Debate Erupts Over Supreme Court Immunity Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling granting former presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts has sparked significant debate. Critics, including former Trump attorney Michael Cohen and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), argue that this decision paves the way for potential authoritarian abuses by allowing presidents to evade legal accountability. Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) has introduced the No Kings Act to roll back this ruling and ensure presidents are not above the law. Meanwhile, Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) defend the decision as a rational interpretation of constitutional responsibilities, viewing it as a safeguard against politically motivated prosecutions. The polarized reactions were evident during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where former Justice Department officials clashed over the implications of the ruling. Proponents argue that it is consistent with constitutional principles, while opponents warn it undermines checks and balances and could lead to abuses of power.