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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

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.

That... is a bold misstatement of basic facts. IIRC[1] Democracts introduced a bill to impeach Trump in very partisan fashion, and then cried foul when Republicans made an attempt to impeach Biden. Amusingly, this is partially how we got to see the other part of the Hunter Biden laptop saga.

But to your main point, do you remember why Democrats tried to impeach Trump? I am leaving it as a question, because I am curious how you are intending to defend that record.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trum... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_B...

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

#422

Post by wing-_-nuts »

criddell wrote: post #394
alphabetatheta wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The would be eligible for a pardon which would be an official act

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

#423

Post by teg4n_ »

TeeMassive wrote: post #383
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.

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.

kidnap? what are you even are you talking about?

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

#424

Post by riskable »

siliconc0w wrote: post #312

This court has blown up civil rights, legalized machine guns (bump stocks), blown up any ability to regulate with chevron and now elevates the president to king in order to give the president that appointed them immunity. How long before sotomayor rage quits. I guess this ruling means Biden can send some thugs to forcibly retire them? Let's just have a fully political court that flip flops what the laws mean every fo…

Replacing the court every four years wouldn't be that bad if the courts were more efficient. As it stands, however, cases can take over a decade during which any such SCOTUS rulings could flip flop entirely, resulting in legal chaos (which would be bad).

Change isn't necessarily a bad thing... Imagine if we had a new court every four years and one of them behaved like the current SCOTUS, overturning over a hundred years of precedent basically every chance they get. The damage could be undone just as quickly.

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

#425

Post by breaker-kind »

blindriver wrote: post #412
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…

Obama ordered an American Citizen to be assassinated via a drone attack, without a trial or anything. Should he be charged with murder? https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/is-it-legal-for-the-u-s-t...

[flagged]

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

#426

Post by janalsncm »

code_biologist wrote: post #313
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.

I mean, they were pretty good. The founding documents addressed many problems that been seen in British political history. I think they may have lacked tools to prevent two party rule, but some were aware it would be a problem. From George Washington's presidential farewell address: "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent en…

Washington’s farewell address is exactly what I’m referring to. Hoping that people won’t form political parties rather than understanding that they are the logical result of the system that’s been created. No matter how nicely you ask, parties will form.

Just as another example, the Framers forgot to even mention that courts could strike down unconstitutional laws, causing a political crisis that came up only 15 years later. Oops!

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

#428

Post by jampekka »

blindriver wrote: post #412
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…

Obama ordered an American Citizen to be assassinated via a drone attack, without a trial or anything. Should he be charged with murder? https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/is-it-legal-for-the-u-s-t...

He should be charged with war crimes, like more or less all US (and many other) presidents. Of course it's not gonna happen.

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

#429

Post by yoavm »

blindriver wrote: post #412
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…

Obama ordered an American Citizen to be assassinated via a drone attack, without a trial or anything. Should he be charged with murder? https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/is-it-legal-for-the-u-s-t...

Comparing the idea of ordering the killing your political opponent with approving an operation with killed of someone related to an Al-Qaeda and even saying it was a mistake is weird, to say the least.

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

#430

Post by chasd00 »

vessenes wrote: post #366
alphabetatheta wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would it? I am skeptical about this take and I am skeptical of Sotomayer’s take. What official capacity would Nixon have been undertaking? What official capacity would a seal team six assassination of trump be designated as? I’m also skeptical of her dissent strategy; dissents are key places to limit a ruling. Why not just say what seems crystal clear and say ‘nothing about this ruling should be taken to mean calling…

>Instead she says it might be okay by the ruling

yeah it seems like a traditional FUD strategy, i would expect Supreme Court justices to be more analytical and sober than that.

Post reply on HN