"If the president does it, that makes it legal." -- Richard Nixon
I couldn't believe Nixon said that, but he actually did! (approximately)
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/transcript-of-d...
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
931–940 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#932The Constitution reads:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
[...]
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
This:
"Impeachment for, and Conviction of"
"Impeachment for and Conviction of"
"Judgement in cases of Impeachment"
"Conviction in cases of Impeachment"
Such would imply that presidents can be Impeached and Judged, and Convicted.
(Furthermore, it clear that the founders' intent was not to create an immune King.)
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#933Earlier 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…
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?
well it's a lot closer to a monarchy than before. All the president has to do is use the official stationary, it seems.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#934This shifts the whole debate to what constitutes "official" versus "unofficial" acts. Presumably the president can't order his subordinates to commit crimes, or unlawful orders.
Rep. Adam Schiff gave the following interpretation: "Effectively giving a president immunity for any crimes committed while in office as long as that president can plausibly claim the action was taken in some form of official capacity. It must now be presumed that the president, as king, is immune from accountability."
https://www.militaryjusticecenter.com/blog/2022/03/can-you-r...
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#935Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring charges against a president, In context though, it's quite terrifying given how much the US has fallen into tribalism. Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did.
> Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did. And the other half would convict him no matter what.
Nonsense.
The other half wants him tried fairly. We just expect he will be convicted because his guilt is more obvious than OJs was.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#936I'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 r…
As an Independent who is not voting for Trump or Biden and has largely stopped following the election drama:
Starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan post-September 11 (Bush -- Republican), and the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam conflict (LBJ -- Democrat) these were much more costly and problematic than the issues that happened while Trump was president.
The United States should concentrate on its citizens and not on being the world police, and should never get into any external war. Israel can get tank ammunition pushed through with no problem, but we can't get healthcare, childcare, housing, or education at affordable rates. This means that the priorities of the government are not aligned with the priorities of the citizenry and we need to re-align the governemnt with the citizenry.
We also have a childhood obesity crisis, with about 20% of children obese, which will cause much larger problems 20 years down the road when Gen Alpha is all grown up, and Trump and Biden are both dead. This country is not able to think long-term about how expensive GLP-1 agonists will be for 20% of the population.
Also, real inflation is still high; groceries, at least at Trader Joe's, are still much more expensive than pre-pandemic prices. I don't care what is going on in the world until we fix our own internal problems, which neither major party has shown a willingness to do.
As I see it the major political parties both use certain emotional issues including gun control, abortion, immigration to drive voter outrage, while ignoring the issues that are actually important.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#937So the president can’t kill their opponent over a golf game but can order the military to kill their opponent over a golf game. Got it.
In the worst case they might have to resign before being impeached but at that point they are permanently immune.
Germany 1933.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#938Earlier 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…
> This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. Immune from judicial prosecution. Not immune from Congressional prosecution. --- This isn't a unique concept. For example, if SEAL Team 6 improperly kills someone on a mission, they aren't prosecuted in criminal court; they are court-martialed. There is accountability, but due to the un…
Which they can avoid by resigning. So the worst penalty for almost any crime is they might have to step down,
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#939This shifts the whole debate to what constitutes "official" versus "unofficial" acts. Presumably the president can't order his subordinates to commit crimes, or unlawful orders. Rep. Adam Schiff gave the following interpretation: "Effectively giving a president immunity for any crimes committed while in office as long as that president can plausibly claim the action was taken in some form of official capacity. It mus…
Only the SCOTUS can determine what an official act is. They will decide that anything Trump is prosecuted for is an official act. The point of leaving it undefined is to bounce the case back and forth with the lower court and delay the trial for years.