Biden campaign, Democrats lash out against SCOTUS immunity ruling

We are getting new reaction from the White House and Democrats. The Supreme Courts historic ruling on presidential immunity sending aftershocks throughout Washington and the country. Madeline Rivera with reaction from the White House. Madeline, Emily, the Biden campaign just wrapped up a press call regarding this ruling. And the tone on that call was quite dark, with some of the speakers warning that the former president could use this ruling to go after his political opponents. One of those speakers on that call was Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, and she described feeling shook. So far, the reactions that we've been getting so far have been for the Biden campaign. A senior campaign adviser saying this today's ruling doesn't change the facts. So let's be very clear about what happened on January 6. Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encourage a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol. He thinks he's above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold on to power for himself. Clearly, the Biden campaign making it clear they're not changing course, at least when it comes to how they want to put the former president on defense for what happened on January 6th. And the campaign insists the president is best fit to beat the former president. That is despite the low point the president currently finds himself in fending off calls to leave the race after his dismal debate performance. No comment from the president himself for now, but he did say this in December when asked whether any president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution. Mr. President, you should trust the president and the president. It's absolutely new for president's prosecution. Any president in law. I can't think of 1. Meantime, former President Trump saying on Truth Social, big win for our Constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American. And again, no comment yet from the White House or the president. If that changes, we will of course let you know. Emily, back to you. Madeline, thank you. You got it. Well, the Democrats are seizing on the ruling and predictably going after the court. Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries released to the following statement that reads in part. House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme far right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution. And former Obama advisor Van Jones also attacked the High Court. Watch. It's bad. It makes the Supreme Court look very partisan. They're supposed to be wearing these kind of black and white umpire jerseys or whatever they look like they're wearing red jerseys for or even MAGA hats. It's going to go down bad politically for the Supreme Court. It's also scary because what is Trump going to do if Trump gets elected and there's this idea that he can get away with even more stuff That's really, really scary for the public because he already ran over every norm that he could. So it seems like, I mean, just look as politically, not legally, politically, it's almost like a license to thug in a way, Like you can do whatever you want and Supreme Court is probably going to let you get away with it. That is very frightening in this case. And so I'm I'm, I'm, I'm very, very concerned. We'll hear for reaction. Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and law professor at George Washington University. He is also a Fox News contributor. Jonathan, what do you make of the license to thug argument and the fact that the Supreme Court justices have to be, quote, brought into compliance? Well, if you drive through Washington, it seems like everyone is just breathing into paper bags today. And it is. It's something that you just want to go up, put your arm around and say it's going to be OK. We have a Constitution that has survived for a reason. You know, the the hyperbolic language, It has a dangerous aspect to it because it's an effort to say something that is not true. If you read the opinion, it is not a wild partisan opinion. To the contrary, it rejected the extreme arguments on both sides. It found a middle road, as many of us suggested. And these, you know, people like Senator Blumenthal coming out and saying that they're nothing but partisan hacks. These are attacks we've heard for for years when when, you know, we even had Majority Leader Schumer go to the steps of the Supreme Court and threaten justices that they are going to be held personally accountable for these rulings. That's the danger to the rule of law. It is the lack of respect to the institution. And these justices. I have agreed and disagreed with every one of these justices. But I must tell you, I respect every one of the 9. They try to get things right. I sometimes think that their opinions are just radically off base. I strongly disagree with Justice Sotomayor's opinion today, but I have a lot of respect for her and for her colleagues. And this is with the test not just of citizens, but our leaders to be able to transcend the politics of the moment to say that there were good arguments on both sides. But I'm afraid that's what I wrote about in my my new book, which is the age of rage. This is what rage is. It's addictive. People like it. And you see that in in with the House Minority Leader. You see that with Senator Blumenthal. They like it. And the cost will be borne by the court perhaps. But by the way, with ACNN, commentator warns the court that this isn't going to work well for you politically. You're going to have