Short answer:
Psychopath/Narcissist = 1
Supreme Court = 0
Distinguishing between malignant narcissism and psychopathy remains a difficult puzzle for psychologists. Severe narcissists have a tiny conscience, but, nonetheless, it’s there somewhere. Psychopaths, essentially equivalent to anti-social individuals, lack empathy, tend to engage in illegal behaviors, and are prone to violence. One finds no conscience in them, and no capacity to care for or to understand others. Instead, they display cold, calculating self-interest.
Few disagree that Donald Trump’s personality falls into one of these two categories. Or, perhaps, his personality swirls around the thin line between them. Meanwhile, and more importantly, the July 1, 2024 decision issued by the Supreme Court Of the United States (SCOTUS) renders the distinction irrelevant. Whether a narcissist or a psychopath, Trump is astonishingly self-interested and exploitative. He seeks the power and prestige the American presidency carries. He cares naught about the welfare of the American people.
Many think the SCOTUS decision shows the Justices as in debt to Trump, corrupt, or partisan. This may all be true. Additionally, the decision shows their ignorance of the danger posed by granting persons with either of the above named pathological conditions the presidency.
The Justices’ unscrupulous behavior, or naiveté if viewed positively, emerges within the first few lines of the decision. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, author of the majority opinion, begins by observing that the matter before SCOTUS concerns:
The first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency.
Why didn’t this fact alone give the Court pause? Forty-four persons have served as American presidents. George Washington, the first, was inaugurated in 1789. Not a single one of them was EVER charged with a criminal act. Just weeks ago, a jury of Trump’s New York peers found him guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the hush money trial—marking him as the first former president to be convicted of a felony. Trump remains indicted on 88 other criminal counts.
Shouldn’t this remarkable situation concern the Justices? All Justice Departments’ legal opinions, as well as all prior American Supreme Courts, have assumed presidents were subject to criminal prosecution for their official acts. Alexander Hamilton wrote, in Federalist No. 69, that presidents would be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Decision made, and long ago.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Journeys Into the Unconscious Mind to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.