Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts • Hacker News Board

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

#591

Post by mixologic » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:01 PM UTC

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 by "Everyone" you mean at least one of the sitting supreme court justices. What is considered "official duty" is not clearly defined, and will certainly be twisted to include things that seem like they obviously shouldnt be considered "official".

But if a president claims that a surgical strike to eliminate an "enemy of the country" was within their prerogative, then yes, a president can murder somebody without fear of consequences.

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

#592

Post by lunarboy » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:01 PM UTC

joshuaheard wrote: post #571

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…

Assassinating a political rival is not an official act.

Yeah but pardoning the killer is. Why the killer chose to do it, who knows? Frankly, even if the phone call is leaked, motive doesn't matter apparently.

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

#593

Post by camgunz » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:01 PM UTC

joshuaheard wrote: post #571

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…

Assassinating a political rival is not an official act.

Imagine Biden assassinating Trump under the pretense that Trump likely had other classified documents hidden away, or was too mentally unstable to be trusted with presidential secrets. This is the kind of action this ruling sanctions, entirely.

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

#594

Post by Karupan » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:01 PM UTC

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.

Not an American but according to everything I’ve read, impeachment is not the equivalent of prosecution [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_St...

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

#595

Post by stefan_ » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:02 PM UTC

joshuaheard wrote: post #571

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…

Assassinating a political rival is not an official act.

I guess we can call it bold when you claim to have a better understanding of the decision than a dissenting justice.

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

#596

Post by vlovich123 » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:02 PM UTC

generalizations wrote: post #564

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?

Well he previously had said it was a very wrong decision, then praised it to get confirmed & then pretty quickly overturned it. You’d have to squint really hard to see the testimony as honest.

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

#597

Post by neogodless » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:03 PM UTC

joshuaheard wrote: post #571

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…

Assassinating a political rival is not an official act.

As an official act, we determined that my political rival was an enemy of the state and known terrorist, who was threatening our democracy. As such, it was my duty to order her/his assassination, for the safety of our great nation.

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

#598

Post by camgunz » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:03 PM UTC

jameslk wrote: post #582

metabagel wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 anno…

That was a long time ago. These days single-digit numbers of Republicans impeached/convicted Trump on way worse charges.

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

#599

Post by beefnugs » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:03 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #542

riffic wrote: post #102

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.

Shouldn't there be some liability barrier to preventing just any bored old billionaire from fisting his way into presidency?

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

#600

Post by Hasu » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:04 PM UTC

amadeuspagel wrote: post #490

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 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?

An "independent supreme court" historically means "independent from the executive", as prior to the formation of the United States government under the constitution, judiciaries were part of the executive.

It does not mean that Congress can't have political qualifications for justices, and in fact George Washington had a failed nomination because his nominee was politically unpopular.