Saturday, July 13, 2024 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
There has been nonstop debate about the Supreme Court ruling granting former presidents broad immunity from prosecution. President Joe Biden has said that the justices set a dangerous precedent that undermines the rule of law.
The idea of immunity is not new. The Supreme Court previously created immunities, including qualified, prosecutorial and judicial immunity, with the goal of ensuring the government and its workers do not face meritless lawsuits. However, can’t it also be said that immunity doctrines shield government workers from accountability? What about victims who have suffered from government abuse? Where is their recourse?
For example, there have been thousands of cases throughout the U.S. of judges placing vulnerable elderly people in predatory guardianships even though they have their own estate plans in place, including family trusts and powers of attorney. When a judge orders that a person be placed in a guardianship, it can open the door for the financial exploitation of the elderly ward. Guardianships frequently turn into a fee-churning enterprise for attorneys and guardians. It can end up being a free-for-all with the selling off of property, emptying of savings accounts and transferring wealth that was intended for the heirs into the pockets of predators.
When a judge has enabled this, by ignoring previously set up estate plans, why is he protected from being held accountable?
That victims of government abuse are denied the opportunity to vindicate their rights, due to the immunity doctrines in place, is a travesty.
Why are judges above the law?
