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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by fallingknife »

bbor wrote: post #325
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…

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 oat…

No because "presumptive" isn't as strong as you think it is. All defendants have the same presumptive innocence and yet are convicted much more often than not at trial.

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

#352

Post by someuser2345 »

whatever1 wrote: post #160

I understand why during their presidency the president needs to be immune (so that they can focus on their executive duties instead of spending their day in the court). But AFTER the end of their (last) term why not be held accountable for their actions?

Because that adds an incentive for the president to try to hold on to power.

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

#354

Post by demosthanos »

kristjansson wrote: post #327
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…

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 th…

As noted by nostramo [0], Obama already set the precedent of ordering hits on US citizens. The answer to Sotomayor's concern here seems pretty obvious: if we're concerned that the President can order hits on US citizens for invalid reasons, then we need to be very clear in the laws that ordering hits on US citizens without due process is not within the President's official authority.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40849378

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

#355

Post by cma256 »

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.

> 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.

AFAIK it only mandates it for the President. We're free to elect representatives and Senators how we please.

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

#356

Post by Muromec »

skhunted wrote: post #184
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.

[flagged]

If cops can have qualified immunity when killing basically anybody, then can't the grandcop have it. Of course.

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

#357

Post by tivert »

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…

>> 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.

Wouldn't something like that be essentially an illegal order and therefore invalid? And/or something that would be trivial to fix (e.g pass a law saying it's not within the president's official powers to order a domestic assassination)?

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

#358

Post by plandis »

awb wrote: post #350
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…

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf > The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” I’m hoping that the assassination of a political rival would be “palpably beyond” the authority of the President.

Well assassination of a political rival might be but what about the killing of the perceived head of a terrorist organization who attempted a coup to overturn a federal US election? Sounds like a national defense concern that the president could decide to handle. I think this is logically in line with the ruling but is completely absurd morally.

SCOTUS explicitly says you cannot question the motive of a presidents actions when making a determination for what is protected and not.

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

#359

Post by beaeglebeachedd »

cma256 wrote: post #355
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.

> 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. AFAIK it only mandates it for the President. We're free to elect representatives and Senators how we please.

There's no federal dictate on how electoral college votes IIRC. Sometimes they go rogue,though it may violate state law.

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

#360

Post by jimbokun »

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.

They wrote the document defining the currently longest running continuous government in the world.

Is the Constitution perfect? No.

But it's still fair to call them geniuses for what they accomplished.

Also, you are arguing the Founders interpretation of the Constitution is the same as the current Supreme Court. I'm not sure they would agree, but there's no way we can ever know.

Post reply on HN