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

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461

Post by Tadpole9181 »

plandis wrote: post #358
awb wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

And how, pray tell, is that compatible with them also saying that neither Congress nor Courts can call into question the motivation of the President for doing so? All the president need do is say "they were a national security concern" and they are now absolutely immune from anyone so much as presenting evidence in a trial that says otherwise!

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

#462

Post by blashyrk »

jampekka wrote: post #428
blindriver wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact that George Bush Junior is a free man is downright insulting

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

#463

Post by blindriver »

yoavm wrote: post #429
blindriver wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It sounds like you have no concept of the law.

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

#464

Post by vlovich123 »

I think the saddest thing is how lying under oath during a Senate confirmation hearing doesn’t revoke the confirmation.

Basically Kavanaugh did what everyone said he would and he overturned US v Nixon even though he lied about it during his confirmation even though before he argued repeatedly it was a bad decision. So either he lied or he miraculously changed his beliefs for the duration of the Senate hearing.

https://www.peoplefor.org/press-releases/fact-check-kavanaug...

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

#467

Post by openasocket »

Frankly, this is terrifying. The decision gives complete criminal immunity from any "official acts" as President. It goes on to define that term so broadly as to include any conversation with Justice department officials. Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible. Soliciting bribes to not prosecute is now fair game.

I find it particularly concerning regarding the military. The President is Commander in Chief, and thus any orders he gives or attempts to give to the military would be undeniably official acts. This was even brought up in oral arguments, where it was asked of Trump's council "if the President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, would that be considered an official act?" I find it absolutely terrifying that this possibility was brought up, and any mention of the military is conspicuously absent from the majority decision, even in passing (though Sotomayor explicitly brings it up in her dissent).

The most concerning part is how this decision is being made entirely on constitutional grounds. At least in the case of Rowe v Wade being overturned, we have the possible remedy of Congress passing a law enshrining the right to an abortion. But here, there is no legislation Congress could pass to create criminal liability for the President, no executive action. The only option would be a constitutional amendment.

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

#468

Post by autoexec »

lolinder wrote: post #179
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…

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 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.

That seems like the majority opinion agrees.

It'd be hard to argue that commanding the military wasn't an official act of the president under the Constitution even if that command was to Navy's Seal Team 6 asking them to assassinate a political rival for reasons of "national security"

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

#469

Post by marcell »

afavour wrote: post #8

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?

Generally the way to hold a president accountable is to impeach him and remove him from office.

Under this ruling, the court system is generally not a way to keep him accountable.

So it’s not that there is no accountability or way to “punish”, a rogue president, it’s just a different method of accountability than what applies to you and me.

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

#470

Post by ClarityJones »

openasocket wrote: post #467

Frankly, this is terrifying. The decision gives complete criminal immunity from any "official acts" as President. It goes on to define that term so broadly as to include any conversation with Justice department officials. Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible.…

> Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible.

I think we have fundamentally different views of the Executive's role. We have 3 branches of government, and the President is the guy who enforces the law. The Justice department is not a 4th branch of government.

Post reply on HN