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

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by InTheArena »

brightball wrote: post #226
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…

President's can still be impeached as a result of their official acts. It seems that is intended to be the outlet for prosecuting the Executive Branch. Am I wrong there?

Nope - and this is a key point. The framers intended there to be a mechanism to hold a president accountable - impeachment. But it is badly formed, and has never been used, even though arguably it should have been in every case it was used in.

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

#292

Post by ffgjgf1 »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #68
lenerdenator wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, the people who make the call of what is or is not an official duty are often in thrall to the President in one way or another. This is a disaster for rule of law.

Well obviously… otherwise a politician paid by putin could remove the ability for the president to fire the nuclear weapons. You can’t have randos deciding what the leader can do. The question is, will everyone surrounding a president allow the president to commit mass cullings or nuke California. And the answer is clearly not, outside of delusional fantasy scenarios. Trump wasn’t even allowed to build a wall, and yo…

> otherwise a politician paid by putin could remove the ability for the president to fire the nuclear weapons. You can’t have randos deciding what the leader can do.

No, apparently it’s much easier and safer to just pay off the president directly.

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

#293

Post by jedilord »

janalsncm wrote: post #241

Maybe we can stop acting like the Founding Fathers were political geniuses. They created a system where the only real recourse against a president is political, and a political system where political recourse is essentially impossible. A two party system is the logical conclusion of a first past the post voting system, which they have created. It is a bug, and fixing it is also effectively impossible.

[dead]

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

#295

Post by jandrese »

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?

What if the President ordered the assassination of the head of a terrorist organization that attempted to overthrow Congress with physical force?

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

#296

Post by fragmede »

saucetenuto wrote: post #216
blue_dragon wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My naive assumption is that ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival is not an official nor constitutionally authorized power, and thus would be prosecutable.

Guess again! Roberts explicitly calls out orders to the military as covered by absolute immunity. EDIT: and motive is explicitly barred from review too.

How does that interact with the Posse Comitatus Act?

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

#297

Post by InTheArena »

squidbeak wrote: post #236
WalterBright wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama ordered Bin Laden killed. Should he be prosecuted for that? Remember that the President can still be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors".

I'm unclear why ordering the death of one of his nation's worst foes, whose network was still at war with the US, could ever be illegal?

He would have been sued with no immunity. Either by Pakistan, or by members of the family, or whomever. The fact that they had no legal basis for it is inevitable, it still would have resulted in years and years of legal pain

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

#298

Post by WalterBright »

squidbeak wrote: post #236
WalterBright wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama ordered Bin Laden killed. Should he be prosecuted for that? Remember that the President can still be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors".

I'm unclear why ordering the death of one of his nation's worst foes, whose network was still at war with the US, could ever be illegal?

He was never convicted of a crime.

I'm trying to point out that it is not at all easy to draw a line between what a President could be prosecuted for and what he should be prosecuted for.

I'm pretty sure one could find abuse of power committed by about every President.

Even Jefferson - he wasn't empowered to make the Louisiana Purchase, but did it anyway.

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

#299

Post by swang »

BadHumans wrote: post #281

[flagged]

the general public is expecting other people to protect them against it. "certainly someone (waves hands in the air) wouldn't allow it"

also combined with how the media has been reporting this, as though it's just another ruling.. certainly doesn't help.

Post reply on HN