justices say, well, here's a flash for you, Gordon. We're not political. That's why we're given life tenure. And whether it's good politically or not, we're supposed to stand up for rights and powers against everyone in the world as long as we're standing with the Constitution. Final question, Professor, what do you make of the fact that this decision, which if anything, is squarely in comport with the Constitution and sort of solidifies the boundaries between certain powers, that being called extreme? Is it extreme because in this day and age, apparently deviating from the Constitution has become mainstream and now we are back to where we should have started or we did start with the framers, No, And most of the people who are the loudest today are the ones that were demanding speedy rulings from these courts. Get on with it. Let's try Trump. Let's convict Trump. The Supreme Court rejected that. They're doing the same with Judge Cannon down in Florida, saying why can't you be like that DC judge and just move like a rocket docket? Well, that DC judge was wrong. So was the DC Circuit. They moved quickly and they moved wrongly. Now, I don't blame them because this is creating new clarity in the Constitution. But speed's not the measure. But to say that this is extremism means that you have not read the opinion. They found that middle path because the Constitution is about balances. The checks and balance system is the genius of James Madison. And that's what they were trying to do here, to do the right thing, not for this case, but for future cases. They did write for the ages, as Justice Gorsuch said. But even if you disagree with it, there's a time when as citizens, we have to embrace our common identity and around the rule of law, you can disagree with these justices without attacking them, going to their houses and harassing their families because that's what this reckless rhetoric does. That's right, Professor, thank you so much. Right. We're going to bring the conversation back to the couch. So, Andy, to that point, you know, we saw this same unfortunate pattern after the Roe V. Wade decision, which is all of a sudden attack the justices. We've got to pack the court and there's no language to soften any type of criticism or disagreement with the ruling. IEI respect the court. However, this ruling saddens me because XYZ there's an an unfortunately a much more aggressive tone. And all it does is is raise the rhetoric and raise the temperature to potentially dire consequences. Well, but they do it because it works, right? I mean, it's not just directed at the Supreme Court. I'm not saying it works on the Supreme Court in the sense that they change their their rulings, but this is what they do across the board. You know, part of part of I think the disconnect in the country is we're over here saying everybody's got to follow the rules and the rules have to apply equally to everybody. And the people that are, are on the other side, particularly the progressive left, they believe as a philosophical matter, this is like out in the open in using the power of government and using intimidation in order to move the ball up the field. So they'll they'll work within the rules as far as it will take them. And then if it if they hit a brick wall, then they'll be in front of the justices homes and they'll be doing all the intimidation tactics that they do. They do it because it works. And if you want to like get an assessment of how well it works, look at the Democratic Party. Look at the Democratic Party in the last 25 years. I mean, take Hillary Clinton during the Bill Clinton administration when they were doing healthcare, she was like the biggest radical nut job in the in the country, right? That's the way everybody painted her. Now she's like the the sound mainstream solid Democrat, right? Hillary hasn't moved an inch in 20 years. It's the Democratic Party went from here to here and John talked about, talked about like, you know, no one will read this ruling. And that's right, you know, they know no one will read. No one's going to sit down and lawyers aren't going to sit down and read 96 pages. So a lot of people in the country are going to be influenced by what Hakeem Jeffries tells them the decision says. And they do it because it works. Will it, you know, we've been sort of in all of our polling and conversations with Americans throughout the country, many rank January 6th quite low on the list behind the economy and behind providing for their families, etcetera. So the question is, will this particular hot point actually move the needle, do you think? No, because I think people who do take the time to, if not read it, thoroughly analyze it, you know, to the point that I made earlier, they will realize that it's also beneficial for them. This is not something that singularly benefits Donald Trump. And you know, Andy is absolutely right about the radicalization of the messaging and the way that this dissent is written by Justice Sotomayor. It's no different than people going to the Louvre and super gluing their hands to the Mona Lisa. It doesn't change the argument or how people feel about climate change. What it does is people hear noise and they turn away from the argument altogether. I think it has the same effect, and I think justices should be above that. I think they should use careful, sometimes colorful legal language, but certainly not as political as this has been. We're already hyper politicized. The one thing that people could finally agree on our politics was that Joe Biden cannot be president anymore after the debate.