nixon and Fitzgerald, that this line was going to have something to do with the official acts, that they were going to do something like this,” Cobb said. he said, in reference to the two Supreme Court cases involving former President Nixon.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald addressed presidential immunity from civil liability for actions taken while in office, while US v. Nixon addressed whether a president has executive privilege in immunity from subpoenas or other civil lawsuits, and ruled that he does not.
Cobb said he was a little “disappointed” and “confused” by the majority’s opinion on using the president’s official acts as evidence in criminal cases against a former president.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, ruled that the official acts of a former president are protected from being introduced as evidence in a criminal case against a former president.
“But they were always going to draw a constitutional line here or a separation of powers line and they… did and it’s a narrow line, but it’s not a line that eliminates this case,” Cobb said. “Jack Smith can sue.
The decision was considered a victory for former President Trump as he faces a federal criminal case of election subversion brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
The ruling will likely delay the trial, first sending the case back to a lower court to determine whether his actions on January 6, 2021 deserve protection from criminal prosecution for decisions he made while in the White House.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
