Turns Constitution 'inside out and upside down': Yale scholar shreds 'convoluted' immunity ruling

After the U.S. Supreme Court released its 6-3 immunity ruling in Trump v. the United States, the decision received scathing criticism on both the left and the right. Everyone from progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) to well-known conservatives like MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace (former White House communications director under President George W. Bush) and columnist/author Mona Charen (a former Nancy Reagan speechwriter) has been blasting the ruling as a recipe for corruption and authoritarianism.

In an article published by The Atlantic, legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar (who teaches at Yale University in Connecticut) lays out some reasons why the ruling is badly at odds with the U.S. Constitution.

"Forget Donald Trump," Amar writes. "Forget Joe Biden. Think instead about the Constitution. What does this document, the supreme law of our land, actually say about lawsuits against ex-presidents? Nothing remotely resembling what Chief Justice John Roberts and five associate justices declared in yesterday's disappointing Trump v. United States decision."

READ MORE: Sonia Sotomayor: Supreme Court just gave presidents power to assassinate political rivals

The law professor adds, "The Court's curious and convoluted majority opinion turns the Constitution's text and structure inside out and upside down, saying things that are flatly contradicted by the document's unambiguous letter and obvious spirit."

Amar goes on to lay out a future "hypothetical" to show how absurd he considers the decision.

"In the year 2050, when Trump and Biden are presumably long gone, David Dealer commits serious drug crimes and then bribes President Jane Jones to pardon him," Amar argues. "Is Jones acting as president, in her official capacity, when she pardons Dealer? Of course. She is pardoning qua president. No one else can issue such a pardon."

The legal scholar continues, "The Constitution expressly vests this power in the president…. But the Constitution also contains express language that a president who takes a bribe can be impeached for bribery and then booted from office…. And once our hypothetical President Jones has been thus removed and is now ex-President Jones, the Constitution's plain text says that she is subject to ordinary criminal prosecution, just like anyone else."

READ MORE: Conservative warns Dems to get it together and confront Trump's 'true menace'

Read Akhil Reed Amar's full article for The Atlantic at this link (subscription required).