Liberal indignation at the Supreme Court decision to grant Donald Trump immunity is undermining democracy.
American liberals are expressing outrage over the Supreme Court’s decision to grant Donald Trump immunity for his alleged attempts to block the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. However, their indignation may be misdirected. This ruling could actually be seen as a positive development in light of Biden’s disastrous debate performance, which convinced many that he is unfit to serve as president.
In the event of a Trump victory, Biden may not face the same relentless legal battles and attempts to imprison him for actions taken during his presidency, as Trump has since 2016. Instead of the intense political attacks Trump has faced, Biden could be spared similar treatment, which would allow for a less chaotic transition of power.
Had the Supreme Court authorized the prosecution of Trump for his actions surrounding January 6, 2021, America could have been in an even more precarious position. Leading up to the November election, one candidate might have been juggling criminal trials while the other would have been trying to hide the growing evidence of Biden’s cognitive decline. The result could have been a country caught in political and legal turmoil, with two presidential candidates trapped in their respective struggles.
This scenario paints a picture of two candidates in a state of political paralysis. One would have been unable to escape legal entanglements, while the other might have been buried under the weight of his own diminishing mental faculties. In either case, the country could have been placed in the hands of the judiciary or the medical establishment, instead of political leaders who are supposed to lead the nation.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling may be disappointing to some, it could have been a much worse scenario if it had gone the other way. Instead of undermining democracy, the ruling could have preserved a sense of political order, allowing the focus to remain on the candidates themselves rather than their legal or health issues.
Despite the protests of those who disagree with the Court’s decision, the ruling may ultimately serve to avoid a descent into greater chaos, preserving a more stable, albeit imperfect, electoral system.
