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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by [deleted] »

claytongulick wrote: post #642
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…

The lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices is done specifically so that they aren't financially influenced by politics and party. I.e. their job doesn't depend on them ruling the "right" way. There are pros and cons to different approaches. There are differences at the state level for judges, being appointed vs elected. Each has problems. In TX, for example, judges are heavily influenced by mob mentality - th…

[deleted]

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

#662

Post by shadowtree »

jmcgough wrote: post #537
throwadobe wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you order your military to murder someone, does it become an official act?

Obama droned a US citizen without due process, zero consequences.

Nothing new.

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

#663

Post by rpdillon »

saucetenuto wrote: post #216
blue_dragon wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My naive assumption is that ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival is not an official nor constitutionally authorized power, and thus would be prosecutable.

Guess again! Roberts explicitly calls out orders to the military as covered by absolute immunity. EDIT: and motive is explicitly barred from review too.

An important point here is that there are both legal and illegal orders. Military personnel are instructed obey every legal order, and disobey every illegal order (at least I was).

In the military, we have the UCMJ that allows us to prosecute those military personnel that issue illegal orders. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but he is a civilian, so the UCMJ doesn't apply. I always thought he would be charged under criminal law in that case, but it seems that this ruling precludes that.

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

#664

Post by ajcp »

1668911361 wrote: post #578
amadeuspagel wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm genuinely curious--what should the senate be voting for/against when they confirm a supreme court justice, if not how'd they rule on certain topics?

How about their qualifications for the posting? I'm not sure I'd want to appoint anyone to a judgeship who already knows how they'd pass judgement on a case that's not before them. Otherwise what's the point of a hearing or a trial?

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

#666

Post by oceanplexian »

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 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.

No, that's not what the existing laws or system rests on.

The system rests on the fact that the Commander in Chief is an elected representative, and therefore their actions represent the will of the people. Washington Post might not think he is rational. A random Judge might not think he is rational. You might not personally think he is rational. What is "rational" is determined at the ballot box, or via the impeachment process in the legislature.

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

#667

Post by austin-cheney »

BadHumans wrote: post #649
bloopernova wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Prediction: Trump wins presidency and there are no more fair elections.

If Trump wins he will be term limited by constitution irrespective of any election that comes after.

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

#668

Post by tacticalturtle »

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 is the best reform idea I’ve heard. Has it been mentioned elsewhere?

There is a reference in the Constitution in the impeachment clause to the “Chief Justice” - which maybe implies justices with some sort of tenure, but I suppose that could be filled randomly as well, much like a jury foreman.

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

#669

Post by philjohn »

dustincoates wrote: post #21
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?

Sure. You want a President to be able to carry out the roles of the office without concern that his or her political opponents will use the courts to try to punish those actions. There are reasonable disagreements on where Presidential authority begins or ends on many topics, and you want the limits to be either through separation of powers (e.g., the Judicial Branch can bring an end to actions, the Legislative can i…

Except doesn't the "can't enter things into evidence" clause of the ruling mean that bringing the prosecution against Nixon would never have had a snowball's hell in chance of being argued and won?

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

#670

Post by demosthanos »

munchler wrote: post #626
paulvnickerson wrote: post #604

So many people reacting irrationally and misunderstanding what the ruling says. The first few pages are very readable, and I encourage all to read [1] - Actions within the President's conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority: Absolute immunity, in accordance with constitutional separation of powers. - Other actions done within an official capacity: Presumptive (though not full) immunity, to "to safe-guard t…

The president already has official authority to drone strike terrorists. All he has to do now is make an official determination that his political opponents are terrorists.

Yeah, we should definitely fix the fact that the President can order hits on US citizens. That's a pretty obvious problem regardless of whether they can technically be prosecuted for it, and doesn't really change the merits of the question at hand.

All this case says is we shouldn't leave a President's legal culpability for any given action up to prosecutorial discretion. If they're using their official powers they're not culpable, if they're acting outside the bounds of their powers they should be prosecuted.

The actual problem is that the President has too much power, not that the next administration should have the right to prosecute them for exercising it.

Post reply on HN