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

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by mullingitover »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #546

Article III of the U.S. Constitution is incredibly brief [1]. I propose the Supreme Court be reconstituted such that for each case a panel of judges from the appellate courts is chosen by lot. They hear that case, write their opinion, and then go back to that work. New case, new lot. Having a permanent bench of judicial oligarchs made sense before telecommunication. It doesn’t anymore. Every ancient democracy used ra…

This, plus the opinions should not be signed, and dissenting opinions should not be published at all.

The current system seems like it’s designed to aggravate politics in the very branch that’s intended to be beyond them.

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

#632

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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.

> The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.

No. Separation of powers comes down to "never give anybody power that someone else cannot block". That "someone else" needs to be independent, too - that's the "separation" part.

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

#633

Post by aklemm »

bloopernova wrote: post #608
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #546

Article III of the U.S. Constitution is incredibly brief [1]. I propose the Supreme Court be reconstituted such that for each case a panel of judges from the appellate courts is chosen by lot. They hear that case, write their opinion, and then go back to that work. New case, new lot. Having a permanent bench of judicial oligarchs made sense before telecommunication. It doesn’t anymore. Every ancient democracy used ra…

Prediction: trump wins presidency. Midterms swing hard towards Dems. Next president's Congress reforms supreme court.

You think Dems will win elections and get seated if Trump has another term?

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

#634

Post by tdb7893 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #546

Article III of the U.S. Constitution is incredibly brief [1]. I propose the Supreme Court be reconstituted such that for each case a panel of judges from the appellate courts is chosen by lot. They hear that case, write their opinion, and then go back to that work. New case, new lot. Having a permanent bench of judicial oligarchs made sense before telecommunication. It doesn’t anymore. Every ancient democracy used ra…

As with all reforms in the US it's not gonna happen as the party that benefits will block it. Same with implementing ranked choice, outlawing gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, etc.

Systems always work to justify and perpetuate themselves. It's part of why our jobs can be such BS sometimes.

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

#636

Post by _trampeltier »

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…

Since last week, bribery is legal anyway.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-26/suprem...

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

#638

Post by dang »

lapcat wrote: post #65

> 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.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848146.

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

#639

Post by adventured »

camgunz wrote: post #593
joshuaheard wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This is the kind of action this ruling sanctions, entirely.

Given the extraordinary claim you're making, I'm doubtful that you have the qualifications to support the absolute statement being made pretending to be fact. This is especially true given how little this new ruling has been covered by the very people that are charged with deciding how it will work in practice.

You're not issuing an opinion in what you said. You're claiming it's a matter of fact. Constitutional and executive branch experts with decades of experience will be debating what this means for a very long time to come, with far less certainty than what your comment contains.

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

#640

Post by mullingitover »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #628
bloopernova wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prediction: trump wins presidency. Midterms swing hard towards Dems. Next president's Congress reforms supreme court.

How would a president reform the judicial branch? That power is in the legislature's hand.

After today? Easy: the entire court is loaded into a black helicopter in the middle of the night and never seen again. The White House spokesperson says, winking, “The White House officially has no comment.”

This quickly becomes a standard ritual at the changing of each administration, and an accepted job hazard for incoming justices.

Post reply on HN