It's interesting that even in the Roman Republic the immunity ended after the end of your term, and you could be prosecuted for official acts taken during it. And even let to Caesar fighting to keep himself in office at all times to avoid inevitable prosecution. https://theconversation.com/from-caesar-to-trump-immunity-is...
The prosecution of Trump was likely a big reason he's running again, for similar reasons. I'm not sure the prosecutors are even smart enough to realize they're the reason we're at where we're at.
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
471–480 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#472>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…
The majority opinion even had the gall to call the prosecutions "hasty" when we're largely talking about things that happened in 2021.
But this decision is so much worse than many (myself included) expected. Not only is there blanket immunity for "official acts" but there is presumptive innocence for anything on the peripherey. Even worse, if something is a statutory or constitutional power of the office of President, the reason does not matter. The reason can't even be considered in deciding if something is an "official act" or not.
So the president has the right to issue pardons with ultimate discretion. If they want to sell pardons, now they can. Why? Because the reason this "official act" happened is irrelevant. That's what the Court decided.
Same for selling judgeships or presidential appointments.
We already have the donor-to-ambassador pipeline [2]. Now we don't even need the ruse of it being a donation. The President can simply sell ambassadorships for personal gain.
That's what this decision did.
[1]: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1AC5A0E7...
[2]: https://campaignlegal.org/press-releases/new-campaign-legal-...
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#473>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…
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#474btw - this thread is hilarious, thank you thank you thank you
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#475Maybe 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.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#476Earlier 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…
> "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?
On the one hand: if you are president and you authorize the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to get Japan to surrender without further loss of American life, you won't later be prosecuted for war crimes when your political rival comes into power.
On the other hand, if you are president and you murder a Japanese person you see on the street when going for a stroll outside the white house, you can be prosecuted for that.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#477It's interesting that even in the Roman Republic the immunity ended after the end of your term, and you could be prosecuted for official acts taken during it. And even let to Caesar fighting to keep himself in office at all times to avoid inevitable prosecution. https://theconversation.com/from-caesar-to-trump-immunity-is...
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#478I 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 they will stay in power rather than face accountability (real or imagined) for their actions (legitimate or illegitimate). See Caesar, J and the fall of the Roman Republic.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#479Folks, the blueprint for a American dictatorship has been created and you'll be a fool and a idiot to think otherwise.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#480The essence, from the majority opinion https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf > nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. > And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. > Testimony or private records of the Pres…