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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by gunapologist99 »

tootie wrote: post #736
lolinder wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 wha…

You're right, this is a high-emotion one and probably doesn't belong on HN at all, since it is just devolving into a poorly informed flame war. (although Lawfare itself is not an objective observer either.)

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

#742

Post by rayiner »

selimthegrim wrote: post #702
rayiner wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d be okay with that, but only if we have a review process where all Warren Court decisions are re-vetted by the newly constituted Supreme Court. You can’t spend half the 20th century having “judicial oligarchs” rewrite the constitution and then complain when a few court decisions go the other way. But what would be more fun is for the current Supreme Court to adopt the “emanations from penumbras” philosophy of judg…

Why stop there? Why not go back to Lochner?

That’s what I suggested:

> But what would be more fun is for the current Supreme Court to adopt the “emanations from penumbras” philosophy of judging, and do that for a couple of decades.

Let’s see what “emanations from penumbras” we can find in the contract clause, second amendment, tenth amendment, etc. If only conservatives had the sense to use Roe as a template for how to judging should work.

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

#743

Post by HaZeust »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #18
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?

If presidents could be prosecuted for their official acts then the next time the other party takes over they will just immediately find various crimes their predecessor “committed” (there are probably 10s of 1000s of them).

This wasn't even a problem before the last 4 years, and the only times it were - was when the suspecting president agreed they broke the law and stepped down, or got impeached.

We have monarchy after monarchy to show that sovereign immunity builds toxic ontological relationships between participants of a political system, and often invites tyranny. Your suspicions, for 238 years straight, have been amiss.

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

#744

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#745

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#746

Post by [deleted] »

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]

[deleted]

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

#747

Post by lolinder »

tootie wrote: post #736
lolinder wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 wha…

> Sonia Sotomayor is writing this is a threat to democracy. That carries a lot of weight.

Frankly, it doesn't carry much weight with me. The dissents this cycle have increasingly felt like they're more political tools to try to rile up the Democratic base for the next election than they are legal opinions sincerely held. They're written to have maximum quotability and memetic transmission, and that means they're constantly emotionally charged.

(Note that I'm saying this as a Biden voter who really wishes that Trump weren't poised to take office.)

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

#748

Post by ethbr1 »

ensignavenger wrote: post #731
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.

If it gets interpreted more clearly this way in subsequent Supreme Court decisions (because there will definitely be 1+), then I like the ruling.

To me, it's clear that there's {President-the-President} and {President-the-candidate}. Furthermore, campaign staff are explicitly not federal employees nor members of the executive branch.

What really needs to happen, and I believe what the Court was promoting the legislative branch to do, is for Congress to pass laws circumscribing Presidential authority specifically around elections.

In the form of can-do and can't-do.

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

#749

Post by electrondood »

rayiner wrote: post #732
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.

In software development, one of the biggest smells is being asked to implement a solution to something that isn't a problem that anyone actually has.

In 250 years, for 44 presidents, not one of them has needed immunity from criminal prosecution.

All this does is shield the man who attempted to use violence and a conspiracy to commit election fraud with a fake slate of electors to reverse the result of a legitimate decision.

To call this milquetoast is to continue the gaslighting. This decision has permanently altered the American Experiment.

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

#750

Post by monetus »

ensignavenger wrote: post #731
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.

Nixon still had the presidency as he ran for reelection, allowing for the argument that tapes of anyone under the Whitehouse's employ were inadmissible official acts.
Post reply on HN