Put aside former President Donald Trump (an impossible task for some) and examine the Supreme Court’s majority ruling that protects any president from litigation for decisions and actions he (or she) has made while in office.
In an editorial, The Wall Street Journal correctly noted: “The 6-3 Court majority rightly focuses on the institution of the Presidency, and the ability of all Presidents — not merely the last one — to act in the national interest free from prosecution for official acts.”
The ruling is bigger than one man. As the Journal notes, it’s about the institution of the presidency that transcends the administration of a single president. A president who must constantly be looking over his shoulder and second guessing himself about the possibility of future prosecutions by his partisan successor and a corrupt Justice Department cannot effectively do the job voters elected him to do.
Presidents have always made controversial decisions that many historians are still questioning. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law in Kentucky during the Civil War. Should that have subjected him to prosecution had he lived?
In modern times, suppose Harry Truman had charges brought against him for deciding to drop nuclear bombs on Japan that helped end World War II? Should he have been prosecuted after leaving office?