Johnny Palmadessa
Gen-Z Attends Trump v. United States: An Update
Johnny Palmadessa waits to get a coveted seat in the Supreme Court to watch the arguments live.
As I sit in line outside the Supreme Court, waiting for the opportunity to step inside and witness the likely rejection of Donald Trump’s bid for presidential immunity, I am struck by the glaring fragility of our justice system. The simple truth — that Trump does not have presidential immunity — should be clear-cut, yet it remains unresolved, leaving me both astonished and deeply ashamed.
The mere notion that the highest court in our country is even considering such an unimaginably inappropriate case is nothing short of baffling.
Our nation awaits the outcome of Donald Trump's bid for presidential immunity, and it's impossible for anyone to ignore the stark reality: no other president in history has left such a trail of destructive and barbaric actions in his wake. The list of Trump's transgressions is long and damning, ranging from inciting the insurrection at our nation’s Capitol to election interference, hush money scandals, and the mishandling of classified documents.
One of the most egregious offenses that Trump has yet to be truly held accountable for is his attempt to strong-arm Ukraine into interfering in a presidential election.
Trump withheld vital military aid from Ukraine, leveraging it as a bargaining chip to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into launching a secret investigation into Donald Trump's political opponent at the time, Joe Biden. Despite these glaring offenses, Trump's supporters seem all too eager to sweep his crimes under the rug, choosing to follow him blindly.
It's a dangerous precedent that threatens to erode the very foundations of our democracy.
Just days ago, Donald Trump posted the following statement: “WITHOUT COMPLETE IMMUNITY, A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROPERLY FUNCTION!”
Donald Trump's claim to presidential immunity is baseless, and the Supreme Court is more than likely poised to rule against him. The idea of presidential immunity, while not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, contradicts the very principles on which our nation was founded. America was built on the rejection of monarchies and dictatorships, and the concept of immunity for a president goes against the core values of democracy and accountability.
Let's consider the Supreme Court's extensive history of holding presidents accountable.
In a landmark decision seventy-two years ago, in 1952, when Clarence Thomas was just a toddler, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal rebuke to the executive branch. They ruled that President Harry S. Truman had overstepped his authority by seizing private property without congressional approval, emphasizing that no president has the immunity to act beyond the bounds of the Constitution. This historic decision highlights the current consideration of the 'presidential immunity' case this week as nothing short of foolish.
Here I stand, in line outside the Supreme Court, filled with hope that our highest court will uphold the integrity of our Constitution. Around me, there are others who, like me, grasp the significance of this case and its implications for our nation. Yet, there are also those who view this as a chance for Donald Trump to escape accountability for his actions.
As I wait on my foldable-chair, sheltered by an umbrella in preparation for morning showers, I am resolute in my commitment to witness this historic moment. I trust that accountability will come.
Now, we wait.
