to do to decide if we want to create it. all of this technology roommates, do we still have power of choice, age guides, which actually autonomy and operating in doing this is the apple kind of technician who is it already too late? so if corporations has more power, making a bill in an entire country, the future's going to be good for the i would be nice to put functions as well as human on al jazeera, historic us supreme court ruling on presidential immunity, welcomed by donald trump, but condemned by president joe biden, the judgment spring since presidential power to much so say critics. what's the long term impact of this ruling and it's timing. this is inside store the

hello and welcome to the program. i'm how much room there is, little united in the politics of the united states at present. the polarized division isn't calculated in a supreme court ruling on presidential immunity. a big win said donald trump. a dangerous precedent said president joe, by the judgment, will have profound and immediate political impact in the us, not least on the campaigning before november's presidential election, and which trump is seeking to replace bite. and the white house will be talking to our guest shortly about the supreme court decision and its legal and political implications. but 1st, this report from michael some sharif, on a judgment, the chicken american politics of to months of indictments criminal cases and flaws . donald trump has received some good news from the us legal system. to the supreme court handed out alignment judgement. formal, preston saw entitled to broad immunity from criminal prosecution of pushing acts committed one. they will notice the $63.00 building throughout the decision by

a little court which had rejected from claim of community on criminal charges involving his efforts to overturn his 2020 election lost to joe biden. preston by didn't criticize the ruling saying it undermines to prove the flow for all practical purposes. today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits or the president can do this a fundamentally new principle. and it's a dangerous pressure. so you have the cold, 6 consecutive justices will pointed, but from the 3 liberal judges, chosen by democratic precedence dissented, saying the ruling on the mind, cold democratic principles, the new one is a buffalo. some commentators argue the judgement goes to fall, deflecting the political divisions in the court problem. the defendant got all the protection he was entitled to. so there's a little bit of progress the going on, and not much humility in terms of,

of the courts and its willingness to take on for itself a very, very over significant. some would say role in the balance of power between the institutions of government from was seeking re election in the november presidential vote was quick to react on social media, calling it to victory for the constitution and democracy. the federal election subversion case now goes back to the lower court. the delays could mean it won't go to the, for the, for voters had to the polls in full months. on january the 6th, 2021, some progress supporters and post them to converge on the capital leading to an attack. all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by a ball. the radical left, the democrats, which is what they're doing. he was laid to charge them full counts, including conspiracy to defraud the us. and conspiracy against the rights of citizens comp has denied the charges and accused the body and administration of

carrying out of which hunt. if he boots the selection, he have the power to dismiss all the justice department persecutions against him. some legal analysts alarmed have a president who is able to take all kinds of passions, that a citizen or another member of the government would not be able to take and there is no criminal accountability. to me, that's not the same separation of powers democratic system that we have now. you're veering more in at least the potential for an authoritarian or dig dig tutorial regime. trump is the 1st formal us preston to be criminally prosecuted and convicted. the supreme court ruling could affect other cases he's facing and have broad implications for the public of the us presidency. because some should leave. i'll just 0 for inside study

the. all right, let's go and bring in our guests in pennington. new jersey is lynn ramble. professor emeritus of constitutional law at texas a and m university school of law. she specializes in the us constitution and the supreme court decisions that interpret it. steam. herman is the voice of america's chief national correspondent, an author of the book, behind the white house curtain, a senior journalist story of covering the president and why it matters. he's in our studio in washington dc. and joining us from london and leslie finch and more he is the director of the us and american program at the royal institute of international affairs. think tank also known as chatham house, a warm welcome to you all. and thanks so much for joining us today on inside story . let me start with you today. how far reaching are the implications of this ruling by the supreme court in the united states? how historic is this from a legal standpoint and how much does it broaden the powers of the presidency in the us? well, it's extremely expansive. it's definitely

