Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts • Hacker News Board

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

#851

Post by awb » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:14 AM UTC

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?

I think it’s consistent with the philosophy that States should curtail the powers of the President through constitutional amendments.

It’s a strict constructionist interpretation, where the judiciary shouldn’t fix problems that the people, congress and States have the power to fix.

In the example of the President (Commander in Chief) directing the military to thwart political enemies, I think a strict constructionist might say, the people freely elected that President, 2/3 of States failed to pass an amendment curtailing the President’s unilateral command of the military and the Congress failed to impeach and convict the President, so the judiciary is hardly to blame when the people, congress and States all could have intervened if there was a concern.

There are obviously counter arguments to this strict constructionist view, which the minority documented. The counter-argument is basically, yes there are those other options, but we have to use a liberal interpretation in this moment instead of a strict interpretation in order to prevent some potential disastrous consequences. And if the people, states and congress don’t like our liberal interpretation, then they can overrule us using the same methods of voting, laws, constitutional amendments, etc. that the strict constructionists advocate.

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

#852

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:16 AM UTC

7e wrote: post #842

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…

I’m an FBI agent and I kill my wife. Am I immune from prosecution unless Congress appoints a special counsel, simply because I work in the executive branch?

[deleted]

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

#853

Post by snickerbockers » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:18 AM UTC

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.

* Bush fabricated evidence to start a war and never got prosecuted.

* Obama's administration literally sold guns to a Mexican drug cartel for no apparent reason.

* Reagan had iran/contra

* various different "collateral damage" fuckups under every administration during my lifetime where dozens of civilians are killed but nobody cared because they're poor, brown, and not American

* Kennedy authorized the CIA to raise a private army and launch an invasion of a country we weren't at war with.

And many more, this is but a small sample of the crimes presidents have committed.

But nobody ever gets held personally accountable for anything until Doritos Hitler comes along and commits a series of crimes which, while unconscionable, are comparatively minor next to the above listed. This ruling hasn't actually changed anything. It just codified something that has obviously been true for at least 80 years, and it prevented one party from selectively applying the law to a political opponent in a way which it almost never gets applied.

So my defense isn't that the president should be above the law (he shouldn't), but that he obviously already has been above the law for a very long time and pretending otherwise is just lying to yourself and the american people.

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

#854

Post by thatoneguy » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:27 AM UTC

7e wrote: post #842

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…

I’m an FBI agent and I kill my wife. Am I immune from prosecution unless Congress appoints a special counsel, simply because I work in the executive branch?

No, because you're not _in charge of_ the executive branch.

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

#855

Post by goodluckchuck » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:29 AM UTC

asdff wrote: post #846

itissid wrote: post #397

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.

But the official act is appointing the ambassador. Taking a bribe is not part of the official act of that. That's something else entirely not connected to that act at all, at least in my eyes. I'd hope the eyes of the law as well.

Yes. It does limit theoretically limit the evidence, but it’s the same crime whether they accept the money and follow through with the appointment or reneg and appoint someone else. The crime is in the solicitation.

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

#856

Post by goodluckchuck » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:32 AM UTC

lunarboy wrote: post #585

Surely the "impeachment exists" arguments are in bad faith. Otherwise, I'm convinced they've abandoned reason. Impeachment process takes time, and in that window, the president can do whatever. POTUS can even mobilize the army (an official power) to block congress from meeting, since apparently the motive behind the use of official power doesn't matter. If they can't meet, how are they going to impeach.

Impeachments take time because the impeachments we’ve had so far have tended to be political theater. I have no doubt that if there was a bi-partisan super-majority wanting to remove the president, they’d hop on a Zoom call and have it done by the close of business.

Edit: My example was going to be if the President addressed the nation and declared himself to be king… but Biden literally just did that, reluctantly accepting that he was beyond the review of the courts and accountable to no one but himself.

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

#857

Post by vharuck » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:34 AM UTC

asdff wrote: post #849

r_sreeram wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

I would hope the law isn't so loose in interpretation where people could get away this easily with this looney tunes legal defense. For example I used to work in a public capacity and we couldn't even take gifts, so I would think the president couldn't just say they were gifted a huge yacht or something for a wink wink nudge nudge, or else it would have been done by now.

You should read their recent decision in a corruption case. There is a federal law for agents of government bodies or organizations that receive above a certain threshold of federal money, saying they can't accept or solicit bribes or rewards for official acts. The reasoning is federal money shouldn't be squandered on crooked deals.

A mayor gave a large contract to a local business owner who then gave the mayor $13,000 in gifts and "advisory" fees. SCOTUS said that was okay, because the mayor didn't explicitly agree to a "quid pro quo" bribery deal before giving out the contract. They jumped through hoops to avoid the "rewards" part of the law.

So if you get your old public position back, you might be able to reap some SCOTUS-blessed rewards.

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

#858

Post by f38zf5vdt » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:37 AM UTC

goodluckchuck wrote: post #845

adriand wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They said in effect that using Seal Team 6 would be presumptively immune, and at that point the court would have to consider whether prosecuting a president for assassinating his rival would impose a chilling effect that would impair future presidents ability to command the armed forces. Since killing your domestic rival is not an important part of tactical wartime decisions, the government would easily overcome the…

The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Why would he have to stop at only his domestic rival when he could instead simply eliminate anyone who appears to be in the way, and whether or not that is the right decision is deferred to congress and the courts who now consist of people who are still alive and have fallen in line?

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

#859

Post by saboot » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:39 AM UTC

IamLoading wrote: post #257

riffic wrote: post #102

ah just laying the foundation for a lovely despotic future.

What is going on in our nation? its frustrating thing after thing. I honestly, need to unplug from news, and just focus on nature.

Hurry up, not much time left for that either.

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

#860

Post by hypothesis » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:41 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #843

adriand wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay, but invert that hypothetical. The American President orders a lot of people killed, including sometimes U.S. citizens. More commonly, they order things that result in significant loss of life, which could be prosecuted as negligent or reckless homicide. Should former presidents be subject to prosecution for those decisions? Remember that criminal laws are often extremely broad, and you can use conspiracy and ot…

> Why should we place such trust in prosecutors?

Why should we instead trust a single person with an absolute immunity for vague “official acts”? Said person is way more powerful than any of the prosecutors.