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

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

#861

Post by sramam » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:42 AM UTC

LarsDu88 wrote: post #807

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…

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.

I am torn between marveling at the satire of this comment and crying at the truth it reveals

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

#862

Post by tedd4u » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:45 AM UTC

crdrost wrote: post #834

whatever1 wrote: post #160

I understand why during their presidency the president needs to be immune (so that they can focus on their executive duties instead of spending their day in the court). But AFTER the end of their (last) term why not be held accountable for their actions?

I strongly recommend reading the actual decision, this is one of the topics that they address inside of this. The claimed absolute immunity only extends to "official actions" made in discharging the responsibilities of the office, although a presumptive immunity (which is an immunity that a court could overrule based on lawyers' arguments that it doesn't apply) extends all the way towards the "outer perimeter" of the…

Sotomayor's dissent [1] is a must-read as well. She's more concerned than you are.

    The President of the United States is the
    most powerful person in the country, and possibly the
    world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under
    the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from
    criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to as-
    sassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military
    coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex-
    change for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

[1] Search for "SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting" in this PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

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

#863

Post by hedora » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:48 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…

A future court might rule that.

This court would rule that people upset about the president assassinating all their rivals should just get elected president and change the policy.

After all, they already did say that women that want health care and the right to prevent (according to the court) overwhelmingly male politicians from messing with their lady bits should just run for Supreme Court and overturn their recent rulings.

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

#864

Post by salawat » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 3:01 AM UTC

umvi wrote: post #542

riffic wrote: post #102

ah just laying the foundation for a lovely despotic future.

Seems like the alternative is equally dystopian though. If ex-presidents don't have immunity for their actions in office, then every ex-president will have to fend off a flurry of lawsuits and prosecution attempts by the opposite party. It would be an absolute circus and turn the office of president into a joke.

Fitzgerald gives them immunity from civil prosecutions. That was mentioned by Sotomayor. Fitzgerald explicitly does not provide the same immunity from criminal prosecutions; specifically because the protections for a defendant and burden of proof are so much greater than a mere civil case.

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

#865

Post by salawat » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 3:13 AM UTC

tines wrote: post #550

locococo wrote: post #517

I think a big problem here is that all existing laws and the system concerning presidents rests on one very important assumption. That the commander in chief is a decent, rational human being that carefully considers his actions and holds the interest of the United States and the Citizens in high regards. It all falls apart and gets too complicated to regulate when the assumption is that you can't trust the person in…

I don't think this is true. The constitution was designed with the idea of preventing a king from coming to power. The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.

Actually more along the lines of:

An individual can be bad, but where they are, a group can generally be relied upon to rein them in. Groups can also be bad, but generally when individuals are removed from a group context, better sense prevails.

Juries balance the judge, just as the judge balances out the jury.

The Senate balances the House, just as the House balances the Senate.

The President only found balance in the checks of the other two branches, and the good sense and consciences of the electors in the Electoral College, who were empowered to be able to ignore the popular vote if upon vote casting time, their good sense deemed otherwise once they were removed from the influence of group dynamics.

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

#866

Post by LeafItAlone » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 3:15 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…

> What I feel like the dissent misses completely, which is quite ironic given Justice Sotomayor’s history in private practice

Why do you presume that the dissent did not consider this? What are your qualifications to think you’ve considered this more completely than the SCOTUS (whether or not you agree)?

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

#867

Post by lupire » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 3:20 AM UTC

awb wrote: post #371

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…

On paper it makes sense. The people elect a congress charged with checking the powers of the President. States can also pass constitutional amendments to further limit or define the powers of the President. In reality, power can be consolidated to the point where these checks and balances no longer work properly.

And that's point where the SC is irrelevant. You can't paperwork your way out of civil war when the people want one.

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

#868

Post by sterlind » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 3:28 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 presumptive immunity standard only applies to official acts that aren't "core" exercises of the President's constitutional authority. Any enumerated power is core and enjoys absolute immunity, regardless of motive; anything unenumerated but "official" has merely presumptive immunity.

The President's power as Commander in Chief is enumerated, so having Seal Team 6 whack DeSantis would be absolutely immune to prosecution.

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

#869

Post by QuizzicalCarbon » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 3:47 AM UTC

tines wrote: post #763

Ancapistani wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Good. If it were easy to bring charges against a President, then Presidents wouldn't be able to do anything they were elected to do. Leaving aside the difference between "bringing charges" and "successfully bringing charges," there's a big gap between "easy" and "impossible." Nobody wants presidents to be criminally liable for the things they do in good faith. But this ruling makes good faith irrelevant; it doesn't…

I honestly can’t tell if you’re talking about Hunter Biden’s laptop, which many leaders of the intelligence community claimed was fake Russian disinfo, only to be recently admitted into court evidence as being real and factual. Who exerted pressure on those officials to lie to the public before the last presidential election?

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

#870

Post by brianaker » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 3:51 AM UTC

comex wrote: post #685

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…

You're mixing together a few different things. - Trump's lawyers argued in this case that an ex-president can only be charged with a crime if he was impeached and convicted for that same act. But all of the justices rejected this view today. The newly granted immunity is orthogonal to whether or not the president is impeached. - Though, the president does have to leave office somehow before he can be prosecuted. He c…

Trump's attorneys did not say "the special counsel that prosecuted him was not properly appointed by an act of Congress", Justice Thomas brought this up in oral arguments. Trump's attorneys admitted in oral arguments that they had not brought this up during the appeal, so as an argument it was not saved.

Further more, historically there is no basis for the argument. Special prosecutors, which are different from the "independent counsel" that came about after Nixon; the laws around "independent counsel" expired a while ago.

"Special counsel", and all of the other similarly named, have been around since Marbury. By happenstance, some have been X-members of Congress, Cabinet members, etc... but far from all.

There is a reason why none of the other Justices brought this up, it is absurdist.