a change from what i think all of us who study the constitution and the treatment of the president saw would be handed down. anytime you talk about absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, you're talking about something very, very extreme. and that is what the supreme court recognized it also defined, official conduct so broadly and handed down a lower level of community that looks like a lower level of immunity. but the standard for overcoming it is so high that it will be very hard to breach. steve, so it's huge. sure. um, steve, how much will this decision emboldened trump if he is indeed elected to a 2nd presidential term? you know, trump already shattered norms of the office. he pushed boundaries when he previously served as president. so what does this mean going forward? the yes mohammed i, as you noted,

the donald trump was fairly unrestrained in his uh, 1st administration. but he did have people around him, such as a secretaries of state and chief of staff and white house lawyers, who could restrain him and say, look, if you do this, you're breaking the law. now those arguments are off the table. we knew that if trump is re elected, even before this decision, at the beginning of his 2nd term, he was going to inundate the system, the legal system with executive orders, hoping most of those uh, would uh, get through. uh, and now it's going to be very difficult. it appears uh for both the judicial branch of a bar government and the congressional branch legislative branch to, to try to restrain them. and that we've always had these balances of power to prevent this from happening. and now it appears that we have really, really seen the strengthening of the executive branch, the presidents powers,

leslie. one of the most fundamental principles of american democracy is that no one is above the law. this ruling really strikes at that principle. does that mean? is this thing that any future president can do, whatever he or she likes, so long as it falls within what is considered to be their official capacity or core constitutional power. it certainly, as we've heard, it has increased very significantly the power of the executive and specifically of the president. and in this case uh, seemingly reduce the ability of the ports. and you know, through this the people to check the power of donald trump for pass doc. so it is, it's a very significant we saw this in the dissenting judgments that were very powerful, you know, saying that this is turning the president into a chain. i think the push back is going to be very significant, but the,

the 2nd thing i would note is that it really takes the question of accountability and responsibility for acts that people citizens will see to be extreme to civil society. it sort of moves that it puts pressure on civil society to hold those hearings on congress. you know that if you think about the january 6 hearings or multiple mechanisms through which not only the united states, but countries around the world tried to hold leaders to account when the courts can't do it for all sorts of reasons, not least that the law isn't set up to hold the executive accountable. so the pressure for using those other mechanisms to push back against any abuse of authority just becomes very, very significant. and, you know, ultimately the, the power of the law is one that you know, any democracy needs to have. but if it's eroded, civil society will find another way certainly,

and essentially like united states for civil society is so phenomenally robust to lynn. i want to talk to you for a minute more specifically about what was in the majority opinion. so i want to read a portion of what chief justice john roberts wrote. he wrote the nature of presidential power, entitled a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and precludes of constitutional authority. and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, the opinion also stays to prep the president's get no immunity for unofficial acts . but how difficult is it going to be now to differentiate between what is considered an official act and an unofficial act when it comes to the office of the us presidents i think it's going to be quite difficult. i mean, you know, one of the things that the supreme court does is it hands down very, very broad guidelines and then sense it down to lower courts for them to apply. and

sometimes in the guise of designing an issue, it actually creates more questions and answers. their definition of official conduct is based on whether or not the president has a 30 that he can identify for doing a particular item. and then official conduct is divided into 2 parts. one that gets absolute immunity and one that gets presumptive immunity. and the ways to divide those up or not particularly clear. there's talking the opinion about having congressional authorization or constitutional authorization. but nothing more than that. how specific does the statute giving authorization have to be, for example, all of that is on clear and they're going to let the lower courts stab away of that in the 1st instance. but, but the thing that is so remarkable about the opinion is that there is going to be

a category of action for which he will have absolute immunity to act and do so in a criminal fashion. this is steve. we just talked to lynn about the majority opinion. i want to talk to you more specifically about the dissenting opinion because the 3 liberal justice is on the court issued a fierce descent and i just want to read a bit from what justice sonya said to my your road. she said, never in the history of our republic as the president had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. moving forward, however, all former presidents will be closed in such community if the occupant of that office misuses official power for for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide, will not provide a backstop with fear for our democracy. i dissent, so there is no mincing of words there. how rare is it to get a warning? this stark, from a sitting supreme court justice even in the descent?

