In early July, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents like Donald Trump maintain absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their "official acts" while in office and presumptive immunity for other acts related to their duties -- a ruling that sparked outrage among anti-Trump Democrats.

Now, in response to that ruling, no less than Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has essentially declared all-out war against the conservative-leaning Supreme Court with a legislative proposal that legal experts say is blatantly unconstitutional, according to the Daily Caller.

Schumer's bill, if passed into law, would broadly strip the nation's highest court of its constitutional jurisdiction, particularly for presidential immunity cases but other issues as well, and would grossly undermine a co-equal branch of the government.

Biden, Schumer propose drastic limitations on the Supreme Court

Following the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, President Joe Biden wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post that called for reform of the high court and included three major proposals for doing so, including imposing term limits and a binding code of conduct on the justices.

The third of those proposals was a constitutional amendment that would "make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws -- not of kings or dictators."

While Biden called that proposal the "No One Is Above the Law Amendment," Sen. Schumer took the idea a step further and introduced legislation, as part of a speech thoroughly attacking the Supreme Court for decisions he disagrees with, that he dubbed the "No Kings Act."

That legislation would not only override the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity but, among other limitations imposed on the court, strip the institution of its jurisdiction on that matter and others and bar the court from considering immunity-related appeals or even challenges to the law itself.

Schumer's proposals are blatantly unconstitutional

The Daily Caller reported that conservative legal expert Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said of Sen. Schumer's legislative proposal, "None of that is constitutional," and that Democrats like Schumer had deliberately misinterpreted the Supreme Court's "reasonable and fairly narrow decision" on presidential immunity.

University of California - Berkeley law professor John Yoo told the outlet that "the call to override the Court on the presidential immunity decision is part and parcel of Kamala Harris’s progressive assault on the Constitution," and that "Overruling the Court -- through unconstitutional means such as a statute -- show the disregard progressives hold for a co-equal branch of government."

"It fits with the call to place term limits on the Justices, which Biden proposes and Harris supports, or even to pack the Court, which Harris called for in 2020," he added. "It is an obvious threat, even if it never passes, against the Court simply because progressives disagree with the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution."

Likewise, Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson told the Daily Caller that Schumer's bill was "the latest salvo in the Democrats’ war on the Supreme Court" and that "If Democrats want to abolish presidential immunity, they cannot do so retroactively, but could try to pass a prospective constitutional amendment."

"Recognizing the unlikelihood of a constitutional amendment, Schumer seeks an end run by trying to limit the right to appeal to the Supreme Court," he added. "Whether that work-around is viable remains to be seen, but there is nothing principled about it."

Bill would have devastating potential impact if passed into law by Democrats

Also joining the outcry was South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman, who in an op-ed for Reason thoroughly dissected the many glaringly outrageous and unconstitutional provisions within Sen. Schumer's proposed legislation, including that "a conviction of the President of the United States would stop with the inferior courts, and most likely, the D.C. Circuit, which by the way, will have a Democratic-appointed majority for at least the next two decades or so."

Though he predicted that Schumer's bill had "no chance" of passage in the current Congress, he cautioned that it would be possible if VP Harris wins in November and Democrats won majorities in both chambers, and further warned, "Once the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is stripped for presidential immunity, it is only a matter of time before similar bills are passed for abortion, the Second Amendment," religious freedom, and more, and added, "This bottomless hole keeps going deeper."