The head of The Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, has likened the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity to a call for a “second American Revolution,” which he said would “remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Kevin Roberts, President of The Heritage Foundation, made these remarks on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, where he emphasized the significance of the Court’s decision which shields former presidents from certain legal actions. Roberts asserted that conservatives are on a path to reclaiming the country, framing their efforts as a peaceful revolution unless opposed by the left.
“In spite of all this nonsense from the left, we are going to win. We’re in the process of taking this country back. No one in the audience should be despairing,” Roberts said, adding, “And in spite of all of the injustice, which, of course, friends and audience of this show, of our friend Steve know, we are going to prevail.”
“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,” he added later.
Roberts highlighted the importance of the Supreme Court ruling, referencing constitutional writings to support his stance on executive power and the necessity of protecting it from legal scrutiny.
The Heritage Foundation’s ambitious Project 2025, aimed at bolstering conservative policies and presidential authority, has been portrayed as a blueprint for reshaping the nation’s direction under potential future leadership, drawing criticism as undemocratic and authoritarian by its detractors.
The Supreme Court’s decision, splitting 6-3 along ideological lines, has been applauded by Republicans as a victory safeguarding former President Trump from legal challenges, despite criticisms from Democrats who argue it sets a dangerous precedent of impunity for presidential misconduct.
Democrats condemned the decision, asserting it undermines foundational principles of accountability and equality under the law, a sentiment echoed by constitutional scholars and critics who view the ruling as contrary to the spirit of American democracy.
In framing the discourse around the Court’s decision, critics have drawn comparisons to extremist tactics, alleging that conservative rhetoric mirrors tactics employed by radical groups like the Taliban, emphasizing the potential for escalating tensions and polarization within American political discourse.
