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

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161

Post by MPSimmons »

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.

What does "Enemies, foreign and domestic" mean, really?

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

#163

Post by danielmarkbruce »

squidbeak wrote: post #110
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exc…

[flagged]

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

#164

Post by chasd00 »

squidbeak wrote: post #101
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.

> All they'll need to do is find or make an angle...

that's not anything new though, Obama's drone strikes weren't ordered until his lawyers felt they had a very good defense for him in case he was charged with assassinating US citizens without due process.

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

#165

Post by zerocrates »

pessimizer wrote: post #35

At least with this one they've rescued us from doing national politics like a banana republic. You can't arrest Presidents for doing things they had the total latitude to do as Presidents. We can't have the courts deciding whether Presidents had good or illegitimate reasons for any arbitrary decision that they made during their presidency. It's madness. If a president took a bribe for a position, prosecute him for ta…

Barrett's partial concurrence is nice and all but it's just that. Even where she did not join the majority it carried five votes.

It's telling that even such a minor "to be sure" as hers couldn't carry enough support to actually be in the opinion.

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

#166

Post by injidup »

Perhaps the simple solution is that all presidents should serve 15 years in jail after serving their term.

Then only extremely socially minded people would dare to do the job.

There was a similar sci fi story I read. At the end of a war the rule was that all allied ( not enemy ) generals would be executed. The idea was that war was such a horrible concept that to lead one would require extreme sacrifice and social consciousness on the part of the leaders. War was legal and to be fought without limit however on conclusion all leaders would be put to death. I don't remember the author or the story name.

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

#168

Post by ein0p »

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…

What do you mean, “unintentionally”? Obama deliberately and knowingly ordered an extrajudicial killing of a US citizen.

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

#169

Post by ameister14 »

enragedcacti wrote: post #116
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…

Its more like "immunity for any action within the realm of presidential power, regardless of motive or criminality". Accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon would be A-ok on the basis that pardoning is a “conclusive and preclusive” authority of the president. > The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. Literally no one was arguing for this and there are much more reasonable in…

No, the act undertaken in exchange for the bribe would be under the immunity umbrella but the act of taking the bribe would not.

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

#170

Post by 6510 »

treeFall wrote: post #127
6510 wrote: post #84

How do you hotswap a government?

So you want to be an insurrectionist? That's what replacing an elected government makes you.

You cant seriously be suggesting we should keep gluing new things onto the legacy code base until the end of time without ever considering a full rewrite?

But to somewhat address the sentiment: We can replace the machines and keep the line operators.

edit: Not sure now, should the government be considered the people running the country or the formula?

Post reply on HN