2024-07-01華盛頓 -- 今天六個保守派以 6 比 3 的裁決，賦予總統職位的官方行為享有 "絕對豁免權"，不受刑事犯罪起訴。而且其他行為，即使是那些處於總統公務外圍的行為，也享有 "推定豁免權"，使其更難受到起訴。

這是最高法院在總統權力和憲政問題上做出的最具影響力的判決之一。該判決的直接效果是無限期推遲了對川普試圖推翻 2020 年大選的起訴，這意味着今年大選之前，選民們就無法知道川普在2020大選之後的所作所為，就無法對川普在暴力攻擊國會企圖顛覆大選的違法行為予以追究任何法律責任。

但是，今天這六個保守派的裁決對憲法和美國政府造成的長期威脅更為嚴重，尤其是考慮到川普在短短幾個月內就有可能重新上台的實際可能性，他最近在紐約被判定犯有刑事罪，這只是他蔑視法律界限的最新表現。

一些人問，杜魯門下令投放兩個原子彈，尼克松下令對越南地毯式轟炸，造成無辜平民老婦幼死亡，是否應該被刑事起訴。許多人在這裡混淆了問題。法律界限始終是一項行動是否違反憲法和現行法律、法規和規章。例如美國《憲法》（第 I 條第 9 款第 8 段）禁止聯邦官員接受外國或其統治者、官員或代表的任何饋贈、付款或其他有價物品。川普在白宮對面公然開了川普酒店，就是屬於違反憲法的行為。收受賄賂，貪贓枉法，將國家機密泄露給國外勢力，命令特種部隊暗殺政治對手，煽動暴徒攻擊國會，干擾妨礙國會執行憲法規定的程序。。。等等這些都是刑事犯罪，無論是誰，都必須受到法律程序的制裁。

美國在1776宣布獨立的建國理念包括，"任何人都不能凌駕於法律之上 "。從今天開始，這一基本原則已被擱置一旁。就在美國慶祝建國的這一周，六個保守派踐踏破壞了美國獨立革命的初衷，給將來的總統們提供了一個 可以肆意妄為的"無法空間“，朝着恢復《獨立宣言》所反對的君主制邁出了一步。

因為這個可恥的裁決，這六個保守派顛覆了美國的建國理念和憲法原則，美國的民主共和憲政，再一次被踐踏和破壞。

美國最高法院歷史上曾經做出過不少及其惡劣可恥的裁決，今天這個裁決無疑將加入這個可恥名單。

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Oh, the dreaded Dred. The oldest case on our list is also coincidentally the worst. There may be disagreement about the other worst-ever SCOTUS, but nobody disagrees that this one is hands-down the worst Supreme Court decision ever. Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.

The 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution overturned the 1857 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, and the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to all people born in the United States.

2. The Civil Rights Cases of 1883

These were five consolidated cases challenging the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations like hotels, restaurants, and transportation. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment so narrowly that it struck down the Act, arguing that it could not regulate private businesses. This decision effectively ushered in the Jim Crow era of legalized racial segregation.

It would take over 80 years for the Court to switch course, allowing for the government protection of civil rights in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. — this time under the Commerce Clause.

3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): You've probably heard of the infamous concept of “separate but equal." This decision upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. This flawed logic, despite supposedly guaranteeing equal facilities for both races, inherently implied Black inferiority and violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Plessy's legacy is one of perpetuating Jim Crow laws, psychological harm to Black Americans, and impeding racial progress for decades.

Only in 1954 did Brown v. Board of Education finally overturn Plessy and dismantle its segregationist legacy, a stark reminder of the dangers of legalized discrimination and the ongoing fight for a truly just and equitable society.

4. Lochner v. New York (1905): This case ignited a fiery debate for protecting employer interests over worker welfare, expanding judicial power through "substantive due process," and paving the way for the "Lochner era" of striking down progressive laws. Here, SCOTUS struck down a New York law limiting bakery work hours to 10 hours a day, finding an implicit "liberty of contract" in the Due Process Clause.

Though overruled, its legacy sparks ongoing discussions about balancing economic liberty with worker protection, interpreting fundamental rights, and the Court's cautious power to influence public policy in a changing society.

5. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!" the Court declared in this terrible decision. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

6. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied what is called “strict scrutiny" to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."

Technically, Korematsu was never overturned by SCOTUS. However, its legitimacy has been severely undermined and it is no longer considered good law for several reasons. In 1983, a federal court judge overturned Korematsu's original conviction, acknowledging government suppression of evidence and racial prejudice in the decision. In 2018, Chief Justice Roberts strongly rebuked the Korematsu decision in the Trump v. Hawaii case, calling it "gravely wrong" and stating it has "no place in law under the Constitution." Thus, thankfully, Korematsu has lost its practical authority and is highly unlikely to be used as precedent in future cases due to its discredited foundation and inconsistent history.

7. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): This decision upheld a discriminatory Georgia sodomy statute that criminalized sexually active gay and lesbian relationships. As Justice Harry Blackmun noted in his dissent, the majority opinion displayed "an almost obsessive focus on homosexual activity." The decision was inconsistent with precedent because it denied a fundamental right to privacy for consenting adults engaging in private sexual conduct, even though the Court had previously recognized privacy rights in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception) and Roe v. Wade (abortion). Fortunately, Bowers was overruled in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas, which recognized a fundamental right to privacy for all consenting adults engaging in private sexual conduct, regardless of their sexual orientation. This was a major victory for LGBTQ+ rights and helped pave the way for future advancements, including marriage equality.

8. Bush v. Gore (2000): Shaping the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, this remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in American history for several reasons. The Republican majority stopped the recount, raising potential violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and arguing that different standards for counting votes across counties could unfairly disenfranchise voters. However, critics argued that stopping the recounts altogether disproportionately affected Gore's supporters in those counties. Furthermore, the majority opinion specifically warned in the decision that “[o]ur consideration is limited to the present circumstances," discouraging future courts from relying on any legal holding in the decision, which further evidenced this decision was purely a political power grab for partisan interest.

9. Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Another, more recent case about presidential elections, Citizens United is a household name to this day due to ongoing controversy. It held that political donations are speech protected by the First Amendment, opening the floodgates to unlimited personal and corporate donations to "super PACs." Critics argue this grants enormous influence to wealthy special interests and corporations, effectively drowning out the voices of everyday citizens and giving undue power to a select few.

海闊天空