571–580 of 1001 posts
> 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…
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…
> (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]
> 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…
Assassinating a political rival is not an official act.
> 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.
> As the Supreme Court concluded, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, and Congress’s 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force—along with the president’s commander-in-chief authority under Article II of the Constitution—provides ample domestic legal authority to conduct military operations against al-Qaeda.
tl;dr: We haven't been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time.
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.
Everything a king does is an official act by definition. 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?
This is what lifetime appointments were intended to address. There's no incentive to rule in the president's favor. Of course, now there's the prospect of gratuity for services rendered.
> 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.
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 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?
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.
Everything a king does is an official act by definition. 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?
Look, the president can't do something like start a war without permission from congress. Congress basically delegated that authority to the president. If the president then uses it irresponsibly (as has happened numerous times since congress made this decision) then that's the fault of congress. They can very easily pass legislation requiring a declaration of war and take that power back if they want to.
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…
President's can still be impeached as a result of their official acts. It seems that is intended to be the outlet for prosecuting the Executive Branch. Am I wrong there?
Regardless, impeachment is there to remove the president from power. It can't jail or otherwise punish the president. The regular old legal system should be doing that, for everyone, regardless of whether or not they're an elected official.