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

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by asdff »

BadHumans wrote: post #456
asdff wrote: post #447

Can anyone pencil out the real danger of this position? Sotomayors opinion seems to posit that a president can receive a bribe and pardon someone for that and this is an official, immune act. However, I don't think soliciting a bribe would be considered an official act of the POTUS, and by what I have been able to understand from this opinion would still be subject to prosecution. I also think that this opinion seems…

With the Court killing the Chevron Deference, they have given themselves all the power to decide what is an official act and what isn't. Anything not spelled out in plain terms will be interpreted by them and nothing is spelled in plain terms.

I though the chevron deference related to how federal orgs like e.g. the epa pen their own policy and trying to put that policy writing power back into the legislative branch vs through the executive who appoints these orgs? I am not educated in law and would like to clear up some of my misunderstanding.

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

#532

Post by sangnoir »

boole1854 wrote: post #505
cdme wrote: post #487

It's remarkable the speed at which the court has discarded any semblance of legitimacy. Perhaps future administrations should simply ignore them and dare them to act.

[flagged]

Where does the Supreme Court get it's power? In practice, it's from the people - nor from constitution or constitutional experts.

There may come a point where some quarters of the public will willingly accept some governor, attorney general or president ignoring a supreme court ruling: then what will they do? As Andrew Jackson apocryphally noted, the supreme court has no enforcement arm.

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

#533

Post by Lerc »

Jsebast24 wrote: post #509
Lerc wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems unreasonable to require everyone who follows orders to be an expert on constitutional law. Especially when the highest court in the land can't seem to agree.

Is it permissible to disobey an order that you merely believe is unconstitutional? What happens when your superior asserts that it is constitutional?

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

#534

Post by dawnerd »

cdme wrote: post #487

It's remarkable the speed at which the court has discarded any semblance of legitimacy. Perhaps future administrations should simply ignore them and dare them to act.

And based on what the court ruled they probably legally could just ignore the court and congress.

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

#535

Post by umvi »

ceejayoz wrote: post #508
InTheArena wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Framed another way, anyone crazy enough to run for a position in which your opponents will comb through all of your actions with a fine tooth comb to imprison you after the position term is over likely won't plan on their term ever being over.

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

#536

Post by autoexec »

throwadobe wrote: post #518
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?

Everyone seems to be calling this "blanket immunity" but that's not right. It's immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically the president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal. This doesn't mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.

Ordering the murder of someone is their official duty as commander in chief of the military. The only thing they have to do is say they feel that a person was a threat to national security.

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

#537

Post by jmcgough »

throwadobe wrote: post #518
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?

Everyone seems to be calling this "blanket immunity" but that's not right. It's immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically the president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal. This doesn't mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.

If you order your military to murder someone, does it become an official act?

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

#538

Post by metabagel »

asdff wrote: post #447

Can anyone pencil out the real danger of this position? Sotomayors opinion seems to posit that a president can receive a bribe and pardon someone for that and this is an official, immune act. However, I don't think soliciting a bribe would be considered an official act of the POTUS, and by what I have been able to understand from this opinion would still be subject to prosecution. I also think that this opinion seems…

Trump is being prosecuted right now. That's what this case is about.

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

#539

Post by alluro2 »

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…

I don't understand what weight impeachment still holds in today's world. Trump was impeached twice - and? If Trump, in his second term, is supposed to be held liable through fear of impeachment for his actions, I'm afraid it won't be the counter-weight the Founding Fathers envisioned.

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

#540

Post by imgabe »

hartator wrote: post #111
margalabargala wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. Thus, ord…

> The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. It does. Armed forces killing people is a state of war. If not, it's policing then it's under the judiciary authority, not the president.

Policing, or law enforcement, at the Federal level is also a part of the executive branch and under control of the President.
Post reply on HN