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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by jameshart »

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #276
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.

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.

A do-over of both impeachment trials in the Senate would seem to be necessary, given that many senators went on record as saying they believed presidents were subject to criminal prosecution and chose not to convict for that reason. This changes that calculus.

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

#322

Post by vlovich123 »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #18
afavour wrote: post #8

I'm dismayed by this ruling but I'm curious: can someone defend it? I'm able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I'm just not seeing the counterpoint?

If presidents could be prosecuted for their official acts then the next time the other party takes over they will just immediately find various crimes their predecessor “committed” (there are probably 10s of 1000s of them).

They could be prosecuted, but prosecutors generally don’t like to bring losing cases. And the actions being official acts was already a defense. The distinction was that you could still get prosecuted, but you just had to show a non corrupt intent in doing the action and get the case easily dismissed. Now you don’t even need to show that you had non corrupt intent - just claim official acts and no lawsuit is possible in the first place.

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

#323

Post by mpalmer »

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.

This fails to acknowledge that today's decision has a weak/non-existent constitutional basis.

I defy anyone to craft any political system or subset thereof that correctly anticipates societal shifts over the course of two and a half centuries.

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

#325

Post by bbor »

lolinder wrote: post #179
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…

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…

Yeah but isn’t “the president has presumptive immunity for any act done in the service of the executive” and “the president can order military executions with immunity” kinda the same assertion, assuming “presumptive” is allowed to do its work? What’s the difference? I don’t understand how you could possibly argue political violence by the executive is “personal”, when they claim it’s done in the service of their oath…

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

#326

Post by Miner49er »

citizen_friend wrote: post #192
mperham wrote: post #7

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

Well you can always impeach a president.

Well no, technically the president can use the military to stop impeachment. That would be considered an "official act" and they would be immune.

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

#327

Post by kristjansson »

lolinder wrote: post #179
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…

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…

I don't think that's the dispositive part of the opinion for Sotomayor's hypo though. Roberts finds that the President enjoy absolute immunity for acts that can be construed as part of the "conclusive and preclusive authority" of the Presidency, and presumptive immunity for acts within the 'outer perimeter' of their authority. Furthermore:

> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.

So the hypo cannot be trivially resolved by treating the kill order as an unofficial act. Instead, for the president to be _criminally_ liable, I think (as not-a-lawyer) it has to be resolved by piercing 'presumptive immunity' for actions beyond the core powers. While there's a needle to thread, it feels disturbingly narrow.

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

#328

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

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…

Impeachment? Wouldn't that also be an unlawful order?

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

#329

Post by kitsune_ »

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]

My grandmother fled Nazism (and Stalinism), she would turn in her grave seeing how blind half of your electorate is.

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

#330

Post by denton-scratch »

dustincoates wrote: post #21
afavour wrote: post #8

I'm dismayed by this ruling but I'm curious: can someone defend it? I'm able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I'm just not seeing the counterpoint?

Sure. You want a President to be able to carry out the roles of the office without concern that his or her political opponents will use the courts to try to punish those actions. There are reasonable disagreements on where Presidential authority begins or ends on many topics, and you want the limits to be either through separation of powers (e.g., the Judicial Branch can bring an end to actions, the Legislative can i…

> You want a President to be able to carry out the roles of the office without concern that his or her political opponents will use the courts to try to punish those actions.

Why?

In the UK we of course have no president; all government actions can be subjected to judicial review, whichever minister was in charge. Judicial review is a civil procedure, not a criminal one. All the court can do is order the government to reverse the unlawful decision, and make good its consequences.

Post reply on HN