Dont get this twisted, this was not enacted in favor of Trump and his misdemeanor charges if they even were real. This is to protect Biden and Obama and maybe Clinton too, there will be mass dump of the reasons why post Trump taking office. As an outsider, I am excited to see bad people getting what they deserve as a message to the world.
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#992Earlier 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…
You mean like Obama assassinating a US citizen?
Drone strikes against combatants aren't assassinations, and Obama is hardly the first President to engage armed force against someone the U.S. recognized as a citizen but who felt no personal loyalty to the U.S.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#993Earlier 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…
Courts-martial are criminal courts. Ortiz v. United States, 585 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 2165 (2018).
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#994I hope this ruling does enough to cast recent decisions of the Supreme Court into doubt, such as the end of Chevron deference. It should have become clear to anyone sufficiently observant that it no longer serves the interests of the people nor their country, but rather those of a single political party.
Until the system can be reformed to deter and slow such radical acts, there would be no hope of stability of the United States.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#995So, can the president order the army to commit war crimes or genocide and not be prosecuted if it is set as an official act?
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#996My 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…
Nope, this has opened the door to all kinds of malfeasance. It's not wide open and welcoming, but ajar nonetheless.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#997Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nixon resigned knowing an impeachment was pending. I cannot imagine that ever happening today.
We are still paying the price for Watergate. The Saturday Night Massacre was Nixon's attempt to use his executive authority to prevent his investigation. The loyalist who ended up being his third AG of the day was Robert Bork. First Ford declined to prosecute, then Reagan nominates Bork to the SC and suddenly SC appointments become combative partisan affairs
I mean even Washington had a SC nominee rejected. It goes back pretty far.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#998Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In today's political environment I don't see an impeachment ever succeeding unless the opposing party has a super-majority in the US Senate. It's supposed to be hard to do. Impeachment is intended to be reserved for egregious violations or actions that most of congress (and by proxy, the citizenry) agree on.
If only Congress were a proxy for the citizenry, but gerrymandering has ruined that.
But it’s the Senate that is the limiting factor and there is no gerrymandering involved there. Gerrymandering has a lot more effect on state legislatures in general.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#999Earlier 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…
This remains a constructive problem though because the U.S. Congress is either variously outright dysfunctional or captured by self-interested parties.
Which we need to fix regardless, but in the interim it’s hard to conclude that the federal government isn’t starting to crumble under the combined weight of that problem and the general, concerning erosion of trust in expertise and institutions, and the rise of populism. The Supreme Court is very efficiently pouring gas on that fire.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#1000Can anyone pencil out the real danger of this position? Sotomayors opinion seems to posit that a president can receive a bribe and pardon someone for that and this is an official, immune act. However, I don't think soliciting a bribe would be considered an official act of the POTUS, and by what I have been able to understand from this opinion would still be subject to prosecution. I also think that this opinion seems…
[dead]