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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by ensignavenger »

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…

How do you conclude that? It is my understanding that the Nixon tapes were recordings of conversations Nixon had with campaign staff as a candidate, and as the Supreme Court held, actions taken as a candidate are not official actions and are therefore not subject to immunity.

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

#732

Post by rayiner »

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…

Why do you keep using the word “corruption?” This is an incredibly milquetoast opinion that says presidents retain immunity for some official acts while in office. Because that’s obviously true. When Trump wins again, he can’t prosecute Biden for deaths caused by Biden’s border policies. Because obviously. It’s shameful that it wasn’t 9-0.

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

#733

Post by tines »

demosthanos wrote: post #670
munchler wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'r…

The other problem is that we have no idea what "official acts" are.

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

#734

Post by HaZeust »

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.

It is not de jure blanket immunity, but when terminologies like "official acts" aren't clearly defined, and have an innate bias for slippery-sloping - given the nature of the President's office - it becomes de-facto blanket immunity.

It doesn't invoke sovereign immunity through a loud roar, but from an understood nod.

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

#735

Post by jameshart »

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.

Conviction at impeachment can result in removal from office and being barred from holding office again.

It requires the senate to do its job though.

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

#736

Post by tootie »

lolinder wrote: post #695
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]

You can see the hot emotions right in the dissent. Sonia Sotomayor is writing this is a threat to democracy. That carries a lot of weight.

Try this live reaction from the Lawfare crew:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-live--scotus-ru...

They are ripping this apart not just on it's merits, but how oddly it's constructed. They established a framework for assigning immunity and then leave completely open what the test is to assign actions to the framework, then list a bunch of Trump's activities that are definitely immune and none that are not, and then Clarence Thomas says the DOJ can't empower special counsels apropos of nothing (except the documents case that is not before the court).

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

#737

Post by ethbr1 »

philjohn wrote: post #669
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…

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?

I'm curious how that one gets interpreted in subsequent lower court (and Supreme Court) opinions.

It feels like once an act is to be classified as unofficial, then evidence of same cannot be covered, regardless of whether it's personal or not.

So maybe whittled down to "You can't go on an investigation of the President's personal/private documents because you have a suspicion of an unofficial act." Which feels more like the Supreme Court's intent.

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

#738

Post by gunapologist99 »

tcmart14 wrote: post #707
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.

Which seems reasonable on its face, but it faces another issue. Now, what defines an 'official' act as president. And how loose do we want to play with those terms. If we want to play slippery slope, which is what the court seems to like to do, then something that should be illegal but can be deemed an official act is a President ordering the military to keep voters out of voting locations because they have a 'tip of…

The Court said what defines an 'official' act was up to lower courts to decide, which seems eminently reasonable.

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

#739

Post by selimthegrim »

nickburns wrote: post #655
mywittyname wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are terrible points! Asserting that a special prosecutor is akin to a private prosecutor is absurd. They are just like other prosecutors, the only reason to use a special prosecutor is to avoid making the case seem political. Also, the fact that other Presidents did illegal shit and we didn't prosecute them, thus they are above the law is also absurd. The current ruling whips out the, "there's nothing in the co…

> These are terrible points! Asserting that a special prosecutor is akin to a private prosecutor is absurd. what, pray tell, is a "private prosecutor"?

You can bring private prosecution at the state level. edit: in certain states

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

#740

Post by jameshart »

pyuser583 wrote: post #60
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. The Founders envisioned an extremely weak criminal justice system, especially for "their class of people." Defendants were given extremely strong protections, and convictions were the exception, not the rule. The Founders were more concerned about facing a duel than a criminal conviction. So they added other mechanisms for presidential accountability: impeachment, elections, and the weakness of the office. Thes…

This is an excellent point. Under the current ‘history and tradition’ doctrine of the Supreme Court the moment in the debate last week where Biden challenged Trump to a round of golf on condition he carry his own bag should be treated as a challenge to a duel. That is after all how the founders would have settled this sort of matter.
Post reply on HN