yeah, it's pretty stark in a fairly unusual. and president biden came out and made 5 minutes of remarks at the white house last evening, and quoted from the dissenting opinions. saying that not only do we need to descend, but meeting the judges and the president, the current president himself. but the american people also need to dissent. we've not heard that from president biden before. and he also warned us have been referenced that were basically converting the presidency into a sort of monarchy. and this goes back to the fundamental principles of how the united states was found, that it was a revolution, a rebellion against britain, which had a king with the sweeping powers. and so we have justice is on the supreme court and the president united states and a lot of other people today saying that we're now

a setting up to have this country being ruled by a king in the future. and this opinion of course, issue just days before america's independence day. and steve, let me follow up with you about what you talked about when it comes to jo biden's remarks. i mean, essentially he is saying that this really raises the stakes when it comes to the upcoming election. and the, the american people are the ones that are going to have the ultimate judgement when it comes to. if donald trump will face any accountability going forward, he essentially is saying it's not going to be from the chords. that's a staggering thing to hear from a sitting american president. how much do you think this is going to impact the upcoming elections? well, a mom and you raised something very interesting that we do have the press, the united states saying this and warning about as an opponent. and this may be a silver lining for the democrats who are fighting among themselves right now about whether joe biden is in a level of cognitive decline. that he should be taken off the top of the ticket and

replaced by somebody else. and so now bite in the white house, the democratic party leaders, the head of his campaign, could theoretically unite and saying, look, we know there are issues with joe biden, but the stakes are so high now with a supreme court decision that if you allow donald trump to come back into power, we're effectively going to lose our democracy. they've been trying to say that for weeks and months now. but the supreme court decision really gives them ample evidence to take that out on the campaign trail. leslie, of course, lynn and see what i'm talking about. the fact that, you know, the critics of this decision have essentially said that this could potentially make an american president into an american monarch going forward. and, and i'm curious what you think about that. i mean, does this all mean the american presidents are now effectively monarch figures a is an, a sitting american president become like a king completely above the law. but there's no doubt about it. this is

a very significant elevation of the authority and power of the product has been visa, the, the ability of the ports to check their action. but america is a, you know, deep democracy. there are multiple parts to it. the courts are critical, the trust and those courts to be independent as critical. and we've seen the erosion of that trust in re some years. certainly during the years of which donald trump was president, but to reduce all of america's democracy simply to the courts and not to recognize that americans democracy at many points in our history has had moments where, you know, pro chest civil society engagement, all sorts of aspects of society of come together to force and call for social change. you know, at the, when it goes well, you should be able to work through this course. but i think what we're seeing now is that pushback is going to be i,

it was going to need to be located elsewhere in the us that a president biden is clearly, you know, going at this, taking this message and saying it's gotta be at the ballot box, i think many people for very long time have felt that the way that donald trump needs to be defeated. these are those people who feel like he is a threat to the norms as well as the laws that underpin america's democracy. many people have felt that the way to defeat the former president is at the polls. the people have to vote against him, otherwise it won't be seen to be legitimate. there's been real concern by many that, that a trial that's removed, the former president, our severely and strange disability wouldn't, would not be seemed to be legitimate simply because he has such a large following in the american electorate. so, you know, they're the, i think the basic point though is despite how very significant this decision is, you know, nothing in america's democracy is ever over this. it will come under scrutiny. but

the question of donald trump is one of which there won't be pushed back for multiple for doors. limit stock for a minute about the makeup of the supreme court because for much of the past 70 years the, the ideological make up of the, of the 9 supreme court members. um that was more or less evenly divided with one or 2 justices acting as a swing vote. that seemed to be what was expected when it came to the make up of the supreme court after donald trump. busy became president, he filled 3 seats on that court. the balance shifted to a $63.00 majority. conservative. how has that changed the way the court works? and also the way that it is perceived? well, the way that it has has been perceived, it has been extremely negative. as everyone knows, the legitimacy of the court is very much at stake. not just because it is still

