Table of Contents
Both liberal and conservative media outlets made big news on Monday about the news that the Supreme Court granted former President Donald J. Trump significant immunity from prosecution.
But that’s where the similarities ended.
Liberal media criticized the ruling as a biased move by a conservative Supreme Court, saying it only raised the stakes for the November general election, as the decision complicates the criminal case that accuses Trump of trying to overturn the last election.
Much of the conservative media offered a relatively straightforward assessment of the decision, which left it up to the lower courts to decide what aspects of Trump’s conduct were protected from prosecution. But several conservative commentators nonetheless welcomed the 6-3 decision and admonished Democrats who opposed it.
A number of media reported the news as follows:
FROM LEFT
MeidasTouch
The court’s ruling found that Trump was immune from prosecution for “official” acts during his presidency, but said he was not immune from prosecution for “unofficial” conduct.
Such broad immunity was needed to maintain “a vibrant, independent executive branch,” the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said. The ruling also said a district court would have to decide what constituted official and unofficial conduct, including Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021. That process would likely delay a trial against Trump until after the November election.
“This couldn’t be worse for our democracy,” said Ben Meiselas, co-founder of MeidasTouch, a liberal media network. Mr. Meiselas said the court’s dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was “about as stark, dark and downright terrifying” as any dissent “in the history of the Supreme Court.”
Ron Filipkowski, attorney and editor-in-chief of the news site, argued in a legal analysis that the ruling was a blow to checks on the executive branch in general. But he also said the ruling made the November election even more important.
“The stakes in this election are even higher than they were yesterday,” Mr Filipkowski wrote.
Salon, a liberal news and opinion site, published a article which also highlighted Justice Sotomayor’s dissent. She said the decision made a “mockery” of the constitutional principle that no one is above the law.
“The outcome is of course a boost for Trump, but the fact that the court took the case at all was itself a huge help to the Trump campaign,” wrote Griffin Eckstein, a staff writer for the publication.
In another article On Monday, regular writer Tatyana Tandanpolie interviewed legal experts critical of the ruling, including one who suggested the court may have “legalized murder by a single individual.”
FROM RIGHT
The Gateway Pundit
Gateway Pundit, a far-right website that often spreads disinformation and conspiracy theories, hailed Monday’s ruling as a victory for Trump and for American democracy.
The ruling was “not just a personal victory” for Mr. Trump, wrote Jim Hoft, the site’s founder, but a “reinforcement of the constitutional framework designed by the Founding Fathers.”
In another articleCristina Laila, deputy editor at Gateway Pundit, highlighted what she described as an “unhinged” statement from the Biden administration, which she described as “desperate.”
FROM RIGHT
City Hall
Townhall, a conservative news and opinion website, laughed at the many liberal complaints about the ruling.
A article with the headline “Liberal America’s reaction to Trump’s immunity ruling was, as usual, disorganized.” Matt Vespa, a senior editor at the site, said in it that the ruling “left liberals wondering whether Biden could kill Trump,” referring to Justice Sotomayor’s dissent and subsequent social media posts questioning whether presidents could now be prosecuted for any crime.
In another article, the site’s editor Katie Pavlich highlighted a comment made by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York Democrat who said on X that the statement represents “an attack on American democracy.”
“Members of the swamp and the minions of tyrannical government intervention do not deal well with the consequences,” says Ms. Pavlich. wrote.
