President Biden's decision to pardon his son, Hunter, has ignited a firestorm of criticism, with many pointing to the stark contrast between this action and his previous pronouncements on the importance of judicial independence and limits on presidential authority.

In July, Biden condemned a Supreme Court ruling expanding presidential immunity, calling it a "dangerous precedent" and emphasizing that "no one is above the law." He warned that the decision effectively removed constraints on presidential actions, a stance that now appears at odds with his recent pardon of Hunter.

File photo: President Biden delivering the State of the Union address. (Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court ruling, which Biden vehemently opposed, granted presidents absolute immunity for actions within their "core constitutional powers" and a presumption of immunity for other official acts. Biden argued that this unchecked power posed a significant threat to the balance of power and a president's character.

File photo: President Biden and Hunter Biden. (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)

The pardon, which covers any potential federal crimes Hunter Biden may have committed between January 2014 and December 2024, has drawn accusations of hypocrisy and concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department. Biden defended his decision, citing an unfair and politically motivated investigation against his son, but critics argue that this action undermines public trust in the impartiality of the justice system.

File photo: President Biden criticized a Supreme Court ruling on presidential power. (Getty Images)

Some analysts suggest that Biden's move inadvertently lends credence to claims of a politicized Justice Department, a frequent criticism leveled by former President Trump. This pardon has sparked a debate about the appropriate use of presidential power and its potential impact on public perception of the justice system.