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

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

#671

Post by mywittyname » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:31 PM UTC

dustincoates wrote: post #29

ninininino wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the argument conservatives have been trying to make that aligns with the court's ruling is mostly about some very specific fear that an incoming or current president could prosecute former presidents and therefore crush dissent. So basically you have the right scared of former presidents being unjustly targeted in a way that threatens the democratic process, and then you have the left scared that the immuni…

> if these matters could be handled on a case by case basis rather than in some black and white "former presidents can" vs "former presidents can't" be prosecuted way That's largely what's happening here. The President _can_ be prosecuted for things that fall outside of the official role as President. This is not a blanket immunity.

This is the same loophole applied to qualified immunity in general. On the surface, it appears like there's criteria to consider, but such criteria cannot possibly exist.

It's like saying, "Bribery is only illegal if it is called bribery during the commission of the crime. But also, The State cannot investigate what was discussed during such events without evidence that a crime was committed." They are basically establishing legal paradoxes.

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

#672

Post by tdb7893 » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:31 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #647

tdb7893 wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it's not gonna happen as the party that benefits will block it The right and left are both railing against our justice system. At different levels. For different reasons. But that’s political capital on the floor. > Same with implementing ranked choice We have multiple jurisdictions with RCV [1]. Your purported impossibility has happened. > Systems always work to justify and perpetuate themselves We have reformed o…

The first point I feel like reinforces my point more than disproves it. Both sides clearly see the issues but won't actually reform while they benefit.

Ranked choice also has only been implemented in a few cases and generally by a ballot initiative (getting around the party structures somewhat).

To be fair systems do change but in general they use their power to resist it tooth and nail until change is inevitable and they collapse.

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

#673

Post by SubiculumCode » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

People mistake the Constitution as the fabric that holds our Republic together. Sure the articles stipulations set a framework, but it's built primarily around a common set of mores and walls beyond which is the pale. When a sizable proportion of Representatives, voters, etc, conduct themselves in a way that always maximizes short-term wins and power and and aimed at disempowering the opposition, that framework that is the Constitution is powerless to keep the Republic together. Is only the will of the people to stay together they'll keep them together.

In all our legislative executive and judicial war, there seems to be less and less reason for restraint, for avoiding constitutional crisis, and to grab power by whatever means so that the other side does not. This ruling by the Supreme Court, as many people are commenting on social media, creating Powers Biden too, and there seems little reason not for Biden to pack the court, for the Senate to go to majority rule and rid themselves of the filibuster.

If we keep pushing the boundaries we will fall, or we will reconfigure.

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

#674

Post by claytongulick » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #529

dustincoates wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. No, we do not. That's the whole point of the checks and balances. If his political opponents are able to prove their case before the courts, showing that the president broke the law, then they should be able to.

Are you willing to see Biden go to jail because an activist DA in TX used an obscure law that no one had ever been prosecuted under, in a 90+% "red" venue, with a complicit judge and jury?

This ruling is meant to protect the office from precisely these types of politically motivated attacks.

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

#675

Post by ImJamal » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #173

coffeemug wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Ever since Bill Clinton (and probably before that, I was too young) the President and a non-trivial number of presidential candidates were either under an investigation of some sort, or a threat of such an investigation. Obviously Bill, Hillary, constant threats of investigation of George W Bush and Obama, special counsel investigating Biden, and all the Trump cases. Notably nothing ever comes out of these. This…

[flagged]

Are you seriously suggesting that Democrats don't commit war crimes?

You should probably look up Obama's track record on this. Killing Americans without due process, torture, killing civilians, etc. Not to mention other crimes like the massive amount of spying on Americans. Don't forget Snowden revealed all his stuff during Obama's reign and those crimes were still ongoing.

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

#676

Post by camgunz » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

Honestly I just don't think the conservative Justices are that smart. Here's Roberts arguing that because something never happened (criminal prosecution of a former president) no one could have reasonably assumed it would happen:

> Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence.

Literally on the next page, here's Roberts arguing that though something has never happened (criminal prosecution of a former president) it is very likely to happen:

> The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “ ‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’ ” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid.

Just like, full on embarrassing. These guys need better clerks or something.

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

#677

Post by goda90 » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

claytongulick wrote: post #658

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…

> In today's political environment I don't see an impeachment ever succeeding unless the opposing party has a super-majority in the US Senate. It's supposed to be hard to do. Impeachment is intended to be reserved for egregious violations or actions that most of congress (and by proxy, the citizenry) agree on.

If only Congress were a proxy for the citizenry, but gerrymandering has ruined that.

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

#678

Post by SubiculumCode » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:33 PM UTC

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.

What the other guy said, but also there's court packing.

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

#679

Post by tines » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:33 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #632

tines wrote: post #550

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.

> 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.

> 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.

That's what I said, in different words.

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

#680

Post by SubiculumCode » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 9:33 PM UTC

alluro2 wrote: post #539

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…

I don't understand what weight impeachment still holds in today's world. Trump was impeached twice - and? If Trump, in his second term, is supposed to be held liable through fear of impeachment for his actions, I'm afraid it won't be the counter-weight the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Impeachment is not conviction.