Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

apnews.com

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

Perhaps the simple solution is that all presidents should serve 15 years in jail after serving their term. Then only extremely socially minded people would dare to do the job. There was a similar sci fi story I read. At the end of a war the rule was that all allied ( not enemy ) generals would be executed. The idea was that war was such a horrible concept that to lead one would require extreme sacrifice and social co…

[deleted]

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

#482

Folks, the blueprint for a American dictatorship has been created and you'll be a fool and a idiot to think otherwise.

what a dramatic take. surely you haven't read the actual opinion. for posterity, this is "the blueprint for a [sic] American dictatorship" to which you refer: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

I'm just going to leave this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848935

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

#483

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.

[deleted]

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

#484

Folks, the blueprint for a American dictatorship has been created and you'll be a fool and a idiot to think otherwise.

[flagged]

I'm leaving this here for you to read: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848935

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

#485

I 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?

Two reasons. First, it's the office that's immune, not the person. If you prosecute a person for something they did "as president" then you're prosecuting the office. Second, it's not to be fair to the person. It's to protect the government from collapsing. People forget that happens all the time, often due to ineffective executive leadership. Look at Haiti, etc. So, I think it's true that Presidents will get away with a few things here and there that they shouldn't, Congress can still impeach and remove them. If Congress is on-board with what the President is doing, then that's a decent safeguard that "at least whatever the President is doing isn't going to destroy the country."

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

#486
post #317

It's really impossible to understand and determine before hand how the court would rule on any of these theoretical cases that may result as a consequence of this decision. It is up to further cases to actually establish was constitutes "official" versus "unofficial" capacities as President and we can absolutely not guess before hand what that entails. From the decision, it seems that only those duties constitutional…

> The President is ultimately largely beholden to Congress. The government cannot sink into a dictatorship without the explicit approval of the majority of Congress. This is nonsense. The President can just assassinate all of their political rivals in Congress that would hold them to account. Before this ruling there was an assumption that any such actions would be prosecuted after the President was no longer in offi…

This is not really true though. Congress is responsible for granting authority to the President regarding valid military targets. This is why drone strikes are only legal against targets recognized by Congress as security threats. It cannot realistically happen for the President to start targeting individuals outside of Congressional authority.

For your hypothetical situation to arise, Congress would have to declare members of Congress themselves as valid military targets.

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

#488
post #65

> 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. The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time.

While I don't agree with the strikes, such action was generally authorized by Congress (thanks to the "war on terror") which was never since rescinded by Congress. So was not unconstitutional.

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

#489

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.

Trump's running again because his first pass in office was wildly profitable, and he thinks he could get another shot at it. And that's just considering the stuff we know about (emoluments violations, government loans/grants to family members, "investments" from Saudis). Who knows what he got for access to those documents stored at Mar-a-Lago or things we don't know anything about.

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

#490

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:…

I think the saddest thing is that judges are expected to answer how they would rule on specific cases to be confirmed. What is even the point of an independent supreme court, if politicians can have guarantees as to how specific cases are decided?
Post reply on HN