U.S. Senate Major Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has just come out in support of making reforms to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Schumer did so in an opinion piece that was published on Thursday by The Washington Post. 

The piece is titled, To protect rule of law, Congress must check Supreme Court overreach. It is subtitled, The No Kings Act would restore the American principle that a president is subject to the laws of the land. 

The piece, as you may have guessed from its title, is a response to the Supreme Court's recent immunity ruling.

Background

The doctrine of presidential immunity was recently brought to the U.S. Supreme Court by former President Donald Trump.

The former president's legal team, as a defense to the criminal cases brought against Trump, had argued that Trump is protected from prosecution by the doctrine of presidential immunity. Lower court judges disagreed, which led to appeals that made it to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's ruling has been summarized by legal expert Andy McCarthy as follows:

On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court held that presidents (including former presidents) are (a) presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for any official acts taken as president, and (b) absolutely immune if the official acts are core constitutional duties of the chief executive. The court instructed that this immunity extends not only to charges but to evidence. That means prosecutors are not just barred from alleging official presidential acts as crimes; they are further prohibited from even using such acts as proof offered to establish other crimes.

Something to note is that, first off, this ruling was not that surprising, from a legal standpoint. As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently explained, if there was no presidential immunity from criminal acts:

[it] would chill [a president] from exercising the powers and duties of a president while he is president. He would be overwhelmed. His political enemies would simply bring suits against him forever more. The court held that about 50 years ago.

The second important thing to point out is that the justices, in their ruling, did not explain what is and is not an official act or unofficial act. This is a task that has been left to the lower courts.

Schumer weighs in

Democrats are now trying to claim that the Supreme Court's ruling is outrageous - despite the fact that the ruling was mostly predictable.

Schumer writes:

The Supreme Court recently handed down one of the most dangerous rulings in its history, granting vast immunity to presidents from criminal prosecution. This decision violates one of the most important precepts of our country and our Constitution: No person is above the law, not even the president.

Here, it is worth emphasizing that the court's ruling does not contradict Schumer's claim that "no person is above the law." The justices, in other words, would agree with Schumer.

Schumer continues:

America’s Founding Fathers, deeply fearful of tyranny, would be appalled by the unchecked power the Supreme Court handed to our executive branch in the Donald Trump immunity decision. They are probably turning in their graves over this decision.

Schumer goes on to promote the "No Kings Act," which the Democrats are now trying to push through Congress. The bill would essentially overrule the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling.