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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by neogodless »

stevefeinstein wrote: post #345

It's time to test this ruling. Joe Biden can have let's say oh, about six supreme court justices detained for suspicion some wishy-washy thing or another.

There's no winning if you're on the side that kind of leans towards playing fair.

We can't protect democracy by throwing it out the door, and hoping you still get elected come fall. If Biden would take advantage of this ruling in a way the American public doesn't like, he won't be elected. So he would have to further throw out democracy the way Trump is comfortable doing, by ignoring the election results.

But enough Americans seem to be leaning towards re-electing Trump such that he'll have 4 more years in office to perform official acts to his heart's content and set himself up for whatever he has in mind by the end of his term, January 2029.

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

#502

Post by zzzeek »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #4

Immunity for things they do as part of their official duties. I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty. The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. 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. I don’t know if th…

> It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much.

except Obama ordered plenty of drone strikes including on American citizens, so actual data suggests he was not "hamstrung" at all.

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

#503

Post by standardUser »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #4

Immunity for things they do as part of their official duties. I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty. The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. 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. I don’t know if th…

Those with the most power should receive the most scrutiny and face the greatest consequences for its misuse.

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

#504

Post by tstrimple »

throwaway4220 wrote: post #411
ChildOfEru wrote: post #395

> (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such condu…

Nixon resigned knowing an impeachment was pending. I cannot imagine that ever happening today.

Conservatives since Nixon have been working to ensure none of them could be taken down like he was. This is just the final chapter in them successfully implementing their plan that began with Fox News.

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

#506

Post by insane_dreamer »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #4

Immunity for things they do as part of their official duties. I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty. The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. 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. I don’t know if th…

> Immunity for things they do as part of their official duties.

How would attempting to overturn the results of a free and fair election be considered an "official duty"? If it is, then the Presidency became a dictatorship, leaving impeachment by Congress -- an extremely difficult bar -- the only recourse.

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

#507

Post by downWidOutaFite »

itsdavesanders wrote: post #171
runjake wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? If you're referring to Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son, both US citizens, it was intentional . If you're not referring to this, Obama's already done this without getting charged. Being POTUS is an unenviable job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Edit: Since people are assuming my views on this topic, I'll say th…

I keep seeing this argument pop up about “should Obama be prosecuted” like it’s some sort of “gotcha liberal!” And as a liberal I think “hell YES he should be prosecuted!” The government shouldn’t just go around killing citizens without due process. I don’t care what letter is by their name.

That's the appropriate patriotic response that you'd hope all Americans would give, especially those who have sworn to defend the constitution. But what I've come to realize is that a lot of Americans somehow see it as their patriotic duty to destroy the Federal government, and will support anything that will undermine it, including breaking the rule of law and a scorched earth attack on "liberals" that wish to uphold our form of government. This is the legacy of the Confederate grievance that is still very much alive today.

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

#508

Post by ceejayoz »

InTheArena wrote: post #301
whatever1 wrote: post #160

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?

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.

"We have to let you do bad things, because you will do very bad things if we do not" is a hell of an argument.

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

#509

Post by Jsebast24 »

Lerc wrote: post #305
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 extend the absurdity further. If the President truly believes that if their rival winning the presidency would endanger democracy, it would be the _duty_ of the President to take that action. This seems like a path towards civil war. [edit] Thinking about a way out of this mess. Here's a proposal. Biden asserts that he has this right, writes up a new amendment taking the right away, gives a date by which he will t…

The deterrent for such action is that government officials are under the obligation to disobey orders that are unconstitutional. But that loyalty to the constitution doesn't seem to be strong anymore. High positions in the US government are now occupied by the kind of people who would follow those orders without hesitation.

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

#510

Post by metabagel »

ChildOfEru wrote: post #395

> (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such condu…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN