Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Post by itsdavesanders »

runjake wrote: post #96
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…

> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? If you're referring to Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son, both US citizens, it was intentional . If you're not referring to this, Obama's already done this without getting charged. Being POTUS is an unenviable job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Edit: Since people are assuming my views on this topic, I'll say th…

I keep seeing this argument pop up about “should Obama be prosecuted” like it’s some sort of “gotcha liberal!”

And as a liberal I think “hell YES he should be prosecuted!” The government shouldn’t just go around killing citizens without due process. I don’t care what letter is by their name.

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

#173

Post by jauntywundrkind »

coffeemug wrote: post #89
afavour wrote: post #8

I'm dismayed by this ruling but I'm curious: can someone defend it? I'm able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I'm just not seeing the counterpoint?

Yes. Ever since Bill Clinton (and probably before that, I was too young) the President and a non-trivial number of presidential candidates were either under an investigation of some sort, or a threat of such an investigation. Obviously Bill, Hillary, constant threats of investigation of George W Bush and Obama, special counsel investigating Biden, and all the Trump cases. Notably nothing ever comes out of these. This…

[flagged]

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

#175

Post by psunavy03 »

hartator wrote: post #111
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…

> 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.

> Armed forces killing people is a state of war.

Real life is rarely this black and white.

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

#176

Post by TylerE »

OgsyedIE wrote: post #149
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's extreme to the point of silliness. If a court decides that would fall under "official acts", we are already doomed.

In practice the court will say whatever POTUS tells it to say, lest an 'official act' remove some of the members of the court and their loved ones.

[flagged]

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

#177

Post by legitster »

afavour wrote: post #8

I'm dismayed by this ruling but I'm curious: can someone defend it? I'm able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I'm just not seeing the counterpoint?

The ruling says that 3 of the 4 indictments against Trump can proceed so long as prosecutors make a case that the President was acting outside of his duties.

A president being incompetent or immoral in his line of duty is an issue for voters or congress to decide on. But a White House bogged down in lawsuits or petty criminal charges would cease to function.

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

#178

Post by brendoelfrendo »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #137
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…

It's extreme to the point of silliness. If a court decides that would fall under "official acts", we are already doomed.

It is, frankly, moon logic. The President is commander-in-chief, ergo, they are immune from prosecution when issuing an order to the military, even if the order is illegal? Because the Constitution says the President can issue orders and doesn't say anything about whether those orders need to be legitimate or justifiable in any sort of national context? Repeat for the Justice Department, or Immigration, or any of the many offices that fall under the executive branch. Apparently if the President is insane, or corrupt, or treasonous... that's a problem for all of us, but not necessarily a problem for the President.

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

#179

Post by lolinder »

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…

To give the majority opinion its own voice:

> The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

EDIT: OP left a reply to this comment that I think was unfairly flagged, visible here with showdead:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848860

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

#180

Post by danielmarkbruce »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #132
yongjik wrote: post #121

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.)

Honestly the decision is written in a fairly accessible style. You could try to read it

https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/SCOTUSTRU...
Post reply on HN