Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#111

Post by hartator » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

margalabargala wrote: post #92

lapcat wrote: post #65

> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much. The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time.

> The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time. What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. Thus, ord…

> The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate.

It does. Armed forces killing people is a state of war. If not, it's policing then it's under the judiciary authority, not the president.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#112

Post by kardianos » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

treeFall wrote: post #98

>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. 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. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…

That's the minority opinion. Maybe people should read the majority opinion first?

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#113

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

gotoeleven wrote: post #32

grecy wrote: post #10

"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity, If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backs…

[flagged]

"The opposing party's candidate was involved in activities that posed a grave and immediate threat to national security, and we took action to mitigate that threat. This is an official act, and no you can't see the evidence because it's top secret."

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#114

Post by nashashmi » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

throwawaymaths wrote: post #104

treeFall wrote: post #98

>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. 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. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…

in practice, not really much of a change. Did FDR stand trial for interning Japanese people? Ok, ok he died too soon. Would he have ?

FDR did a lot of wrong, including paying farmers to not work.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#115

Post by golergka » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

saghm wrote: post #103

margalabargala wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time. What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. Thus, ord…

> What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? There are a number of amendments that could be pretty reasonable argued to give citizens the right not to get killed by drone strikes.

Killed or targeted? There's a huge difference between ordering a drone strike on said citizens and ordering strike on legitimate military target that said citizens just happen to be in a vicinity of.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#116

Post by enragedcacti » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #4

Immunity for things they do as part of their official duties. I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty. The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much. I don’t know if th…

Its more like "immunity for any action within the realm of presidential power, regardless of motive or criminality". Accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon would be A-ok on the basis that pardoning is a “conclusive and preclusive” authority of the president.

> The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable.

Literally no one was arguing for this and there are much more reasonable interpretations of presidential immunity you could compare this one to.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#117

Post by vundercind » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

throwawaymaths wrote: post #104

treeFall wrote: post #98

>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. 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. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…

in practice, not really much of a change. Did FDR stand trial for interning Japanese people? Ok, ok he died too soon. Would he have ?

Even if he had—he might have been acquitted! Even under a relatively fair trial!

The dissent notes that official acts as a defense is already A Thing. What’s changed is upgrading that to immunity, which means they can’t be tried in the first place, no defense needed. The law is simply held not to apply.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#118

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

throwawaymaths wrote: post #104

treeFall wrote: post #98

>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. 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. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…

in practice, not really much of a change. Did FDR stand trial for interning Japanese people? Ok, ok he died too soon. Would he have ?

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#119

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

throwawaymaths wrote: post #104

treeFall wrote: post #98

>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. 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. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…

in practice, not really much of a change. Did FDR stand trial for interning Japanese people? Ok, ok he died too soon. Would he have ?

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#120

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 6:17 PM UTC

margalabargala wrote: post #92

lapcat wrote: post #65

> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much. The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time.

> The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time. What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. Thus, ord…

[deleted]