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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by lannisterstark »

alistairSH wrote: post #31
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?

This is like qualified immunity (usually for police), but applied to POTUS. You want public servants to be able to do their jobs without fear of time-wasting litigation. But, if you grant blanket immunity, the poilice (or POTUS) are free to do whatever they want. We're quite clearly tilted way over into "do what they want" territory.

That's not a defense though - because of qualified immunity, cops get to be rampant authoritarians with 0 recourse for most people.

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

#882

Post by dudinax »

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…

That's utter garbage. Juries acquit people when the cases are weak and defendents have the same rights they always have had probably more.

Prosecutors don't go to trial unless they have a solid case especially against a former pres.

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

#883

Post by remarkEon »

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?

Here's the link to the actual Opinion, which is worth reading because the arguments are complicated and nuanced - and this makes sense, because no former president has faced criminal charges before. The reporting on this topic is atrocious.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

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

#884

Post by dudinax »

throwadobe wrote: post #518
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?

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.

Their definition of official act includes ordering an officer to take an official act.

So if the pres has anyone who can kill someone for legal reasons this decision allows the pres to use that person to kill for illegal reasons.

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

#885

Post by Den_VR »

dudinax wrote: post #876
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…

There's no provision in the constitution for immunity. They made it up there's nothing reasonable about it. Under this decision the president can commit a crime or order someone else to commit a crime, and as long as the crime is committed using a power of the office, it can't be charged. For example, if in an official communication the president orders an officer to solicit a bribe for doing their duty, the presiden…

[dead]

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

#886

Post by 7e »

paulddraper wrote: post #873
7e wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. An FBI agent and president are two different things.

Wow, really? Thanks!

The point is that both wield executive power, yet one person in the executive can be prosecuted only by Congress and the rest not. Illogical.

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

#887

Post by 7e »

thatoneguy wrote: post #854
7e wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is that a meaningful distinction? If so, why?

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

#888

Post by shiroiushi »

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…

So America needs to re-legalize duels then?

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

#889

Post by ac29 »

dudinax wrote: post #878
awb wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No it doesn't. There's nothing in the constitution that grants immunity to a president and no reason why Donald Trump had to commit the crimes he's charged with.

If every past, present, and future legal scenario was explicitly and unambiguously addressed by the constitution, we wouldnt need the Supreme Court.

In reality it is an imperfect document that can never possibly be complete.

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

#890

Post by kristjansson »

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…

> and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes

The opinion explicitly rejects this line of reasoning.

> Transforming that political process [impeachment] into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government

Post reply on HN