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

581–590 of 1001 posts

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

#581

Post by 3D30497420 »

standardUser wrote: post #503
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.

Agreed. It’s not as if becoming president is forced on anyone.

Judging from history, it is a pretty dangerous role as well and that doesn’t seem to have dissuaded many people. If there are willing to risk their safety, I’d think the risk of prosecution wouldn’t rank too highly either.

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

#582

Post by jameslk »

metabagel wrote: post #510
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]

Nixon, that former president the person you’re responding to brought up, was going to be impeached by his fellow Republican party members.

> On August 5, 1974, Nixon released a transcript of one of the additional conversations to the public, known as the "smoking gun" tape, which made clear his complicity in the Watergate cover-up. This disclosure destroyed Nixon politically. His most loyal defenders in Congress announced they would vote to impeach and convict Nixon for obstructing justice. Republican congressional leaders met with Nixon and told him that his impeachment and removal were all but certain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Ri...

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

#583

Post by chasing »

Lifetime appointments for Supreme Court Justices is fucking absurd.

My out-of-my-ass fix is that each Justice is on an 18-year term. Every two years one Justice is replaced. Two per Presidential term.

Makes it legitimately fair. Elect a President, get two Justices. None of this "one corrupt game-show host accidentally gets to appoint half the Court" horseshit.

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

#584

Post by jcranmer »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #569
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.

The impeachment clause specifically lays out that impeachment doesn't inhibit criminal prosecution for the same acts. Hell, Trump's impeachment defense was essentially that he should be criminally prosecuted instead of impeachment.

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

#585

Post by lunarboy »

Surely the "impeachment exists" arguments are in bad faith. Otherwise, I'm convinced they've abandoned reason.

Impeachment process takes time, and in that window, the president can do whatever. POTUS can even mobilize the army (an official power) to block congress from meeting, since apparently the motive behind the use of official power doesn't matter. If they can't meet, how are they going to impeach.

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

#586

Post by tines »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #569
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.

What about after he has left office?

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

#587

Post by chasd00 »

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.

> Perhaps future administrations should simply ignore them and dare them to act.

well.. be careful for what you wish for but i see your point. What's the supreme court going to do? Order your arrest by the FBI? Seems like the FBI would go tell them to pound sand.

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

#588

Post by rtkwe »

InTheArena wrote: post #291
brightball wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nope - and this is a key point. The framers intended there to be a mechanism to hold a president accountable - impeachment. But it is badly formed, and has never been used, even though arguably it should have been in every case it was used in.

Also impeachment only removes them from office which is far from a complete punishment. They're still completely free people after impeachment, the only right that's taken away is the ability to be President which is a pretty paltry punishment especially for second term Presidents.

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

#589

Post by science4sail »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #569
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.

What if he/she assassinates the impeachers as an "official act"? That might be an example of Gödel's Loophole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole

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

#590

Post by joshuaheard »

tines wrote: post #574
joshuaheard wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assassinating a political rival is not an official act.

Says who? You can't ask me why I did it, according to the ruling. I could have had a good reason. And you can't use my private records, nor those of my assistants, either.

Where in the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution does it give the the President the power to kill political opponents?
Post reply on HN