141–150 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ?
There’s a huge difference between “I think I can get away with this” and “The Supreme Court says I have absolute immunity”.
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?
This is like qualified immunity (usually for police), but applied to POTUS. You want public servants to be able to do their jobs without fear of time-wasting litigation. But, if you grant blanket immunity, the poilice (or POTUS) are free to do whatever they want. We're quite clearly tilted way over into "do what they want" territory.
>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…
Folks, the blueprint for a American dictatorship has been created and you'll be a fool and a idiot to think otherwise.
"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.
If we refuse to recognize that harm under the current Rule of Law, then who is going to identify and prosecute "harm" besides politically motivated ideologues? It sounds like a surefire way to cement the separation of the Executive office from it's respective checks and balances.
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.)
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?
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.)
>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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
> And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial
> The Constitution does not tolerate such impediments to “the effective functioning of government” [as when] the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render [the President] “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.”
> The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
> Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law
> Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case
Supreme Court history has no broader grant of immunity based on principles less definitive.