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

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

#921

Post by ModernMech » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 1:24 PM UTC

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #80

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?

You have a whole congress and senate to hold them accountable. If they haven’t, then why should a random prosecutor in a city court be able to issue an arrest warrant and prosecute the leader of the country? Without immunity you’ll get the kind of shit they’ve done with trump, but against sitting presidents. Imagine if Obama had been arrested every time he entered Texas because the locals just feel like prosecuting h…

We don't have to imagine, because it didn't happen, because it's not and was not and won't be a real problem.

Okay, but now that hypothetical problem is solved, we have the opposite hypothetical problem. Let's see if it turns out to be more of an actual problem compared to your imaginary one, which never materialized in 250 years of the presidency.

My guess is it's going to be an actual problem almost immediately, as soon as someone with low moral character is elected. Wonder how long that will take.

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

#922

Post by spiralk » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 1:28 PM UTC

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.

Is this not a problem given impeachment votes will follow party lines? A party with the presidency and with >1/3 of the senate would have unchecked power. As long as there are individuals who are willing to execute the orders (who can later be pardoned), the president could delay elections or eliminate political rivals indefinitely. The system of checks and balances were put in place by the founders assuming each party will serve their own interests. Politics aside, if this immunity is given to the president, the current system would provide no checks for the executive branch of a party willing to exercise the full extent of those powers. People would essentially be expecting on good faith each election that the president will not become a dictator; there would be no procedure to actually prevent that.

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

#923

Post by willmadden » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 1:30 PM UTC

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…

That's wrong. The President can still be impeached and convicted by Congress. What this prevents is the weaponization of partisan courts anywhere in the Country against a President for actions they took while in office.

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

#924

Post by Valakas_ » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 1:38 PM UTC

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.

"The president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal."

"Such a problem this thing called 'law' that people made, doesn't let me govern. If only i could do everything i want without having to concern myself with such petty things."

I can't believe this is the type of argument people are using to defend this abysmal situation. The US should have invested more in teaching kids about fascism and identifying its signs. Unbelievable that people are so blind to what's going on.

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

#925

Post by RavingGoat » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:02 PM UTC

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.

It makes the president a king. If Trump gets reelected do you think he will ever leave office? If you think that's far fetched then you haven't read Project 2025 where he can replace weather service employees that don't make forecasts he likes.

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

#926

Post by ClarityJones » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:02 PM UTC

api wrote: post #815

alberth wrote: post #808

Unitary Executive Theory The movie “Vice” explains well what this is about. It’s was originally imploded by President George W Bush. https://youtu.be/_UPvTdDB-h0 —- SCOTUS essentially ruled in favor of this theory.

I always wonder about these kinds of power play doctrines: do they really think only people they like will ever be in power? Same question applies to either party when they push stuff like this.

The opinion is not nearly as broad as certain sources say it is. What it actually says is that immunity as to "core" powers is absolute, but it doesn't define the scope of those powers. It says other official powers have some immunity, but are not immune basically if allowing the prosecution wouldn't impair future presidents. Those are both exceptions that are larger than the rule.

Some are saying it is broader than it is because they want charges to be dismissed. Others are saying it's broader because they want a more powerful executive. Others are saying it try to make the court look bad, or to get votes. Some are saying it because they're mistaken / confused. On 4 out of 5 counts, the court remanded for further proceedings without deciding whether Trump has immunity. All of these voices could have easily come out with a different take, claiming victory and saying he will likely be convicted on most counts.

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

#927

Post by chkn » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:08 PM UTC

willmadden wrote: post #923

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…

That's wrong. The President can still be impeached and convicted by Congress. What this prevents is the weaponization of partisan courts anywhere in the Country against a President for actions they took while in office.

Yes the courts are clearly more partisan than Congress

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

#928

Post by ttyprintk » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:08 PM UTC

scelerat wrote: post #920

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…

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 who…

Agree with your sentiment. But overseeing elections is not the official duty of either Trump or Biden, that goes to individual states. And using the military to neutralize political opponents is only extreme if Biden does it. Trump openly wants military tribunals for treason against his opponents, which is his way of grasping for jurisdiction in ordering military intervention in the halls of power.

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

#929

Post by stevenAthompson » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:20 PM UTC

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…

Did they forget that Biden is currently President? What's to stop the sitting President from just rounding up the former President and all of his supporters athen locking them in a cave until after the election?

Couldn't he just make up some BS about a national security threat to make it "official"?

Did we just become a monarchy?

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

#930

Post by ttyprintk » Tue, Jul 02, 2024, 2:23 PM UTC

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…

Those wouldn’t be crimes. They cannot produce evidence. As of this ruling, it looks like:

- Biden issues a prepardon essentially deputizing anyone who detains Eric Trump or Eric’s laptop.

- We might endure some debate whether it is an official act. That debate actually only matters to Congress or future historians.

- Since the extrajudicial apprehension of Eric and his evidence is defined as not-criminal, there is no need to preserve details. Seal Team 6 and those involved enjoy a prepardon and some assurance that their names are scrubbed.

- This is constitutional if Congress has granted the President (Biden at this point) war powers and is satisfied that some elements of the military identified Eric Trump with the enemy. We’ll debate whether the President is a member of the military, just as we had to debate whether he was an officer of the USA under Amendment 14, section 3.