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

151–160 of 1001 posts

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

#151

Post by alphabetatheta »

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…

This is a terrible take. The Supreme Court case severely limits even the use of evidence to prosecute a President. The majority ruling says that as long as something is done in "official" capacity the intentions don't matter.

EDIT: This ruling probably retroactively clears Nixon from Watergate. It would make it illegal to use the tapes as evidence against him.

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

#152

Post by Matticus_Rex »

vundercind wrote: post #87
windows2020 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the personal gain part. How is that official capacity?

The majority specifies some ways this may apply that very much make all kinds of things directly shielded by this ruling, and indirectly shields more by restricting the use of evidence that has to do with official acts. The way they’ve set this up, the people involved have a lot to do with it. It sure looks like the President can now openly discuss corruption like selling secrets or pardons with e.g. relevant cabinet…

The wording is definitely not clear enough in that section, however I don't think this is the intended reading (and I'm hoping we get clarification on this) -- the pardon would be an official act, but according to footnote 3 the sale of the pardon and discussions about that would not be included in the bar on evidence of the official act, because they're not considered part of that official act. It seems (with the footnotes considered) to be a very narrow interpretation of "official act," which does seem to contradict the plain reading. Very annoying.

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

#153

Post by shadowgovt »

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.

I think that's rather her point. We are already doomed.

Think about how the Executive handled rival political movements in the past. The Black Panthers. CPUSA circa 1919. Now imagine Fred Hampton had been running for President when he was killed.

The line between "political opponent" and "enemy of the State" can become pretty blurry. This ruling gives the Executive broad power to act in its own interests when it can claim the line is blurry.

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

#154

Post by Buttons840 »

jkic47 wrote: post #130
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.

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.

We ask every soldier to put their life on the line. But do we dare ask our President to subject himself to our laws?

I mean, if Obama went to prison for the drone strikes he ordered, his sacrifice would be less than many common soldiers have made.

I want Presidents willing to put their lives on the line and their actions under the law. Is that too much to ask?

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

#155

Post by legitster »

Here is a very simplified TL;DR of the decision:

A president's internal planning and discussions with his team are are at least granted "presumed" immunity unless the prosecutor can establish that the act in question fell outside of the office. So for the President pressuring Pence to uncertify the election results, prosecutors would need to make a case that it was outside of his power to do so - the reasoning behind it is largely irrelevant.

When it comes to interactions with external groups - be it local election officials or even the press/media - prosecutors need to establish whether the president was acting on an official basis or an unofficial basis. (And they are clear that the president acting on behalf of his party or his campaign would be unofficial).

> "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 under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts."

My reading of the decision is that of the four counts against Trump, three can proceed so long as prosecutors can make a case the actions were not official acts.

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

#156

Post by 7thaccount »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #123
kardianos wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Several of those are absolutely corrupt at this point and bought off by the corporatocracy that now rules the country.

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

#157

Post by Exoristos »

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…

The Constitution forbade the US even to have a standing army. A standing navy was instituted, however.

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

#158

Post by tolmasky »

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.

It seems like perhaps that power has been considerably weakened if the President is literally allowed to assassinate political rivals (as is mentioned in the dissent). You might vote not to impeach in fear, similar to jury intimidation. Hell, why even wait, what’s to prevent a President from going for it before the vote even happens? I find it hard to believe that this was meant to be a component of the impeachment process by the founders. To make it more exciting, I guess?

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

#159

Post by incogitomode »

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.

Once they are impeached they would presumably be subject to criminal prosecution under the Impeachment Judgements Clause [1] which states:

"but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

I don't think this ruling is, on the surface, exactly what people are making it out to be. It certainly maintains a high bar for criminally prosecuting the president for something they do in office, but it is not allowing them to commit crimes with impunity.

1: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3....

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

#160

Post by whatever1 »

I understand why during their presidency the president needs to be immune (so that they can focus on their executive duties instead of spending their day in the court).

But AFTER the end of their (last) term why not be held accountable for their actions?

Post reply on HN