This seems like a "there's no way to get a bug in the hypervisor fixed" moment.
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
331–340 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think you’re imagining scenarios not supported in any of the written opinions.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#333Now I'm wondering what constitutes an "official act". Is is anything at all done while President or is it things that fall under the normal official duties of President? If it's the former then a President is free to murder anyone, if it's the latter then what is official about a random homicide?
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#334It's interesting that even in the Roman Republic the immunity ended after the end of your term, and you could be prosecuted for official acts taken during it. And even let to Caesar fighting to keep himself in office at all times to avoid inevitable prosecution. https://theconversation.com/from-caesar-to-trump-immunity-is...
The prosecution of Trump was likely a big reason he's running again, for similar reasons. I'm not sure the prosecutors are even smart enough to realize they're the reason we're at where we're at.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#335Earlier 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…
It's worth considering the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, that was killed by Obama outside of a combat zone. (I'm avoiding the word "assassinated" because it seems overly charged.) In theory, some prosector could have decided to charge Obama with a crime, and maybe even achieved a conviction in a jurisdiction where he's unpopular. This decision says that shouldn't happen because it was an official act…
> if congress doesn't like something a president is doing, they can change the laws and remove his or her legal authority to do something.
Yep. The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if they'll later be prosecuted for it.
That seems fine on its face, but the problem people keep raising is that we live in a world where the President is legally empowered to do things that are seriously problematic. That's a very real concern, and it's been a concern at the very least since Bush and 9/11.
So the obvious answer to this ruling is to fix that. The President shouldn't have to wonder if they'll end up prosecuted for doing things that are within the scope of their official duties, so what we need to do is more clearly define and limit those official duties so that the President doesn't have to guess what will be seen as crossing an imaginary line when the administration changes.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#336Earlier 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?
It means, cynically, that the president may be prosecuted if the courts deem the action "unofficial" and not otherwise. Which is to say that the court has removed checks and balances for the case where the SCOTUS and Executive branch are held by the same party.
Cleary, clearly this was a partisan decision. They can't just say "We Have a King Now", so they dressed up just enough of a reasonable interpretation to be able to kill this particular prosecution, while allowing themselves wiggle room to prosecute the kings they don't like. They aren't really trying to uncork executive abuse, they really hope it doesn't happen. But they want Trump not to be prosecuted, and put their fingers on the scale with what they hope is just enough pressure. We'll see.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#337Maybe 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.
The 10th amendment was supposed to restrain the federal government to a few enumerated powers. It was gutted via interstate commerce being everything, and you can't give it up because people will start screaming about the civil rights act or the EPA or something.
President, as envisioned by founders, should barely even matter outside of war.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#338Earlier 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…
It's worth considering the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, that was killed by Obama outside of a combat zone. (I'm avoiding the word "assassinated" because it seems overly charged.) In theory, some prosector could have decided to charge Obama with a crime, and maybe even achieved a conviction in a jurisdiction where he's unpopular. This decision says that shouldn't happen because it was an official act…
> Of course, if congress doesn't like something a president is doing, they can change the laws and remove his or her legal authority to do something.
Maybe.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Judic...
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#339Earlier 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.
The president telling any member of his cabinet to do anything is presumptively an official act, and the evidence of him doing so is categorically forbidden from being used as evidence. (Hell, that's more extreme than even Trump's lawyers asked for! This basically overturns US v Nixon in its quest to elevate This is an opinion that might make sense if we were being asked if a president ordering drone assassinations m…
And this is coming off of the heels of Chevron being overturned.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#340Earlier 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…
It's worth considering the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, that was killed by Obama outside of a combat zone. (I'm avoiding the word "assassinated" because it seems overly charged.) In theory, some prosector could have decided to charge Obama with a crime, and maybe even achieved a conviction in a jurisdiction where he's unpopular. This decision says that shouldn't happen because it was an official act…
I guess this hypothetical scenario is not entirely relevant since the killing happened outside of U.S jurisdiction.