6 ms·

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

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
    - jl6 2y ago
      “US citizen/political activist” is a pretty charitable description of this person. Testing the legality of “president issues order to kill terrorist” wouldn’t test much.
      - thunky 2y ago
        > Testing the legality of “president issues order to kill terrorist” wouldn’t test much. It does though. It's not widely accepted that the US president can skip due process and murder US citizens.
        fuzzfactor 2y ago
        >skip due process and murder US citizens. One citizen at a time would have gained President Clinton wider acceptance if the intelligence would have been there to intercept the Oklahoma City bomber before he could act. Until now I don't think a President would have ever been expected to proceed to such a terminal conclusion, or be chastised for failing to, but it is only that very end point that is so well defined. OTOH, the former police chief in Uvalde was just charged with failure to shoot first and ask questions later. Anything less and you have to draw the line somewhere but there is no clear guidance or precedent any more. Well, maybe with Trump having already been elected then attempting violent insurrection instead of stepping down when his term was up, that's the precedent that's needed. Plus Trump has recently confirmed that he would like to murder more than one of the people he currently hates, and expects citizens to handle it jokingly. Also has confirmed he will do all he can to investigate anyone who he dislikes on a whim. Biden doesn't have to completely skip due process and proceed all the way to murder, he can now stay in the gray area and merely compromise due process and intimidate suspect individuals, however many Trump supporters it takes to root out any extremists that have any chance whatsoever of acting in an insurrection ever again. Like nothing ever seen in a free country. Trump would surely be doing the same to his suspected adversaries and then some if he got back in office. When the highest court in the land makes you dictator, your supporters expect you to step up to the plate, and hit it out of the park for the home team.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Well, if anyone in the military received such an order, the correct thing to do is to refuse to follow it, as it is an unlawful order. And why is it unlawful? Because it exceeds the bounds of what the president can legitimately order the military to do. Any service member who carried out such an order could be prosecuted for doing so. So, if the president doesn't have the legitimate authority to order the military to do such a thing, could the president be prosecuted for giving such an order? As I read the decision, yes, he could.
legitster 2y ago
Also worth pointing out, this doesn't prevent a President from being impeached for his official actions! The alternative is the president could be charged with murder, fraud, theft, etc anytime anyone in the country doesn't like something the President did. If the president was criminally and civilly liable for everything the office did, the executive would grind to a halt in tort lawsuits.
- StewardMcOy 2y ago
  Except that impeachment requires acts of Congress. The SC opinion was explicitly clear that the president is immune from prosecution for ever issuing a pardon. So the president could order the military to capture or kill any representative or senator likely to vote for impeachment, and pardon everyone involved. There would be no remedy through the courts, because those who carried it out were pardoned, and the ruling also makes it explicitly clear that ordering the military to do something illegal is also an official act, so the president is immune from prosecution. So a president determined enough to prevent impeachment could avoid it as long as he or she were able to find a large enough group within the military willing to go along with it.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    A wildly-rogue president executing a military coup has always been in the cards. Do you honestly think that such a thing was not possible until just now when this decision was issued?
    - StewardMcOy 2y ago
      Possible? It's always absolutely been possible, but I've considered it much less likely than I do after this ruling. As we saw during the first trump administration, the army was unwilling to go along with his every desire. A general even apologized for getting pulled into a photo op. The US military is large and geographically diverse. I suspect that most would not carry out such an order. But you don't need most. You only need enough. The problem for a theoretical coup group has always been what happens afterwards. Even if they were carrying out official orders from the president, you still potentially had to face the judiciary. The rest of the military might not come after you if the president orders them to stand down, but that still left the police open as an option. The SC has now ruled that's not an issue. I do understand a lot of the logic that the executive couldn't function if every action was litigated. But I look at other countries, such as the UK, where the prime minister in fact can be jailed for crimes, and I don't see it really being an issue. Seems better to me if no one is strictly above the law. Post WW2, we recognize that the military can issue and carry out illegal orders. We should extend that to the presidency. The SC has essentially handed Biden a loaded gun. If I were him, I'd point it at the SC and fire, then point it at congress and appoint a new court that will take the loaded gun away from him. Because if Trump wins in November, you can be sure he will attempt to fire it.

