Ty Cobb on Sotomayor dissent: 'A lot of screaming and no analysis'
![Ty Cobb on Sotomayor dissent: 'A lot of screaming and no analysis'](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/11/Ty-Cobb-2.png?w=900)
Former Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb criticized Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent on the high court's presidential immunity ruling, calling it a "little hysterical."
"So, I thought her dissent was a little hysterical, and it really offered no analysis, a lot of…screaming, no analysis, and I think that was unfortunate," Cobb said Monday in an interview on CNN.
In a 6-3 ruling Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that presidents have absolute immunity for actions that fall within the core responsibilities of their office and are “at least presumptively immune” for all other official acts.
Sotomayor, in a forceful 30-page dissent, said the Supreme Court's decision granting former President Trump immunity for official acts "completely insulate[s] presidents from criminal liability." She was joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The dissent listed off a series of hypothetical crimes that presidents could potentially be shielded from under the ruling, such as ordering the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival.
Cobb said he was "disappointed" Justice Elena Kagan did not write a dissent that "sharply focused on the separation of powers issues," which he said are the "core issues."
"You can't design a rule that is solely about Trump without putting the democracy at risk and eliminating some of the restraints that have historically gotten us through 250 years. Separation of powers is the cornerstone of the Constitution," Cobb said. "And as much as I wish Trump would get his comeuppance that is due for his evil conduct, the reality is you just can't go out and have a result-oriented effort by the Supreme Court."
"It needs to be based on principle and precedent and I think for the most part, I was disappointed that Justice Sotomayor didn't address at all the separation of powers issue, which is what the case was decided on," he added.
Cobb said he largely expected the high court would "draw a line" with the official acts pertaining to a president
"That was pretty clear from the oral argument and from the precedents they were working with, particularly U.S. versus Nixon and Fitzgerald, that that line would have something to do with the official acts, that they were going to do something like that," Cobb said, in reference to the two Supreme Court cases involving former President Nixon.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald dealt with presidential immunity from civil liability for actions taken while in office, while U.S. v. Nixon addressed whether a president has executive privilege in immunity from subpoenas or other civil court actions, which it ruled they do not.
Cobb said he was a bit "disappointed" and "confused" by the portion of the majority opinion regarding the use of the president's official acts as evidence in criminal prosecution against a former president.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, ruled a former president’s official acts are protected against being introduced as evidence in a criminal case against a former president.
"But they were always going to draw a constitutional line here or separation of powers line and they...drew it and it's a tight line, but it's not a line that eliminates this case," Cobb said. "Jack Smith can process.
The ruling was considered a win for former President Trump as he stares down a federal criminal election subversion case, brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
The decision is likely to delay the trial, first sending the case back to a lower court to determine whether his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, merit protection from criminal prosecution for decisions made while in the White House.
Date: |
Topics
Filter
-
CBS News - Top stories
Homes are unaffordable in 80% of larger U.S. counties, analysis finds
Across much of the U.S., owning a home now requires spending more for housing than experts generally recommend. -
Yahoo Sports - Sports
'It screams SEC': Texas looks the part as Longhorns plant their flag
It's a new era in college sports. The rich are getting richer and more powerful than ever. Nowhere was that more clear than at a lavish celebration of Texas' SEC move. -
Yahoo News - World
Hamas faces growing public dissent as Gaza war erodes support
-
BBC News - Top stories
Hamas faces growing public dissent as Gaza war erodes support
Palestinians in Gaza are openly criticising the armed group both on the streets and online.
More from The Hill
-
The Hill - Politics
Van Jones says Democrats are discussing 'how' to replace Biden, 'not whether'
Former Obama administration official Van Jones said Wednesday that Democrats, behind closed doors, are discussing “how” to replace President Biden at the top of the ticket, “not whether.” The CNN commentator said the Democrats who defend Biden on ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Former California Senator says Biden should get two weeks to prove himself after debate
Former California Sen. Barbara Boxer said President Biden should get two weeks to prove to the American people that he’s up for the job of president, amid concerns about his standing at the top of the Democratic ticket. In an interview with Los ...California -
The Hill - Politics
Majority of Americans don't think Trump will concede if he loses election: poll
According to a new poll, a majority of Americans said they do not “think” former President Trump is going to “accept the results and concede once the votes have been certified” if he does not win the upcoming presidential election. The CNN poll, ...Donald Trump -
The Hill - Politics
Governors after Biden meeting: We have his back
A small group of Democratic governors affirmed their support for President Biden following a White House meeting with the president on Wednesday amid growing Democratic calls for him to drop out of the race. “The feedback was, we are all looking ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
White House explains 'We finally beat Medicare' debate flub
The White House on Wednesday explained what President Biden meant when he misspoke and said “We finally beat Medicare” in last week’s presidential debate. “He meant to say he beat big pharma,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in ...