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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by [deleted] »

munchler wrote: post #626
paulvnickerson wrote: post #604

So many people reacting irrationally and misunderstanding what the ruling says. The first few pages are very readable, and I encourage all to read [1] - Actions within the President's conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority: Absolute immunity, in accordance with constitutional separation of powers. - Other actions done within an official capacity: Presumptive (though not full) immunity, to "to safe-guard t…

The president already has official authority to drone strike terrorists. All he has to do now is make an official determination that his political opponents are terrorists.

[deleted]

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

#912

Post by theshrike79 »

kristjansson wrote: post #526
theshrike79 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the US shouldn't be able to conduct any kind of military operations against any country they haven't declared war on?

Not without timely notification of and authorization by Congress.

So shooting at the Houthi rebels[0] would also require a declaration of war? Would that be against Yemen or the Houthis, who don't have a country?

https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthis-red-sea-shipping-ce...

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

#913

Post by goodluckchuck »

ceejayoz wrote: post #231
blue_dragon wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My naive assumption is that ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival is not an official nor constitutionally authorized power, and thus would be prosecutable.

The President is the Commander in Chief; issuing orders to the military is very much an official act. "But not for this! This would be clearly corrupt!" you may say, but the decision addresses that as well; the President's motive for the "official act" cannot be introduced as evidence! > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.

Not intent, but the location and nature of the order. If it’s not in a war zone, not targeting an enemy combatant, etc. that’s not an order that falls within the scope of the core actions of a commander in chief.

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

#915

Post by anon373839 »

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 found some time to read the main opinion and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent. I approached them both with a genuinely open mind because I figured that the public discourse lacked nuance.

Well, the opinion is just as awful as everyone has said. For one thing, it is dishonest. The court spends a lot of time distinguishing the different presidential powers and levels of immunity, as if its holding had limitations. It doesn’t. The practical effect of Trump v. U.S. is that it is all but impossible to prosecute even the most heinous abuses of presidential power.

For another thing, the court really couldn’t manage even a semblance of textual or historical support for its decision. Given the court’s recent emphasis on fidelity to those sources, it really is astonishing! (And I say this as someone who is somewhat sympathetic to textualism in principle.)

I think it’s really worthwhile to read at least the syllabus and Sotomayor’s dissent.

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

#916

Post by TeeMassive »

adriand wrote: post #716
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…

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…

I don't think this is the case. All military members of all branches are taught that they must not obey unlawful orders. Killing elected officials is clearly unlawful.

And the president is still subject to impeachment.

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

#917

Post by HTG43 »

There was no way the Supreme Court was going to make a ruling that didn’t provide a backdoor for former, current, and future presidents. Mainly because it might open the door to some of the decisions a president makes that could be perceived as having criminal fallout. For example, ordering a strike (missile or something else) that results in collateral damage to civilians. Official acts is one of the super broad statements that’s open to interpretation and will take years of case law (if that ever happens) to narrow down to what it actually means.

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

#918

Post by spacemanspiff01 »

TeeMassive wrote: post #916
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…

I don't think this is the case. All military members of all branches are taught that they must not obey unlawful orders. Killing elected officials is clearly unlawful. And the president is still subject to impeachment.

It may be unlawful, and it may fail because lower level officers refuse. But it seems like in that case the president cannot be charged. Lower level officers that go along with it could, but the president has the ability to pardon them.

So even if I some case they fail, there are no consequences so people can try again.

Yes there is also political considerations, but if the president feels confident enough to plan assainations of a rival, or for instance a coup with others in the executive branch, then he must feel he has that handled.

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

#919

Post by Hammershaft »

georgeplusplus wrote: post #910
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…

If you have to resort to such an extreme scenario then the ruling probably is a good one.

That scenario is from the dissenting opinion of justice sotomayer in the pdf brief. Trump's lawyers argued that immunity extends to assassinating political opponents.

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

#920

Post by scelerat »

adriand wrote: post #716
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…

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…

The Seal Team 6 example keeps getting batted around and that's unfortunate because it would be an extreme and obviously outrageous attack which would attract much unwanted attention.

Part of the ruling was that conversations between DOJ and President constitute the President's official duties and "therefore" (per the three judges appointed by Trump, one who expressed sympathies with Jan 6 rioters, and yet another whose wife was an active endorser and planner of aspects of the coup) those conversations are protected and cannot be entered as evidence in a criminal proceeding against the President.

The more insidious outcome is that the President can now, because these conversations are official, officially order the AG to investigate and prosecute political opponents.

Maybe some court can review it on down the line, years later. Given the number of judges appointed by Trump, maybe not. Either way, the federal government and rule of law was massively, severely crippled yesterday by the Supreme Court

Post reply on HN