[flagged]
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
281–290 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
The decision actually explicitly bars courts from using motive: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives
I wonder how long before we get presidents selling pardons.
That's basically what happened when President Clinton pardoned major donor Marc Rich as one of his last official acts. Ultimately the only protection against this is for voters to reject candidates who lack personal integrity.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#283Folks, the blueprint for a American dictatorship has been created and you'll be a fool and a idiot to think otherwise.
[flagged]
It has been 3 years and 6 months since Trumps election interference with essentially no progress being made in the courts.
If and when Trump gets elected how long do you think it will take the Supreme Court to differentiate between an 'official' act and a 'non-official' act when Trump acts illegally in 2025?
Throw in the recent ruling increasing the difficulty of proving bribery and things are looking grim ( IMHO ).
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#284Earlier 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?
yes, because throughout history this has been abused. This was the reason that Caesar crossed the Rubicon - his opponents were all queued up to sue him into oblivious on his term as counsel ended.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It has been 3 years and 6 months since Trumps election interference with essentially no progress being made in the courts. If and when Trump gets elected how long do you think it will take the Supreme Court to differentiate between an 'official' act and a 'non-official' act when Trump acts illegally in 2025? Throw in the recent ruling increasing the difficulty of proving bribery and things are looking grim ( IMHO ).
If you’re hoping trump is jailed before election, I agree that is unlikely to happen.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#286Earlier 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?
I think it means that he is liable for anything he does that is illegal if those illegal things aren't powers granted by the legislature.
If the president air strikes people and uses drone strikes using whatever system congress has said that makes that "okay" then he cannot be prosecuted for murder while authorizing and ultimately conducting drone strikes (in most circumstances).
However, if the president is having is own feud with some guy he doesn't like and finds a way to get him drone struck, that would not be covered by immunity because he wasn't acting as president in that capacity in any legally recognized way.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#287Earlier 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 problem is that official vs unofficial designation does not exist. The Supreme Court just invented it out of thin air. Further https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-immunity-sup... > the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove…
It's within the court's purview to invent new tests which lower courts can use to decide cases. That's the entire point of a landmark case.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 prosecuti…
> but it is not allowing them to commit crimes with impunity
Well it kind of does, because the president has the power to stop impeachment from ever happening in the first place, if they're willing to command the military to.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#289Earlier 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.
[flagged]
> But this Court has essentially made it clear that Trump isn’t going to be prosecuted. He gets to try to co-opt the political process and attempt a coup with impunity. We are doomed.
Well, then it sounds like sending a Seal team after him might be an official act.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
And yet he left office on the appointed day and lost an election.
> democracies fail
Is this the democracy where we need to stop voters from voting or give them incomplete information to avoid making bad choices?