I need the liberal Supreme Court justices to stop overreacting in their dissents

The Supreme Court has sided with President Donald Trump in his presidential immunity case. Monday's decision itself was incredibly tame, typical for those authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.

However, the response from the liberal justices was anything but.

“The nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Roberts wrote for the majority. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

This means that Trump cannot be prosecuted for his discussions with Justice Department officials about investigating purported election fraud following the 2020 election. Other examples highlighted during oral arguments in April were President Barack Obama potentially being "charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike," as well as President George W. Bush "for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq."

Without such immunity, Roberts wrote, “the President would be chilled from taking the ‘bold and unhesitating action’ required of an independent Executive.”

While Trump called the decision a “big win” in a Truth Social post, the chief justice clarified that “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes.”

What the decision does not provide Trump immunity from is “unofficial acts,” those not required in order to execute his role as president or not covered by the powers afforded to the chief executive. According to certain legal experts, this would include Trump’s recent felony indictment concerning falsified business records in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

Liberal justices' overreaction misrepresents the Supreme Court decision

As is a now common theme with the court, the liberal justices have cast this decision as another doomsday event for our country. 

“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Even if Sotomayor's reading were to be accurate, impeachment remains the vehicle through which we hold our leaders in check.

While Roberts specifies that impeachment and removal from office are not always required for criminal prosecution of a former president, it is how egregious actions can still be handled. As a result of this decision, impeachment becomes the simplest, though not the only, way to hold the president accountable.

Congress is still useless:Have you realized the Supreme Court is the only part of our government doing its job?

Our elected officials crave power, and the thought of losing that power is as motivating as the potential of prison time (or, in the case of Trump, seemingly more so). To pretend as if our country has lost any means of holding our elected officials accountable is entirely disingenuous, and this is not the DEFCON 1 emergency that the left has made it out to be.

Believe me, in light of a president who is proven to be willing to break the law and frequently teetered on doing so, I understand the concerns. But the dynamic of another Trump presidency does not change whatsoever. If Trump makes it back to the White House, the process for him being removed from office was the same as it always was: impeachment.

With fear for our democracy, I beg the courts’ left-wing justices to stop feeding the fire of America's Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, only 24% of whom have a favorable view of the Supreme Court. The disingenuous musings from the court's liberal minority aren't helping to establish trust.

By writing these ludicrous and out-of-touch dissents, they are only further politicizing the very institution they remain a part of, accelerating our country’s decline from a position tasked with preserving stability.

While conservative justices often write hard-lined, combative opinions as well, rarely do they catastrophize the opposing outcome quite like the liberal wing does. Part of that is a symptom of being in the majority more commonly, yet even when writing in dissent, the conservative justices make it a point to debate the law rather than overreacting for social media attention.

The Supreme Court cannot save us from ourselves

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the insanity surrounding the fact that we are nominating presidential candidates who have forced the Supreme Court to answer such questions.

The deterioration of the executive branch into a race to the bottom once again rears its ugly head in the judiciary, a theme we should be prepared for to continue into the future.

The SCOTUS decision you should know:You probably missed this Supreme Court decision. It will change how government works.

Forcing the Supreme Court to decide on such balances between a country where retribution malicious prosecution between political opponents is commonplace or one in which the chief executive enjoys immunity. The American people should heed the warnings outlined by both sides of this opinion and simply elect better leaders.

The Supreme Court does not have the job of ensuring that our leaders are the best of the best; it has the job of determining what the law says.

The responsibility to ensure we are not ruled by tyrants does not lie in anybody's hands besides the American people. We have nobody to blame but ourselves for the choice between two unfit leaders we now face, and regardless of who you think is right in this Supreme Court case, that should be your real takeaway.

Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.