> (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such condu…
Nixon resigned knowing an impeachment was pending. I cannot imagine that ever happening today.
>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…
Obama ordered an American Citizen to be assassinated via a drone attack, without a trial or anything. Should he be charged with murder?
Can't help but wondering if Joe is contemplating Seal Team Six's summer plans right about now.
Right, the best way to avoid fascism is to become a fascist before your opponent does. In the name of democracy, of course.
Fascism is a political ideology and system (sort of) that requires a whole lot of people to keep it in place. A "lone President" assassinating his political rivals in a single act is just a regular old dictator move. No fascism required.
The reality with this ruling is it will embolden future presidents to do things that are to their advantage even if they think those actions may be illegal. Presidents don't need more protection from people. We the people need more protection from them.
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?
Why do you think it's impossible to prosecute the president?
This is a terrible take. The Supreme Court case severely limits even the use of evidence to prosecute a President. The majority ruling says that as long as something is done in "official" capacity the intentions don't matter. EDIT: This ruling probably retroactively clears Nixon from Watergate. It would make it illegal to use the tapes as evidence against him.
Does it say anything about the person who carries out the order from the President? If a member of Seal Team 6 did assassinate a political rival of the President, would they also be immune from prosecution? To me it sounds like the kind of order they would refuse.
Indeed. So if Trump himself takes an AR-15 into Congress (ostensibly to stop a 'fraudulent' election process) then he's free and clear.
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…
This is an extra fun opinion because it lets the court selectively interpret which acts are official and which are not. If it's a politician they agree with ideologically all their acts are official. If not, the offending acts are clearly unofficial. The silence from the people who once decried the 'activist court' now that it's an ally of the slow fascist transformation is deafening.
I also think this is an interesting contrast with the decision to overrule Chevron from just a few days ago. There it was decided that executive agencies have no authority to interpret unclear statutes, under the constitution this was kind of a power grab from the executive to the courts. The conservative movement general sees government agencies deriving all their powers from the president, so it's a bit funny that they would decide this first case to give agencies no wiggle room in their interpretation of the law and this next one to give the president maximum wiggle room. It kind of makes you wonder
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).
Not if there was a grace period before prosecution could be brought, or literally any other mechanism that exists between the binary "impossible to prosecute" and "guaranteed to prosecute"
>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…
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.
It also goes the other way. A recourse against the only elected official of the executive is also political in itself. Without immunity, any of the thousands of prosecutors could charge, blackmail and kidnap any predidents during and after their terms. This would make Presidents effectively answer to the courts and not the people.