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…
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
481–490 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#482Folks, 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
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#483Maybe 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
#484Folks, the blueprint for a American dictatorship has been created and you'll be a fool and a idiot to think otherwise.
[flagged]
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#485I 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?
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#486It'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…
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
#487Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#488> 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.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#489It'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.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#490I 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:…