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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by jaybrendansmith »

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.

Let's add a 3-strikes and your out! law. Thrice impeached Presidents get thrown out of office and need to sit in jail for 3 turns unless they roll a double. (Obviously a joke, but is joke is exactly what our Supreme Court is making out of our Constitutional Republic)

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

#802

Post by rayiner »

cogman10 wrote: post #567
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.

What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling. Further, it should be noted that the lower court already did exactly what the supreme court remanded back to them. They said "we don't know what sorts of immunity are granted to a president, but if there is any they are not granted, it's overturning an election as is accused in this specific case". The supre…

There is a criminal statute for that! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383. Appropriately titled "rebellion or insurrection." Trump was not charged under that statute.

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

#803

Post by NotMichaelBay »

nostromo wrote: post #334
grotorea wrote: post #268

It's interesting that even in the Roman Republic the immunity ended after the end of your term, and you could be prosecuted for official acts taken during it. And even let to Caesar fighting to keep himself in office at all times to avoid inevitable prosecution. https://theconversation.com/from-caesar-to-trump-immunity-is...

The prosecution of Trump was likely a big reason he's running again, for similar reasons. I'm not sure the prosecutors are even smart enough to realize they're the reason we're at where we're at.

Prosecutions*. And you say that as if their goal is to prevent Trump from becoming president again, instead of just... doing their job and prosecuting (alleged) criminals.

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

#804

Post by [deleted] »

ameister14 wrote: post #169
enragedcacti wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its more like "immunity for any action within the realm of presidential power, regardless of motive or criminality". Accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon would be A-ok on the basis that pardoning is a “conclusive and preclusive” authority of the president. > The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. Literally no one was arguing for this and there are much more reasonable in…

No, the act undertaken in exchange for the bribe would be under the immunity umbrella but the act of taking the bribe would not.

[deleted]

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

#806

Post by curt15 »

cogman10 wrote: post #567
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.

What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling. Further, it should be noted that the lower court already did exactly what the supreme court remanded back to them. They said "we don't know what sorts of immunity are granted to a president, but if there is any they are not granted, it's overturning an election as is accused in this specific case". The supre…

> What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling.

The ruling basically says the only way for the case to move forward is to determine what parts of Trump's conduct can be deemed "unofficial".

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

#807

Post by LarsDu88 »

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…

The solution is simple. When one of the two old men besmirches the other, they shall challenge each other to a gentlemanly duel. The survivor, if any shall become the next president. Owing to the advanced age of both candidates and the advancements in firearms technology, the dueling weapons will be full auto drum magazine AR-15 assault rifles as per the American tradition.
Post reply on HN