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

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by legitster »

kibwen wrote: post #14
mperham wrote: post #7

Would this ruling make Nixon’s actions in Watergate legal too?

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.

This is not an accurate reading. In the decision, gathering of evidence is not protected by immunity.

People are jumping on language in the decision that says discussions or probings about the criminal nature of the crime would not be admissible.

So Nixon ordering Watergate would still be admissible - Nixon discussing with his legal team or cabinet after Watergate broke would not be.

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

#193

Post by JamesBarney »

Buttons840 wrote: post #154
jkic47 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not less than the average sacrifice a soldier made. The average soldier would not sign up if they had a significant chance of going to prison afterwards.

Yes it's too much to ask every president to significantly risk jail time for being president.

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

#195

Post by camel_Snake »

dustincoates wrote: post #12
mperham wrote: post #7

Would this ruling make Nixon’s actions in Watergate legal too?

> Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments. Most likely not. Watergate was a result of an election campaign, not official acts as President.

I'm not so sure about that. From this ruling:

> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.

And the 'smoking gun' implicating Nixon:

> Nixon then released the tapes six days later. On one tape was the so-called "smoking gun," showing that six days after the break-in Nixon had tried to use the CIA to block the FBI investigation of the burglary.

IANAL, but my understanding is under this ruling those tapes would have never been made permissible evidence in court. Giving orders to the CIA is certainly an official act, as much as granting pardons is, and this court has established the examination of said motives is out-of-scope:

> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.

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

#196

Post by pelorat »

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…

> We can't have the courts deciding whether Presidents had good or illegitimate reasons for any arbitrary decision that they made during their presidency.

Why not. The vice president exists for a reason? Here in Europe, in the entirety of Europe, if a president or prime minister commits a crime, they will be prosecuted. If we can do it, why can't the USA?

After all, no one is above the law.

If anything, the more power you have, the more scrutiny you should be under.

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

#197

Post by SoftTalker »

nashashmi wrote: post #114
throwawaymaths wrote: post #104

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 ?

FDR did a lot of wrong, including paying farmers to not work.

A lot of presidents did a lot of wrong. The ones who did not would be a shorter list.

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

#198

Post by o11c »

MPSimmons wrote: post #161
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That phrasing is so passé. It has been "enemies, real and imaginary" for over 2 decades now.

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

#199

Post by JamesBarney »

itsdavesanders wrote: post #171
runjake wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I keep seeing this argument pop up about “should Obama be prosecuted” like it’s some sort of “gotcha liberal!” And as a liberal I think “hell YES he should be prosecuted!” The government shouldn’t just go around killing citizens without due process. I don’t care what letter is by their name.

I think that is 99% true, with the exception of civilians who take up arms against the US.

Imagine the civil war if the union couldn't kill confederates.

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

#200

Post by citizen_friend »

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…

Is she forgetting that impeachment exists?

Why is sottomayor the only justice drawing this conclusion?

Post reply on HN