[flagged]
i don't think that's included in "official duties".
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
41–50 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#42Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#43[flagged]
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#44I'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).
Corrupt admins will already do that, so giving blanket immunity doesn't actually help anyone. All they need to then corruptly prosecute anyone is a court to agree that some act was "unofficial".
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#45At least with this one they've rescued us from doing national politics like a banana republic. You can't arrest Presidents for doing things they had the total latitude to do as Presidents. We can't have the courts deciding whether Presidents had good or illegitimate reasons for any arbitrary decision that they made during their presidency. It's madness. If a president took a bribe for a position, prosecute him for ta…
You're missing the entire point. Now the president can't be prosecuted for taking a bribe, even if he publicly declares that's the reason for doing so.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#46Curious how an ostensibly "conservative" court can ignore the concept of enumerated powers, the constitution clearly does not grant immunity to the President, so the conservative court invents immunity when none is explicitly granted.
Indeed, the concept of immunity is recognized in the American constitution for legislators in a limited way, so this isn't an oversight by the framers corrected by Robert's conservative majority, rather the lack of immunity for the executive is a feature and not a bug of our constitution, and all republican forms of government.
Ironically the American president now has more power than the King of England, George the III, at the time of the American independence. King George had to follow the laws of Parliament, as did all Kings of England since the passage of Magna Carta some 500+ years prior.
As of today our President no longer has to obey the Constitution or the law so long as the act is deemed "official" by the conservative majority.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#47Immunity 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…
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.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#48Immunity 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…
>I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty. I'm fairly sure there's a full and complete list of these is explicitly in the Constitution.
[flagged]
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#49Would this ruling make Nixon’s actions in Watergate legal too?
> Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments. Most likely not. Watergate was a result of an election campaign, not official acts as President.
Yeah, Nixon should've ordered his secretary to do it, as all executive communications are now protected against criminal investigation.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#50[flagged]
How would that be acting in an official capacity other than subverting separation of powers?