lopsided in terms of appointments, but also because it will not take any action, ethically, to rule in the members of the court. and there are people who strongly believe that above just to just as a leader and just as thomas should not have been sitting on this opinion in light of the partisan expressions that they've engaged in. so the lot so i think most of the court, which really began with the failure to consider merit garland, has become a significant problem. and i have regarded the court with a great deal of reverence. you can imagine teaching constitutional law for one time, but i really want to echo what leslie has said. people have a tendency to think that the constitution and the court system or the answer to everything that goes wrong. and this decision really,

really demonstrates the responsibility that the american public has for being the back stop if you will. and they really aren't the back stop. but they think of themselves that, that way at times. and they are going to have to step forward info if this is something to which they object. then you also mentioned that you talked about in your last answer, specifically, clarence thomas with samuel leto. there's been a lot of criticism the past several months of the financial and political ethics when it comes to those to just this is clarence thomas and samuel leto. there are a lot of legal experts who have said that the courts ethics policy is in dire need of reform. is there any chance that that is actually going to happen? it's not, it's the k, i don't see one has the court has con is currently constituted. i think that it's going to require action by the other branches, imposing it on the court. steve, i saw you reacting as well. a just didn't,

did you want to jump in to? so i think of, we may be of years if not generations away from the court sort of imposing those sort of restraints. so on itself and yes, it will take public opinion of the congressional a branch and executive action or perhaps. but if all of those branches of government are under one party, then it's not something that's going to happen. if it's the conservatives that are in power. and again, they have all 3 branches of power under democrats or a liberal philosophy doesn't seem likely to happen for a long time as well. but the point is since the late 18th century, that we had these 3 distinct branches of government to balance each other. and keep them uh from, from one of them from, uh,

getting out of whack. and so now we appear to be going into a direction of and we have to say, i think point out that there are, there is a percentage of the population that will be behind this, that are advocating for christian nationalism in the united states who want a strong leader who want to reduce the power of the federal bureaucrats. and now we seem to be heading. if donald trump is re elected for a perfect storm, especially if the republicans are able to capture both houses of congress in this november's election. it was we, you know, the us is very polarized, politically, the supreme court is more polarized than ever before. how much trust does the us public have in the supreme court right now? and how does that compare to the past? i, i, you know, i think right now people see the courts and as a partisan court, they don't see it as an independent court. far too many people assume that because

there is a conservative majority on the court, that there will be conservative. i. j, a triumph of decision making and that is not how people used to see the court. so i think there is in there are an erosion of trust. and then the assumption of partisan of polarized politics affecting this course. but i think again, you know, one of the big points that i think we need to remember is that the court cannot be forever out of stuff with the american electorate in the united states. is that an a phenomenal period right now running up to these highly consequential elections. but if you look at the direction of travel amongst younger voters in the united states, amongst the younger americans, they are more progressive. they care about things like climate change. they care about democracy, they care about rights and they care about reproductive rights. um they care about

gay rights, the so i think that ultimately there will be pressure on the court to maintain some, to be a reflection of american society. that's always been the case. it is a, is a source of contest ation. and while you know, the short term is very, very concerning. for many of us, i think in the medium term, the forces of democracy in the united states. this will be an inflection point, but it's not a unit unit directional. there's not, there's not one direction of travel in the united states, and this is, this is a, it has the period between now and 2028 will be one of remarkable change and contestation and leslie, if i could just follow up with you on, on one point, i mean the expansion of presidential powers, this is not something new. i mean, this is going back decades, right. i mean, you could talk about even gerald ford pardoning richard nixon in the wake of watergate after nixon resigned. and many people leave that decision cost. carol ford the election going forward,

