Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow falsely claimed that the Supreme Court has made Trump “completely immune from prosecution,” significantly overstating the court’s recent ruling…

Mr. Cole quotes the Democratic lawmaker: “Thanks to Donald Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court, he’s now completely immune from prosecution – even if he breaks the law.” Then Mr. Cole adds:

McMorrow’s comment about the case Trump v. US is false. In their decision last month in the historic case, the six conservative justices granted Trump some immunity from prosecution, but not blanket immunity, as the former president had sought. The court said Trump could not be criminally pursued over “official acts,” but that he could face prosecution over alleged criminal actions involving “unofficial acts” taken while in office. 

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the conservative majority.

And while Trump appointed three of the justices who helped make up the six-justice majority, the other three, including Roberts, were appointed by previous Republican presidents.

Sadly, such poisonous attacks on the highest court are likely to be a staple of this week’s convention. Thank goodness most Americans still don’t endorse them, according to the new Mason-Dixon poll commissioned by the First Liberty Institute, which advocates for religious freedom.

The progressive activists who now dominate the Democratic party consider America’s constitutional order to be broken when it doesn’t yield the political outcomes they demand. Their ire is often directed at the Supreme Court, which currently operates outside their control. But the justices shouldn’t take it personally. The activists also regard the Electoral College as broken because it doesn’t always deliver the presidency to their favored candidate. To achieve a judiciary that will enforce their will, various Democratic elected officials have suggested adding more seats to the Supreme Court, among other proposed fixes.

The welcome news is that voters aren’t yet sold on wholesale changes. The Mason-Dixon poll posed the following question:

Do you support or oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to change the structure of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Mason-Dixon finds that 52% oppose the idea, while 41% of likely voters support the idea of amending the constitution to change the court’s structure. What may be especially encouraging to those who want to leave the judiciary alone is that wholesale changes are even more unpopular with the independent voters who often decide elections. They oppose constitutional amendment by 59% to 35%.

The downer for those who want continuity on the court is that Mason-Dixon has been asking this question for several years and the overall majority who oppose structural change has been getting much smaller. This year’s 52% who oppose constitutional amendment compares to last year’s 60% and in 2021 the figure was 66%.

The same goes for another idea that fortunately remains very unpopular, but not as unpopular as it was or should be. Here are this year’s Mason-Dixon results:

QUESTION: For over 150 years, the United States Supreme Court has had nine justices. “Court-packing” is generally defined as increasing the number of Supreme Court seats, primarily to alter the ideological balance of the court. Do you support or oppose “court-packing”?

SUPPORT 34%

OPPOSE 59%

UNDECIDED 7%

Considering the amount of time, money and dishonesty Democratic officials and activists have been devoting lately to assaults on the country’s independent judiciary, perhaps these results are encouraging.

But when it comes to rank-and-file Democratic voters, one surely must give them points for honesty. Even as they overwhelmingly support changes to the court, they also overwhelmingly agree with the following statement:

Plans to expand the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court are primarily motivated by political objectives.

This is an opinion that is broadly shared across the electorate, so in a polarized time at least there appears to be a consensus that efforts to change the composition of the Court are partisan. Perhaps some of these honest Democratic voters will reconsider whether they really want to live in a country where the judiciary is subject to partisan restructuring.

Another encouraging finding suggests that such voters might be open to a principled case in support of the court just as it is. A full 87% of likely voters—including 84% of Democrats—agree with the following statement:

An independent judiciary is a crucial safeguard of our civil liberties.

***

Speaking of our liberties, which require robust defense by an independent judiciary, Princeton’s Robert George has excellent advice on encouraging young people to exercise them. Mr. George posts on X:

Fellow Professors: For anyone who might find it helpful, I’m reproducing below language on freedom of speech from my course syllabus. (This fall, I’m teaching “Constitutional Interpretation.”) Please feel free to adapt and borrow this language if you agree with it and are teaching controversial subjects.

“As set forth in Princeton University’s *Rights, Rules, Responsibilities* section 1.1.3, this institution strictly respects the right to free speech of everyone in our community of scholars and learners. That right is sacrosanct in this class and is possessed by faculty and students alike. With the aim of advancing and deepening everyone’s understanding of the issues addressed in the course, students are urged to speak their minds, explore ideas and arguments, play devil’s advocate, and engage in civil but robust discussions. There is no thought or language policing. We expect students to do business in the proper currency of intellectual discourse—a currency consisting of reasons, evidence, and arguments—but no ideas or positions are out of bounds.”