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

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by ignoramous »

tines wrote: post #550
locococo wrote: post #517

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.

> individual is bad, but groups are less bad

Bad groups tend to scape goat individuals until their next rodeo.

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

#562

Post by ChicagoDave »

This is all because very wealthy and powerful people see a future American demographic that doesn’t support their interests and they want an alternate government that can’t stop them.

The problem is what will democratic presidents do with this fundamental alteration of the three “equal” branches that now leaves Congress as the weakest link.

What will republican presidents do?

And of course, what would Trump do?

I think front and center is Stephen Miller’s desire to reverse that future demographic by either incarcerating or deporting anyone that isn’t white or even sympathetic to a white nationalist movement.

This is real people. And very frightening.

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

#563

Post by Natsu »

vlovich123 wrote: post #464

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 how lying under oath during a Senate confirmation hearing doesn’t revoke the confirmation.

Impeachment is a difficult process. Given that Trump survived (twice), I'm not sure this would work:

https://www.axios.com/2024/06/14/scotus-supreme-court-claren...

> [Kavanaugh] lied about it during his confirmation

Kavanaugh said Roe was "entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis" and similar remarks. But that still leaves it in a category that can and has been overturned by past courts. Here are a few such examples where they overturned settled precedents entitled to deference under the principles of stare decisis: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-short-list-of-overturn...

Once you know that such rulings can and have been overturned before, you can see that he never once said anything at all like "I won't (or can't) overturn Roe" in his comments. You can find his comments in full here:

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and...

You can say that this makes his comments misleading to people who don't realize that stare decisis doesn't mean that SCOTUS can't or won't overturn a past ruling, but the fact that "everyone said he would" overturn Roe really cuts against that his statements actually mislead anyone.

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

#564

Post by generalizations »

vlovich123 wrote: post #464

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:…

That site said he praised the decision. That's a far cry from lying under oath that he wouldn't repeal it. Is there anything more specific that he said?

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

#565

Post by [deleted] »

neogodless wrote: post #557
tines wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I kind of (OK totally) need a history lesson / refresher. How was the Judicial Branch supposed to function? 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?

[deleted]

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

#566

Post by BWStearns »

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…

The issue is that this could prevent even opening up the discussion of whether a transaction was a bribe if the former president can claim it was an official act.

Nixon was never prosecuted because he was pardoned so the official acts stuff is moot. Crimes committed in war/putting down rebellion/etc are bad but more clearly within the scope of official acts than anything Trump is accused of.

Reagan, to the extent that he did/didn't coordinate with Iran to delay the hostage release, would be the closest parallel since it would have been a crime (Hatch act violation) in the direct pursuit of winning an election. But that was before he was president so this also wouldn't be relevant for today's ruling.

We don't prosecute ex presidents often because most of them either don't commit crimes or the ones they do are arguably part of the job. Trying to prevent the legitimate transfer of power is not close to a part of the job. The opposite in fact. Nixon only gets pardoned because he agrees to fuck off and spare the country the shitshow we currently have.

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

#567

Post by cogman10 »

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.

What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling.

Further, it should be noted that the lower court already did exactly what the supreme court remanded back to them. They said "we don't know what sorts of immunity are granted to a president, but if there is any they are not granted, it's overturning an election as is accused in this specific case".

The supreme court took up this case specifically to help donald trump and because they couldn't challenge the ruling given they made up their own facts to give the ruling they wanted to give.

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

#568

Post by asdff »

metabagel wrote: post #538
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.

But he is being prosecuted for fraud not for an official act as president

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

#569

Post by friend_and_foe »

sterlind wrote: post #552

> 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. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immu…

This is factually incorrect, the president can be prosecuted for anything, he doesn't even have to commit a crime, but there's a special process for that called impeachment. This isn't new stuff and it has been understood to work this way for a couple hundred or so years, until very recently.

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

#570

Post by [deleted] »

mlinhares wrote: post #51
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?

A common thing in empires is that the behavior that was perpetrated in the colonies eventually comes back to the mainland to be applied to the, previously, sheltered population. Out of the US, US presidents have always had effective immunity from any consequences, committing war crimes, disrespecting local laws and eschewing even the UN. Kinda like an expected consequence of everything else.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN