841–850 of 1001 posts
Really expected result. How would the US not give their presidents immunity. This counts for all of them not only for Trump and in conjunction anything else would simply be impossible.
Meanwhile there are people in the comments saying this is the end of our democracy lol
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…
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…
This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided there was no question that Mr. Trump enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted for one of those methods: his efforts to strong-arm the Justice Department into validating his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud. That was…
Should former presidents be subject to prosecution for those decisions? Remember that criminal laws are often extremely broad, and you can use conspiracy and other legal theories to make someone liable who didn’t perform the actual killing. Heck, part of the J6 prosecution against Trump somehow involves an Enron-era document shredding law.
What I feel like the dissent misses completely, which is quite ironic given Justice Sotomayor’s history in private practice, is that not having any sort of immunity means trusting every prosecutor in the country with pretty much unrestricted discretion to stitch together vague criminal laws into criminal charges against former presidents. Why should we place such trust in prosecutors?
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.
I happen to agree that he should be kept out of office, but I'd rather that be done by putting him up against an electable opponent than by giving his base yet more fodder for their belief that they're being collectively persecuted.
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…
This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided there was no question that Mr. Trump enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted for one of those methods: his efforts to strong-arm the Justice Department into validating his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud. That was…
Barret mentioned that: If one bribes the president in appointment of an official - like an embassador - since the appointment of the embassador is an official act, under this ruling, one cannot bring this as evidence to the jury in a criminal trial because it was part of an official act.
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. That's why I'm opposed to making changes to the way the Court is selected and empaneled. The fact that it's inconvenient for one party right now is irrelevant. It'll be inconvenient for the other party soon enough. > In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring ch…
well last transition got a little exciting lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
And the other half wholeheartedly endorses convicting a certain candidate of something , anything to keep him out of office. I happen to agree that he should be kept out of office, but I'd rather that be done by putting him up against an electable opponent than by giving his base yet more fodder for their belief that they're being collectively persecuted.
There's a strong argument that the candidate in question shouldn't be in the position he was in is because he acted inappropriately. Not just in demeanor and professionalism, but he has several ongoing criminal trials going right now. There is a real possibility that he committed treason.
But even so, no one is really opposed to him gaining office if that's what truly people want. At that point, the concern is what the hell is wrong with the people that voted him in, and what the hell happened to get the population to that point. My guess is Reagan.
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…
The article explains this concern: > One example not relevant to this case but which came up in arguments was the hypothetical payment of a bribe in return for an ambassadorial appointment. Under Monday’s decision, a former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case. So, imagine: Prosecution: You took a bribe! Defense: Bribe?…
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.
As a trivial example: imagine you are charged with a misdemeanor you absolutely didn’t do. Assuming you have no previous criminal record the state offers you a civil penalty (ie an expensive speeding ticket).
Are you going to go to trial knowing you could be sentenced to a year in prison? Keep in mind just paying an attorney to represent you through the trial will cost several times the civil penalty.