5 ms·

Jackson (page 98) lays out why this is such a dangerous thing. Essentially, the court has said that the president is immune if the crimes are carried out as "o

Jackson (page 98) lays out why this is such a dangerous thing. Essentially, the court has said that the president is immune if the crimes are carried out as "official" acts. Only "unofficial" acts can be prosecuted. The trouble is, what constitutes "official" vs "unofficial" has been left extremely vague (and by their own admission probably unsolvable), and so only the Supreme Court can decide which is which on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the Supreme Court now decides when and if the president is accountable for any criminal actions, and the judiciary and congress can do nothing about it. This is in stark contrast to how the law applies to everyone else.

jl6 2y ago
Could any of the acts that Trump is currently being prosecuted for be plausibly described as official?
- kstenerud 2y ago
  They don't have to be plausible. The Supreme Court simply has to say that they're official and that's good enough.
  - fuzzfactor 2y ago
    I think what it means is that the President decides what he thinks are official duties, and if anybody questions that they will have to take it to court. And that there are now much fewer restrictions on Presidential power than there were yesterday, nothing like the narrow band experienced since the time of Geo Washington. Any restriction is now in question if it ties the Presidents' hands as much as in the past. Unprecedented extreme actions are moved from black & white to a grey area. Whatever might be brought to court is made more difficult to decide, and more likely to end up in the highest courts. Decided by the same unelected officials who ceded more of the citizens' balance of power to an Executive who is already difficult to hold accountable, while gaining a greater portion of power for Judiciary also, as collateral damage.
- Arnt 2y ago
  I don't see how. I don't follow his antics very closely, but there's some accounting/tax shenanigans and there's the matter of an election in one of the states. Let me try to consider both. If those tax things were official, then wouldn't that mean that the owner would be his employer? You can do your employer's or customer's tax paperwork during office hours, so if he did that during office hours the owner of the that ugly buidling is the federal state. Which doesn't make sense, right? So therefore he didn't do that in his official capacity. If you work with the Georgian elections in an official capacity, then you're either an official of the State of Georgia. Is a federal official such as the president empowered to act on behalf of states? If not, then time spent calling a Georgian official about Georgian elections cannot reasonably be called official.
- legitster 2y ago
  In the decision, the Supreme Court says that 3 of the 4 indictments can proceed with the caveat that the prosecution needs to include a legal argument that the acts were unofficial.
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
This is not accurate. The ruling summed up: immunity for core constitutional acts, presumed immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. I don't see how we can have an effective executive without this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  For the downvoters, I'm stealing this from AnimalMuppet who commented elsewhere: >If the president has the constitutional authority to do X, how can he be criminally liable for doing X? It seems rather obvious that he can't. [1] We cannot have an effective executive without some absolute immunity. Limiting that to core constitutional acts seems like the bare minimum. Giving presumed immunity for other official acts seems reasonable too. Can you imagine Biden being prosecuted for fraud for his student loan forgiveness? He doesn't have the constitutional authority to do this but it is an official act, so the courts should have a very high bar for a prosecutor to overcome in order to bring criminal charges against Biden. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40847913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40847913
  - empath75 2y ago
    > If the president has the constitutional authority to do X, how can he be criminally liable for doing X? The president has constitutional authority to issue orders to the military, so can he be prosecuted for ordering the military to, for example, drop a cluster bomb on a political opponent from a predator drone?
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      Great question that exceeds my skill to answer. I think we should try a recent, similar case where a US president ordered the military to assassinate a US citizen/political activist[1]. I believe this case is very close to the "seal team 6" hypothetical that seems to be top of mind for critics of this SCOTUS decision. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
legitster 2y ago
> so only the Supreme Court can decide Not necessarily, the majority opinion says that the prosecution can lay out an argument for whether the acts are official or not, then a grand jury can decide. But to their point, will this probably come to the Supreme Court again? Very likely.

jl6 2y ago

Could any of the acts that Trump is currently being prosecuted for be plausibly described as official?

kstenerud 2y ago
They don't have to be plausible. The Supreme Court simply has to say that they're official and that's good enough.
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  I think what it means is that the President decides what he thinks are official duties, and if anybody questions that they will have to take it to court. And that there are now much fewer restrictions on Presidential power than there were yesterday, nothing like the narrow band experienced since the time of Geo Washington. Any restriction is now in question if it ties the Presidents' hands as much as in the past. Unprecedented extreme actions are moved from black & white to a grey area. Whatever might be brought to court is made more difficult to decide, and more likely to end up in the highest courts. Decided by the same unelected officials who ceded more of the citizens' balance of power to an Executive who is already difficult to hold accountable, while gaining a greater portion of power for Judiciary also, as collateral damage.
Arnt 2y ago
I don't see how. I don't follow his antics very closely, but there's some accounting/tax shenanigans and there's the matter of an election in one of the states. Let me try to consider both. If those tax things were official, then wouldn't that mean that the owner would be his employer? You can do your employer's or customer's tax paperwork during office hours, so if he did that during office hours the owner of the that ugly buidling is the federal state. Which doesn't make sense, right? So therefore he didn't do that in his official capacity. If you work with the Georgian elections in an official capacity, then you're either an official of the State of Georgia. Is a federal official such as the president empowered to act on behalf of states? If not, then time spent calling a Georgian official about Georgian elections cannot reasonably be called official.
legitster 2y ago
In the decision, the Supreme Court says that 3 of the 4 indictments can proceed with the caveat that the prosecution needs to include a legal argument that the acts were unofficial.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

This is not accurate. The ruling summed up: immunity for core constitutional acts, presumed immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. I don't see how we can have an effective executive without this.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
For the downvoters, I'm stealing this from AnimalMuppet who commented elsewhere: >If the president has the constitutional authority to do X, how can he be criminally liable for doing X? It seems rather obvious that he can't. [1] We cannot have an effective executive without some absolute immunity. Limiting that to core constitutional acts seems like the bare minimum. Giving presumed immunity for other official acts seems reasonable too. Can you imagine Biden being prosecuted for fraud for his student loan forgiveness? He doesn't have the constitutional authority to do this but it is an official act, so the courts should have a very high bar for a prosecutor to overcome in order to bring criminal charges against Biden. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40847913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40847913
- empath75 2y ago
  > If the president has the constitutional authority to do X, how can he be criminally liable for doing X? The president has constitutional authority to issue orders to the military, so can he be prosecuted for ordering the military to, for example, drop a cluster bomb on a political opponent from a predator drone?
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Great question that exceeds my skill to answer. I think we should try a recent, similar case where a US president ordered the military to assassinate a US citizen/political activist[1]. I believe this case is very close to the "seal team 6" hypothetical that seems to be top of mind for critics of this SCOTUS decision. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

legitster 2y ago

> so only the Supreme Court can decide Not necessarily, the majority opinion says that the prosecution can lay out an argument for whether the acts are official or not, then a grand jury can decide. But to their point, will this probably come to the Supreme Court again? Very likely.