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
  - jl6 2y ago
    “US citizen/political activist” is a pretty charitable description of this person. Testing the legality of “president issues order to kill terrorist” wouldn’t test much.
    - thunky 2y ago
      > Testing the legality of “president issues order to kill terrorist” wouldn’t test much. It does though. It's not widely accepted that the US president can skip due process and murder US citizens.
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        >skip due process and murder US citizens. One citizen at a time would have gained President Clinton wider acceptance if the intelligence would have been there to intercept the Oklahoma City bomber before he could act. Until now I don't think a President would have ever been expected to proceed to such a terminal conclusion, or be chastised for failing to, but it is only that very end point that is so well defined. OTOH, the former police chief in Uvalde was just charged with failure to shoot first and ask questions later. Anything less and you have to draw the line somewhere but there is no clear guidance or precedent any more. Well, maybe with Trump having already been elected then attempting violent insurrection instead of stepping down when his term was up, that's the precedent that's needed. Plus Trump has recently confirmed that he would like to murder more than one of the people he currently hates, and expects citizens to handle it jokingly. Also has confirmed he will do all he can to investigate anyone who he dislikes on a whim. Biden doesn't have to completely skip due process and proceed all the way to murder, he can now stay in the gray area and merely compromise due process and intimidate suspect individuals, however many Trump supporters it takes to root out any extremists that have any chance whatsoever of acting in an insurrection ever again. Like nothing ever seen in a free country. Trump would surely be doing the same to his suspected adversaries and then some if he got back in office. When the highest court in the land makes you dictator, your supporters expect you to step up to the plate, and hit it out of the park for the home team.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Well, if anyone in the military received such an order, the correct thing to do is to refuse to follow it, as it is an unlawful order. And why is it unlawful? Because it exceeds the bounds of what the president can legitimately order the military to do. Any service member who carried out such an order could be prosecuted for doing so. So, if the president doesn't have the legitimate authority to order the military to do such a thing, could the president be prosecuted for giving such an order? As I read the decision, yes, he could.

legitster 2y ago

Also worth pointing out, this doesn't prevent a President from being impeached for his official actions! The alternative is the president could be charged with murder, fraud, theft, etc anytime anyone in the country doesn't like something the President did. If the president was criminally and civilly liable for everything the office did, the executive would grind to a halt in tort lawsuits.

StewardMcOy 2y ago
Except that impeachment requires acts of Congress. The SC opinion was explicitly clear that the president is immune from prosecution for ever issuing a pardon. So the president could order the military to capture or kill any representative or senator likely to vote for impeachment, and pardon everyone involved. There would be no remedy through the courts, because those who carried it out were pardoned, and the ruling also makes it explicitly clear that ordering the military to do something illegal is also an official act, so the president is immune from prosecution. So a president determined enough to prevent impeachment could avoid it as long as he or she were able to find a large enough group within the military willing to go along with it.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  A wildly-rogue president executing a military coup has always been in the cards. Do you honestly think that such a thing was not possible until just now when this decision was issued?
  - StewardMcOy 2y ago
    Possible? It's always absolutely been possible, but I've considered it much less likely than I do after this ruling. As we saw during the first trump administration, the army was unwilling to go along with his every desire. A general even apologized for getting pulled into a photo op. The US military is large and geographically diverse. I suspect that most would not carry out such an order. But you don't need most. You only need enough. The problem for a theoretical coup group has always been what happens afterwards. Even if they were carrying out official orders from the president, you still potentially had to face the judiciary. The rest of the military might not come after you if the president orders them to stand down, but that still left the police open as an option. The SC has now ruled that's not an issue. I do understand a lot of the logic that the executive couldn't function if every action was litigated. But I look at other countries, such as the UK, where the prime minister in fact can be jailed for crimes, and I don't see it really being an issue. Seems better to me if no one is strictly above the law. Post WW2, we recognize that the military can issue and carry out illegal orders. We should extend that to the presidency. The SC has essentially handed Biden a loaded gun. If I were him, I'd point it at the SC and fire, then point it at congress and appoint a new court that will take the loaded gun away from him. Because if Trump wins in November, you can be sure he will attempt to fire it.