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

271–280 of 1001 posts

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

#271

Post by abduhl »

Buttons840 wrote: post #259
lolinder wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To give the majority opinion its own voice: > 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 Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energ…

> "The President is not above the law." What does that even mean if it's impossible to prosecute the President? What does that even mean?

There is a distinction to be drawn between The President (the office) and the President (the person). The latter is not above the law with respect to all criminal prosecutions. The former is.

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

#272

Post by [deleted] »

Buttons840 wrote: post #259
lolinder wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To give the majority opinion its own voice: > 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 Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energ…

> "The President is not above the law." What does that even mean if it's impossible to prosecute the President? What does that even mean?

[deleted]

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

#273

Post by vundercind »

citizen_friend wrote: post #188
leotravis10 wrote: post #124

Folks, the blueprint for a American dictatorship has been created and you'll be a fool and a idiot to think otherwise.

[flagged]

We had an attempted coup already. That this case was directly related to. I don’t even mean the very public storming of Congress during the certification of electors, but multiple attempts by the then-President to subvert the election process.

The guy who did it’s probably about to be President again and just got a lot more legal cover.

Folks need to read up on how democracies fail. Shit’s getting real iffy here.

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

#275

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

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?

How about the one which intentionally killed an American child (16)?

Part of me wouldn't mind seeing that, but, I would have to agree that was an official act, regardless of how despicable it was.

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

#276

Post by downWidOutaFite »

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.

We were doomed when Republicans decided that impeachment was a partisan tool and could not be used against Trump. They broke the system by abandoning their constitutional duties so we are now looking into the abyss.

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

#277

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#279

Post by jwithington »

treeFall wrote: post #185
lolinder wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To give the majority opinion its own voice: > 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 Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energ…

Then it sounds like Sotomayor is being extreme by conflating domestic political assassinations as an "official act." Does she not understand the difference?

couldn't be it reasonably construed as an official act if the president believed that person was a member of a terrorist group? the post 9/11 Authorization of Use for Military Force grants the president the use of all "necessary and appropriate force" in prosecuting terrorists.

this act is still in effect.

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

#280

Post by spencerflem »

mindslight wrote: post #136
alsaaro wrote: post #46

Curious how an ostensibly "conservative" court can ignore the concept of enumerated powers, the constitution clearly does not grant immunity to the President, so the conservative court invents immunity when none is explicitly granted. Indeed, the concept of immunity is recognized in the American constitution for legislators in a limited way, so this isn't an oversight by the framers corrected by Robert's conservative…

Because they're not conservative . They are radical reactionaries, to use the word that Moldbug himself coined. Essentially Republicans got tired of things changing despite their conservatism, got angry, and now it's not enough to slow change - they want to rewind us to the values of the 1980's or even the 1950's. This perspective is why they refer to any post-y2k mainstream social values as "activism". The Democrats…

This was downvoted at the time of this comment. Shame on the Republicans in this thread that I have my fellow programmers to blame for the fall of american democracy
Post reply on HN