but we've seen protection over and over again of presidents and their actions in the past. this is just the most latest and biggest iteration of that, correct? it is significant, but you made the case. right. and, and gerald ford paid the price. presidents ultimately do pay the price elected officials do play, pay the price because ultimately people have a significant influence in every democracy, but especially in america's democracy, works civil. it's not just people voting. it's also civil society organizations active way of getting together to push back some of those push, you know, they push in multiple directions. the national rifle association has, has pushed a gun rights agenda very effectively. but other, the civil society organizations up i pushed in a different directions. it's a very complex but very tightly robust system look at the work of the american civil liberties union. so again i, i think it's very critical not to just look at one direction of travel, you know,

the arc of history, even in the united states, even in this period is tended to, to push in a direction. the ultimately is liberal and more progressive. when we only have a couple of minutes left, but i want to ask about the fact that, you know, how much is this judgment from the supreme court potentially going to delay the criminal case against trump, for allegedly trying to subvert the 2020 election? because the trial judge in that case is now going to have to determine which actions by trump were carried out in an official capacity, which actions were carried out in a personal capacity. how difficult is that going to be? and is that essentially ensure that that trial doesn't happen before the 2020 of 2024 election? so i see no way that trial goes forward. the amount of fact finding and briefing of what phraseology and the supreme court opinion means is going to take a great deal of time on the part of the judge in that case. so there i, it's impossible to believe that it would go off before the election. i wouldn't be

surprised if it, honestly, if it went off before the summer of 2025. all right, we've run out of time. so we're going to have to leave the conversation there. thanks so much to our guest, lynn, rambo, steve herman and leslie finch memory. and thank you to for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website. i'll just share a dot com and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash age a inside story. you can also join the conversation on x. r handle is at a j inside story. for me, how much i'm german, the whole team here. bye for now the, the full hales the planet, interrogates. well, i always think about climate change the way the days, but it's a global issue. it's abstract. so whatever i do, it doesn't seem to make a dent. alley re reveals how with being and it collated into distancing also from the climate crisis and delaying meaningful action as sacrilege for reactions has

been both intentionally and unintentionally, quite a few ideas to create confusions. if we're confused with the power of psychology, emp, looking climate action on our $20.00. how the city of the workers in his room used to bring much needed cash to the occupied to us bank. they were estimated the 22 percent of the workforce before the war. now that israel has bound their entry, they barely make up 2 points, the percent, according to a recent survey by the international labor organization. another office to can speaking the economy is israel's decision to withhold tax revenue that belongs to the palestinian authority? no, many stores here have closed down and people say every day this will continues. it adds another version of the world. wait to see if the international criminal court will issue

a rest. torrence for the lead does. it is right. and how much people in power which the are ccs track record on trial. this court was created to hold those responsible, accountable, prevents such crimes from happening again. so is the i c, c fit for purpose? people in power on challenges. era, injustice for me is the driving force of why i do this to show people what it's like to live in places where injustice isn't something you read in. the news is something that happens to every single day. whether it's a war or natural disaster, whether it's political corruption, making so that they understand less simple language is absolutely crucial. the city's already 50 percent evacuated. most of those people actually left in the early days of the world. i couldn't do this job without the best time remained best

produces the best spaces and those of the people that i rely on in order to be able to get that message out to the world. the carry johnston in doha, the top stories now on the i'll just there are a can barrel is roaring through the kind of in the closing havoc on the several islands is now heading towards jamaica barrel reached the category 5 states us before being downgraded to a full, but least 6 people have been killed including 3 in grenada, and one in st. vincent and the granite deans. townhome and has more of this now. prime minister of grenada is come out and said that in hoffman, our country, a crew that's one of the small little islands of peace country was flattened, the prime minister of some vincent and granite. things you mention said that 90

percent of houses with damaged and destroyed on another small island called union and the roof of the airport.