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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by browserman »

rayiner wrote: post #654
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #546

Article III of the U.S. Constitution is incredibly brief [1]. I propose the Supreme Court be reconstituted such that for each case a panel of judges from the appellate courts is chosen by lot. They hear that case, write their opinion, and then go back to that work. New case, new lot. Having a permanent bench of judicial oligarchs made sense before telecommunication. It doesn’t anymore. Every ancient democracy used ra…

I’d be okay with that, but only if we have a review process where all Warren Court decisions are re-vetted by the newly constituted Supreme Court. You can’t spend half the 20th century having “judicial oligarchs” rewrite the constitution and then complain when a few court decisions go the other way. But what would be more fun is for the current Supreme Court to adopt the “emanations from penumbras” philosophy of judg…

[flagged]

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

#682

Post by laidoffamazon »

asdff wrote: post #568
metabagel wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump is being prosecuted right now. That's what this case is about.

But he is being prosecuted for fraud not for an official act as president

He was prosecuted for fraud and he is also being prosecuted for things he did as president on January 6th and after his presidency.

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

#683

Post by glial »

pyuser583 wrote: post #60
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?

Sure. The Founders envisioned an extremely weak criminal justice system, especially for "their class of people." Defendants were given extremely strong protections, and convictions were the exception, not the rule. The Founders were more concerned about facing a duel than a criminal conviction. So they added other mechanisms for presidential accountability: impeachment, elections, and the weakness of the office. Thes…

> The Founders were more concerned about facing a duel than a criminal conviction.

This is because "their class of people" were an honor-based society, in which reputation was the currency of power, and people with honor were expected to prioritize the national interests above their own. That is no longer the case.

In other words, there hasn't been a duel. So there should be another enforcement mechanism for making Presidents prioritize the nation above themselves that actually works.

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

#684

Post by austin-cheney »

ChildOfEru wrote: post #395

> (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such condu…

Impeachment is not considered a criminal proceeding, but a political one. It just serves to authorize a criminal proceeding by the senate. If Nixon’s tapes could not be used during a criminal proceeding they could still be used in a push for an impeachment.

But, yes, an impeachment or senate trial is likely unthinkable without a super majority. Driving conformity/uniformity is the goal of party politics.

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

#685

Post by comex »

kemotep wrote: post #310

My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…

You're mixing together a few different things.

- Trump's lawyers argued in this case that an ex-president can only be charged with a crime if he was impeached and convicted for that same act. But all of the justices rejected this view today. The newly granted immunity is orthogonal to whether or not the president is impeached.

- Though, the president does have to leave office somehow before he can be prosecuted. He can't be prosecuted while still sitting. This wasn't technically decided in this case, but the parties mostly agreed as much beforehand, and the majority opinion has a footnote approvingly citing an Office of Legal Counsel memo to that effect.

- Separately, Trump's lawyers argued that the special counsel that prosecuted him was not properly appointed by an act of Congress. But the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari on that issue and the majority opinion today did not address it. Justice Thomas's solo concurring opinion, however, did address it and agreed with Trump (but a concurring opinion has no legal effect). In any case, this is a different question from whether prosecutions of ex-presidents must go through a special counsel. As far as I know, there is no formal rule that would require it, but it's highly desirable as a way to avoid political bias. That question didn't come up in this case, though.

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

#686

Post by rayiner »

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 counterpoint is both obvious and obviously correct. Assume we accept that the President has immunity for whatever constitutes official conduct (which this decision does not get into). Presidents have fixed terms, so unless ex-presidents have immunity, they can be prosecuted for anything they do in office, including their official duties. That would make it difficult for the president to take action while in office.

Can we prosecute Obama for ordering drone strikes on U.S. citizens? Can we prosecute Bush for the Iraq war? Can we prosecute Biden in a few months for deaths caused by his border policies?

Also, this is just how immunity works! Judges have immunity for their judicial conduct in office, and don’t lose it when they retire. When the GOP wins a trifecta next year, can they prosecute retired liberal justices for homicide for abortion rulings?

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

#687

Post by dgellow »

tstrimple wrote: post #504
throwaway4220 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nixon resigned knowing an impeachment was pending. I cannot imagine that ever happening today.

Conservatives since Nixon have been working to ensure none of them could be taken down like he was. This is just the final chapter in them successfully implementing their plan that began with Fox News.

That started in 1982 with the Federal Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

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

#688

Post by docmars »

aklemm wrote: post #633
bloopernova wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prediction: trump wins presidency. Midterms swing hard towards Dems. Next president's Congress reforms supreme court.

You think Dems will win elections and get seated if Trump has another term?

I think with as many Dems that are losing faith in their party and seeing the bigger picture by moving to Trump, I doubt they would this time around.

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

#689

Post by treeFall »

inpdx wrote: post #543
throwadobe wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone seems to be calling this "blanket immunity" but that's not right. It's immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically the president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal. This doesn't mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.

Anything can be made an official act. That's why this is unfathomably bad.

Only if you believe that words have no meaning. If you're already at that place in your mind, anything is possible regardless.

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

#690

Post by laidoffamazon »

kadoban wrote: post #146
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.)

No, Trump was a candidate, not President at the time of most (all?) of those crimes. They also yeah probably can't be considered official acts even by _this_ Court.

That can't be concluded yet. It will most likely be decided again by SCOTUS - but by then, Trump may well have assumed office and pardoned himself and anyone else involved.
Post reply on HN