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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by [deleted] »

asdff wrote: post #531
BadHumans wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the Court killing the Chevron Deference, they have given themselves all the power to decide what is an official act and what isn't. Anything not spelled out in plain terms will be interpreted by them and nothing is spelled in plain terms.

I though the chevron deference related to how federal orgs like e.g. the epa pen their own policy and trying to put that policy writing power back into the legislative branch vs through the executive who appoints these orgs? I am not educated in law and would like to clear up some of my misunderstanding.

[deleted]

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

#692

Post by lolinder »

BadHumans wrote: post #456
asdff wrote: post #447

Can anyone pencil out the real danger of this position? Sotomayors opinion seems to posit that a president can receive a bribe and pardon someone for that and this is an official, immune act. However, I don't think soliciting a bribe would be considered an official act of the POTUS, and by what I have been able to understand from this opinion would still be subject to prosecution. I also think that this opinion seems…

With the Court killing the Chevron Deference, they have given themselves all the power to decide what is an official act and what isn't. Anything not spelled out in plain terms will be interpreted by them and nothing is spelled in plain terms.

This comment is a classic example of the ridiculous state of discourse around the Supreme Court right now on HN. So many people are trying to process legal theories through the amygdala and the result is a legal word soup that doesn't actually have any meaning.

Chevron deference has absolutely zero to do with this and never would have. I'd go deeper, but Brandolini's Law is real and I simply don't have the energy any more.

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

#693

Post by beaeglebeachedd »

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 sortition. I would apply it liberally and use it for most legislative offices. Elections and appointments tend to bring out the worst of society -- the kind who actually want power over peoples' lives.

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

#694

Post by jkic47 »

Buttons840 wrote: post #154
jkic47 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take your point, but quick action is occasionally necessary. Presidents knowing that their actions could be second guessed are more likely to use the minimum force needed to achieve an objective.

We ask every soldier to put their life on the line. But do we dare ask our President to subject himself to our laws? I mean, if Obama went to prison for the drone strikes he ordered, his sacrifice would be less than many common soldiers have made. I want Presidents willing to put their lives on the line and their actions under the law. Is that too much to ask?

Great rhetorical question, but do consider these points: 1. we ask everyone to do their individual jobs. In a soldier's case, loss of life is a job hazard. In the President's case, making tough decisions that could kill soldiers and civilians is a job hazard 2. The assassination rate for US Presidents is 8.7% (4/46 Presidents were assassinated). 3. There were 1,922 US combat deaths in Afghanistan (ref 1) and at the peak of the war, there were 100,000 troops there (ref 2). If you ignore all the other years of deployment, a US soldier's death risk in Afghanistan was 1.9%

Numbers are hard when they go against our intuition, but every US President is taking a comparable risk to being a soldier according to these numbers.

Obama took the risk of being a President while Black Trump took the risk of being a President while Orange

Ref 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan... 2. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/07/06/...

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

#695

Post by lolinder »

asdff wrote: post #447

Can anyone pencil out the real danger of this position? Sotomayors opinion seems to posit that a president can receive a bribe and pardon someone for that and this is an official, immune act. However, I don't think soliciting a bribe would be considered an official act of the POTUS, and by what I have been able to understand from this opinion would still be subject to prosecution. I also think that this opinion seems…

[flagged]

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

#696

Post by moshun »

jampekka wrote: post #419
lolinder wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To give the majority opinion its own voice: > The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energ…

"It's not illegal when the president does it."

Turns out Nixon won the battle for an American dictatorship after all. Well played, Dick.

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

#697

Post by insane_dreamer »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #602
insane_dreamer wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't agree with the strikes, such action was generally authorized by Congress (thanks to the "war on terror") which was never since rescinded by Congress. So was not unconstitutional.

The constitution clearly says that a declaration of war is needed, and only short periods of action that are necessary in the interim can be taken by the president absent that. Congress does not have the authority to simply pass a law invalidating that. They did it, but it is most certainly not constitutional.

Then the question is whether the law passed by Congress was unconstitutional, which would have nothing to do with Obama. First someone with standing would have to challenge the law and then it would make its way up through the courts. But I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would uphold it (as much as I would want it struck down along with the Patriot Act and other "war on terror" measures).

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

#698

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

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.

There have been instances in the past where the US military has assassinated US citizens that they deemed terrorists. Search for "Anwar al-Awlaki".

Under this ruling, it would be entirely possible for Biden to declare Trump a direct danger to the republic and, as commander in chief, order him to be assassinated. Of course the "officialness" of this would be debated in the courts, but the reason so many find this ruling unconscionable is that it does basically say "the President is above the law - he just needs to do things under the guise of official acts".

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

#699

Post by tacticalturtle »

openasocket wrote: post #496
ClarityJones wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible. I think we have fundamentally different views of the Executive's role. We have 3 branches of government, and the President is the guy who enforces the law. The Justice department is not a 4th branch of government.

The Executive branch does have the authority to enforce laws, but that authority is not absolute. The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "hey, that guy who committed murder, don't prosecute him, because he promised to pay me a lot of money if I let him off". The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "stop investigating me and my political allies or I'll fire you". That second one is…

> The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "stop investigating me and my political allies or I'll fire you". That second one is what led to Nixon having to resign.

There’s definitely nothing legally stopping the president from doing this. This was the Saturday Night Massacre.

The only thing that can stop this is public perception and the threat of impeachment then removal by the Senate.

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

#700

Post by hughesjj »

mixologic wrote: post #591
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 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 fe…

They also specifically called out any dealings with the justice department as being legal (like what was going on with comey way back when)
Post reply on HN