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

101–110 of 1001 posts

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

#101

Post by squidbeak »

throwup238 wrote: post #9

Sotomayor'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…

It clears the way for Presidents from either party to carry out abuses they wouldn't have dared consider otherwise. All they'll need to do is find or make an angle that qualifies it as an official act.

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

#103

Post by saghm »

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…

> 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.

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

#104

Post by throwawaymaths »

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?

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

#105

Post by TylerE »

chasd00 wrote: post #34
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…

A president can still be impeached and removed, they may not "serve their debt to society" but the harm can be stopped by the states.

Impeachment is fundamentally broken.

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

#106

Post by chasd00 »

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…

on a tangent, was the drone operator charged? iirc "just following orders" only goes so far.

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

#107

Post by ffsm8 »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #68
lenerdenator wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, the people who make the call of what is or is not an official duty are often in thrall to the President in one way or another. This is a disaster for rule of law.

Well obviously… otherwise a politician paid by putin could remove the ability for the president to fire the nuclear weapons. You can’t have randos deciding what the leader can do. The question is, will everyone surrounding a president allow the president to commit mass cullings or nuke California. And the answer is clearly not, outside of delusional fantasy scenarios. Trump wasn’t even allowed to build a wall, and yo…

Your looking at it from today's perspective, but these kinds of rules need to be looked at from the perspective of worst case scenario - don't limit it to the current candidates, think about what a future president in... Say 30yrs is gonna do.

The weihmaher republik was a pretty good democracy back in the day. It just gave the leader certain rights, and suddenly Hitler became the dictator, creating Nazi Germany.

Everyone needs a limit to their power, otherwise they'll be able to essentially flip the board and declare themselves emperor.

Please don't project what I said here onto trump, Biden or Obama. None of them are on that level. It's just possible that a future president is that morally bankrupt, especially if social issues continue to accrue/inequality keeps growing unchecked.

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

#108

Post by ta_1138 »

windows2020 wrote: post #57
throwup238 wrote: post #9

Sotomayor'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?

Let's imagine that a president decides to, say, stop aiding Ukraine, and in exchange, Putin promises said president a couple billion dollars.

Stopping aid to Ukraine is definitely an official act, which, on its own, is within their powers. Trading said official action for the billion dollars is what is fraudulent, but if I am understanding the Roberts opinion correctly, it cannot be prosecuted, because the motives of the president should not be used as part of the ruling of immunity. So... free bribery, as long as said president pays their taxes.

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

#109

Post by stefan_ »

tuna74 wrote: post #56
kibwen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would make it illegal to use the tapes as evidence against him. So it doesn't matter if it makes it legal or not, because it makes the illegality impossible to prove in a court of law by denying evidence to the prosecution.

Could you explain this a bit further?

"If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated."

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

#110

Post by squidbeak »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #81
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?

It's worth reading the actual ruling rather than the reporting on it, which is downright awful.

Here's a sample of Sotomayor's dissent:

> 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. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

> Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Post reply on HN