IANAL so could someone explain to me - does this ruling apply to the "porn actress hush money" trial or is it a separate issue?
(I'd like to think that there's no way it's an "official act" of a president, but again, IANAL.)
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
121–130 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#122Sotomayor's dissent ends: > 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 abi…
I don't understand the personal gain part. How is that official capacity?
Because it involves an official act, like a pardon. Sell pardons for dollars? Immune!
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#123>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?
6 of 9 justices presumably felt they weren't enabling an executive with no limits
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#124Folks, the blueprint for a American dictatorship has been created and you'll be a fool and a idiot to think otherwise.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#125If there's one thing the constitution seemed to try to prevent it's kings, and here the court is saying the president can do anything, to as maximally permissible as possible an "outer limit" of what might be at all considered official. (No matter what their motive; we are explicitly forbidden from even beginning an inquiry into motive.) It's hard to see even the remotest claims of their so called originalism (which is a stupid shit dumb practice anyhow) written into this very longwinded extensive permission-to-tyrant, permission to sedition.
What a sad shameless age. It's embarrassing as hell having these useless Federalist Society shills tearing down the respectability of this nation. Utterly brazen. How 40%-50% of the population can be so on board with this, be so excited & happy to see such endless Calvinball for their team is beyond imagining. It feels like liberals always are hungry for more or different from our own, will criticize our representatives endlessly, but there's an unmatched purity of boosterism for any win any win at all no matter what that's totally taken half the country, that there's no system of moderation or self assessment left.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#126This court is a farce. People appointed by Trump grant him immunity for his crimes. That's some circular Kafkian absurdity that shouldn't be happening.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#127How do you hotswap a government?
So you want to be an insurrectionist? That's what replacing an elected government makes you.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#128Earlier 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…
> 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.
Huh? Federal law enforcement falls under the executive branch, not judicial. Have you even read the Constitution?
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#129I’m not an expert in this area by any means but it feels like there should be a “motive” angle to this rather just than blanket immunity. The same actions committed by two different presidents could vary hugely in their motive - one might be legitimately concerned about voter fraud and the other trying to interfere maliciously with election results. Admittedly the bar would be high to prove malicious intent (eg. acti…
The decision actually explicitly bars courts from using motive: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives
I wonder how long before we get presidents selling pardons.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#130> 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.
I take your point, but quick action is occasionally necessary. Presidents knowing that their actions could be second guessed are more likely to use the minimum force needed to achieve an objective.