551–560 of 1001 posts
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?
Impeachment is the intended vehicle for presidential punishment.
Sotomayor's scathing dissent sums up my concerns on the matter. Even for Barrett, a conservative, the majority opinion was a bridge too far: even bribery now enjoys absolute immunity.
> 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.
> 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…
At the same time, the president's agencies no longer have the authority to do whatever they want.
So I guess the president can order the military to drone strike the FCC if he wants at this rate. I don't see what influence the Constitution is still going to have at this point.
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.
Source: I'm from places that had the Supreme Court (of places, not US) overturn an election result due to fraud
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Appreciate your moral courage in going against the grain on HN. Not as sad, but still deeply sad that a site that prohibits ideological battle in its guidelines has become powerless to stop Twittermobbing on here.
Someone's going to come along and tell me that the vitriol is necessary and good because the Supreme Court is so clearly and unequivocally evil, but that's just the point. Even the threads on the Israel-Hamas war have had better-quality discussions with more nuance than the hot takes and hatred that have been plaguing HN the last few weeks on these threads.
We can do better. I've seen it.
ah just laying the foundation for a lovely despotic future.
Seems like the alternative is equally dystopian though. If ex-presidents don't have immunity for their actions in office, then every ex-president will have to fend off a flurry of lawsuits and prosecution attempts by the opposite party. It would be an absolute circus and turn the office of president into a joke.
I think a big problem here is that all existing laws and the system concerning presidents rests on one very important assumption. That the commander in chief is a decent, rational human being that carefully considers his actions and holds the interest of the United States and the Citizens in high regards. It all falls apart and gets too complicated to regulate when the assumption is that you can't trust the person in…
I don't think this is true. The constitution was designed with the idea of preventing a king from coming to power. The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.
Because I don't believe it was supposed to be able to basically override the Legislative Branch. Just like the Executive Branch wasn't supposed to have unchecked power as long as it's "Official" business.
How were the three Branches intended to keep each of the other in check?
I think a big problem here is that all existing laws and the system concerning presidents rests on one very important assumption. That the commander in chief is a decent, rational human being that carefully considers his actions and holds the interest of the United States and the Citizens in high regards. It all falls apart and gets too complicated to regulate when the assumption is that you can't trust the person in…
I don't think this is true. The constitution was designed with the idea of preventing a king from coming to power. The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.
What do you think is something a president does? Is starting a war an official act? Or appointing your own supreme court? Persecuting insurrectionists?
Who will judge this once the ball gets going? The judges now appointed by you?
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.
Now that this has been cleared up by the courts, I want to ask. Is it even possible for the President to break the law? What would that look like?
Sotomayor laid out some examples in her dissent, such as assassinating political rivals, staging a coup and taking bribes for favours.