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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by mpalmer »

janalsncm wrote: post #402
mpalmer wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fails to acknowledge that today's decision has a weak/non-existent constitutional basis. I defy anyone to craft any political system or subset thereof that correctly anticipates societal shifts over the course of two and a half centuries.

You don’t need to anticipate societal shifts, you need to empower the political system to handle them. As for the longevity of the U.S., there’s a strong argument that it has in fact not lasted 250 or so years, and that the reconstruction era amendments created a qualitatively different, more centralized country. But even if we ignore that, the U.S. has a lot going for it that has nothing to do with politics. Two oce…

It doesn't quite follow that you highlight the need for a political system to handle shifts, then suggest that amending the constitution is not such a form of flexibility, but a transformation into another country entirely.

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

#812

Post by tdeck »

alberth wrote: post #808

Unitary Executive Theory The movie “Vice” explains well what this is about. It’s was originally imploded by President George W Bush. https://youtu.be/_UPvTdDB-h0 —- SCOTUS essentially ruled in favor of this theory.

Unitary executive theory: Something conservatives on the Supreme Court came up with to defend any government action they like.

Major questions doctrine: Something conservatives on the Superme Court came up with to defeat any government action they don't like.

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

#813

Post by mullingitover »

claytongulick wrote: post #648
mullingitover wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, plus the opinions should not be signed, and dissenting opinions should not be published at all. The current system seems like it’s designed to aggravate politics in the very branch that’s intended to be beyond them.

Dissenting opinions are a crucial part of the process. They're frequently cited by lower courts and in future supreme court cases. The supremes don't always get it right. Dissenting opinions are the mechanism for expressing that reality.

We let them be part of the process by tradition. They’re not constitutional, and they’re irrelevant to the outcome. They’re essentially a participation trophy and they politicize the opinions by offering a glimpse of what could’ve been if the court was packed differently.

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

#814

Post by starspangled »

autoexec wrote: post #536
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.

Ordering the murder of someone is their official duty as commander in chief of the military. The only thing they have to do is say they feel that a person was a threat to national security.

Anwar al-Awlaki. An American who was executed on the orders of the president who claimed he was a threat to national security, and faced no judicial consequences for.

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

#815

Post by api »

alberth wrote: post #808

Unitary Executive Theory The movie “Vice” explains well what this is about. It’s was originally imploded by President George W Bush. https://youtu.be/_UPvTdDB-h0 —- SCOTUS essentially ruled in favor of this theory.

I always wonder about these kinds of power play doctrines: do they really think only people they like will ever be in power?

Same question applies to either party when they push stuff like this.

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

#816

Post by dTal »

qarl wrote: post #762
pyuser583 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Convictions are in the high 90%. Juries are very weak and at the mercy of powerful prosecutors. If that were true then defendants would waive their right to a jury trial. They don't. The conviction rate is high because prosecutors don't bring weak cases.

>If that were true then defendants would waive their right to a jury trial. They don't.

They do, overwhelmingly. Plea bargaining accounts for almost 98 percent of federal convictions and 95 percent of state convictions in the United States.

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

#817

Post by 3836293648 »

api wrote: post #815
alberth wrote: post #808

Unitary Executive Theory The movie “Vice” explains well what this is about. It’s was originally imploded by President George W Bush. https://youtu.be/_UPvTdDB-h0 —- SCOTUS essentially ruled in favor of this theory.

I always wonder about these kinds of power play doctrines: do they really think only people they like will ever be in power? Same question applies to either party when they push stuff like this.

They control SCOTUS, they can just undo it when the president does something they don't like.

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

#818

Post by DEADMINCE »

kemotep wrote: post #310

My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…

> Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring charges against a president,

In context though, it's quite terrifying given how much the US has fallen into tribalism. Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did.

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

#819

Post by wumeow »

api wrote: post #815
alberth wrote: post #808

Unitary Executive Theory The movie “Vice” explains well what this is about. It’s was originally imploded by President George W Bush. https://youtu.be/_UPvTdDB-h0 —- SCOTUS essentially ruled in favor of this theory.

I always wonder about these kinds of power play doctrines: do they really think only people they like will ever be in power? Same question applies to either party when they push stuff like this.

They’re betting that the Democrats won’t have the guts to test the limits of this ruling.

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

#820

Post by mandmandam »

DEADMINCE wrote: post #818
kemotep wrote: post #310

My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…

> Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring charges against a president, In context though, it's quite terrifying given how much the US has fallen into tribalism. Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN