47 ms·

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

• AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
  [dead]
• soloist11 2y ago
  Now we know that US presidents are above the law. I always assumed that was the case so this is just confirmation for everyone else who had any doubts.
  • throwitaway222 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • soloist11 2y ago
      I don't really understand what you're arguing about.
      • throwitaway222 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • knowaveragejoe 2y ago
          The entire defense you've repeated here is one his people would love for everyone to believe - thankfully most don't. Orange man is bad for many real and legitimate reasons, the fact that he's had the legal resources to fail upwards this long not withstanding.
          • throwitaway222 2y ago
            [flagged]
            • soloist11 2y ago
              It's again unclear to me what you're arguing about. I have no horses in this race and no problems with either Biden or Trump.
        • vundercind 2y ago
          … “clearly”?
• curtis3389 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    So since 1886? https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/394/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/394/
    • gaganyaan 2y ago
      > In 1906, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. that headnotes have no legal standing and therefore do not set precedent.
  • hot_gril 2y ago
    What else is a corporation then?
    • gaganyaan 2y ago
      Legal fiction. It was convenient to treat them as persons for legal reasons, but it's now clear that we need to clarify that with an amendment.
      • hot_gril 2y ago
        As far as I can tell, a corporation is already not treated as a literal person, only it has some of the same rights. Simplest example, a corporation can't run for a public office. What do you suggest should be changed, no 1A for a corporation?
        • gaganyaan 2y ago
          Yes, corporations are not people, and do not get rights, period. They're legal fictions that get privileges that we the people grant them. If you want to represent yourself commercially as a person, your rights as a person can be extended to that legal fiction. If you want legal fiction that you can dump when it's convenient and isn't tied to you as a person, then that legal fiction gets no rights and only certain privileges.
• zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  Immunity for things they do as part of their official duties. I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty. The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much. I don’t know if they struck the right balance here (and we not know until the next time it comes up), but at least we have slightly more clarity.
  • IIAOPSW 2y ago
    >I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty. I'm fairly sure there's a full and complete list of these is explicitly in the Constitution.
    • throw0101b 2y ago
      > I'm fairly sure there's a full and complete list of these is explicitly in the Constitution. Roberts disagrees in the decision (p. 17): > Distinguishing the President’s official actions from his unofficial ones can be difficult. When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 757. Determining whether an ac- tion is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action. > But the breadth of the President’s “discretionary respon- sibilities” under the Constitution and laws of the United States “in a broad variety of areas, many of them highly sensitive,” frequently makes it “difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action.” Id., at 756. And some Presidential conduct—for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018)—certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or pal- pably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC 2023) (internal quotation marks omit- ted); see Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 755–756 (noting that we have “refused to draw functional lines finer than history and reason would support”). > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of of- ficial conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II in- terests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” if “[i]n exercising the functions of his office,” the President was “under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry.” […] > Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. For in- stance, when Fitzgerald contended that his dismissal vio- lated various congressional statutes and thus rendered his discharge “outside the outer perimeter of [Nixon’s] duties,” we rejected that contention. 457 U. S., at 756. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. Ibid. * https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
• afavour 2y ago
  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?
  • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    If presidents could be prosecuted for their official acts then the next time the other party takes over they will just immediately find various crimes their predecessor “committed” (there are probably 10s of 1000s of them).
    • afavour 2y ago
      But isn't that the status quo? Why didn't that happen when Obama left office? It's not like the Republicans were lacking a desire for retribution against him. "there are probably 10s of 1000s of them" also feels a little lacking to me. Do we have concrete examples?
      • chasd00 2y ago
        i think it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to not prosecute former presidents or rivals. I remember in the 2016 debates when Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary her eyes got real big about how ignorant Trump was to the way things are and have been. That's one of the downsides to a political outsider a lot of formally unasked questions start needing answers.
        • throw0101b 2y ago
          > i think it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to not prosecute former presidents or rivals. How many former presidents or rivals tried to prevent the transfer of power? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup There's a specific reason why Trump is being investigated. We're not talking about jay-walking here. And there's also intent with action, using yet another case: Biden had classified documents in his home residence, but he handed them back to the government with minimal fuss. Trump had classified documents and moved them around even after being subpoenaed to return them: * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/12/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-documents https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/12/donald-trump... * https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictment-classified-documents-miami-8315a5b23c18f27083ed64eef21efff3 https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictme...
• throwup238 2y ago
  Sotomayor's dissent ends: > Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. > With fear for our democracy, I dissent. Chilling words.
  • windows2020 2y ago
    I don't understand the personal gain part. How is that official capacity?
    • tgma 2y ago
      The criminal act is in official capacity. The benefit is personal.
    • vundercind 2y ago
      The majority specifies some ways this may apply that very much make all kinds of things directly shielded by this ruling, and indirectly shields more by restricting the use of evidence that has to do with official acts. The way they’ve set this up, the people involved have a lot to do with it. It sure looks like the President can now openly discuss corruption like selling secrets or pardons with e.g. relevant cabinet members, and none of that can be prosecuted, nor can it be evidence presented in a prosecution of crimes. The immunity granted is insanely broad.
      • Matticus_Rex 2y ago
        The wording is definitely not clear enough in that section, however I don't think this is the intended reading (and I'm hoping we get clarification on this) -- the pardon would be an official act, but according to footnote 3 the sale of the pardon and discussions about that would not be included in the bar on evidence of the official act, because they're not considered part of that official act. It seems (with the footnotes considered) to be a very narrow interpretation of "official act," which does seem to contradict the plain reading. Very annoying.
• grecy 2y ago
  "Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity, If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent." and “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.” - Justice Sotomayor
  • gotoeleven 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
      "The opposing party's candidate was involved in activities that posed a grave and immediate threat to national security, and we took action to mitigate that threat. This is an official act, and no you can't see the evidence because it's top secret."
  • chasd00 2y ago
    A president can still be impeached and removed, they may not "serve their debt to society" but the harm can be stopped by the states.
    • TylerE 2y ago
      Impeachment is fundamentally broken.
• kaimac 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 2y ago
    Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
• tailspin2019 2y ago
  I’m not an expert in this area by any means but it feels like there should be a “motive” angle to this rather just than blanket immunity. The same actions committed by two different presidents could vary hugely in their motive - one might be legitimately concerned about voter fraud and the other trying to interfere maliciously with election results. Admittedly the bar would be high to prove malicious intent (eg. acting out of self interest rather than in the interests of the office/country) but that still seems better than just saying that a given action, regardless of motive, is covered by immunity.
  • enragedcacti 2y ago
    The decision actually explicitly bars courts from using motive: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives
    • atmavatar 2y ago
      I wonder how long before we get presidents selling pardons.
      • bonzini 2y ago
        That assumes that it hasn't happened already. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/17/giuliani-pardons-lawsuit-allegations/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/17/giuliani-...
      • nradov 2y ago
        That's basically what happened when President Clinton pardoned major donor Marc Rich as one of his last official acts. Ultimately the only protection against this is for voters to reject candidates who lack personal integrity.
• Apreche 2y ago
  [flagged]
• grecy 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • chasd00 2y ago
    i don't think that's included in "official duties".
    • sowut 2y ago
      it doesn't matter. the trump heuristic is the only way some people perceive the world. then they'll suggest some insane nonsense which is actually bad but they'll justify it with the trump heuristic
  • windows2020 2y ago
    How would that be acting in an official capacity other than subverting separation of powers?
    • grecy 2y ago
      Of course it is official business. He is protecting democracy. Also the new ruling mean you can't question the president as it his reasoning for his actions.
• throw0101b 2y ago
  One summary: > In a ruling on the last day before the Supreme Court’s summer recess, and just over two months after the oral argument, a majority of the court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning. As an initial matter, Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments. > That absolute immunity does not extend to the president’s other official acts, however. In those cases, Roberts reasoned, a president cannot be charged unless, at the very least, prosecutors can show that bringing such charges would not threaten the power and functioning of the executive branch. And there is no immunity for a president’s unofficial acts. […] > In her dissent, which (like Jackson’s) notably did not use the traditional “respectfully,” Sotomayor contended that Monday’s ruling “reshapes the institution of the Presidency.” “Whether described as presumptive or absolute,” she wrote, “under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless.” “With fear for our democracy,” she concluded, “I dissent.” * https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-s...
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • impossiblefork 2y ago
    This summary sounds much more tolerable than my initial reading, and I think what constitutes the discrepancy is the absence of the statement > In a ruling on the last day before the Supreme Court’s summer recess, and just over two months after the oral argument, a majority of the court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning. As an initial matter, Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments which I can't find in the linked article, but which is of course in what you've linked to. In those enumerated things I think the ruling is quite tolerable, but the decision is much broader than that, and this presumptive immunity, etc. becomes quite burdensome. It's going to be like the state secrets privilege, and that has already allowed people to get away with torture, even people whose identities are well known, and where there is clear, unambiguous evidence that they were involved. What Roberts says almost makes it sound alright, but it definitely isn't.
• mperham 2y ago
  Would this ruling make Nixon’s actions in Watergate legal too?
  • dustincoates 2y ago
    > Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments. Most likely not. Watergate was a result of an election campaign, not official acts as President.
    • jshier 2y ago
      Yeah, Nixon should've ordered his secretary to do it, as all executive communications are now protected against criminal investigation.
    • camel_Snake 2y ago
      I'm not so sure about that. From this ruling: > Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. And the 'smoking gun' implicating Nixon: > Nixon then released the tapes six days later. On one tape was the so-called "smoking gun," showing that six days after the break-in Nixon had tried to use the CIA to block the FBI investigation of the burglary. IANAL, but my understanding is under this ruling those tapes would have never been made permissible evidence in court. Giving orders to the CIA is certainly an official act, as much as granting pardons is, and this court has established the examination of said motives is out-of-scope: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • 2y ago
• pessimizer 2y ago
  At least with this one they've rescued us from doing national politics like a banana republic. You can't arrest Presidents for doing things they had the total latitude to do as Presidents. We can't have the courts deciding whether Presidents had good or illegitimate reasons for any arbitrary decision that they made during their presidency. It's madness. If a president took a bribe for a position, prosecute him for taking a bribe (if it's not a gratuity, because Congress has declared tipping politicians legal.) But if he could have made the same decision because he liked someone's tie - it's nothing but second guessing, by a likely hostile later administration. These people appoint all their campaign staff and big donors to government jobs. If that's legal, then any reason for anything they do which is left up to their discretion is legal. If it's not legal, have Congress make it not legal. ----- edit: gaganyaan, you are wrong. If you think that the entire point is that a president cannot be prosecuted for taking a bribe, you should reevaluate your understanding of the entire point. > Under Monday’s decision, a former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case. > Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the rest of Roberts’ opinion, parted company on this point. “The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable,” Barrett wrote.
  • gaganyaan 2y ago
    You're missing the entire point. Now the president can't be prosecuted for taking a bribe, even if he publicly declares that's the reason for doing so.
    • chasd00 2y ago
      > Now the president can't be prosecuted for taking a bribe they can still be impeached and removed from office for basically any reason whatsoever. Maybe the won't goto jail but their presidency would be over.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • 2y ago
• nortonsdad 2y ago
  [flagged]
• alsaaro 2y ago
  Curious how an ostensibly "conservative" court can ignore the concept of enumerated powers, the constitution clearly does not grant immunity to the President, so the conservative court invents immunity when none is explicitly granted. Indeed, the concept of immunity is recognized in the American constitution for legislators in a limited way, so this isn't an oversight by the framers corrected by Robert's conservative majority, rather the lack of immunity for the executive is a feature and not a bug of our constitution, and all republican forms of government. Ironically the American president now has more power than the King of England, George the III, at the time of the American independence. King George had to follow the laws of Parliament, as did all Kings of England since the passage of Magna Carta some 500+ years prior. As of today our President no longer has to obey the Constitution or the law so long as the act is deemed "official" by the conservative majority.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • spacephysics 2y ago
    Unfortunately presidents on both sides have used executive order as a way to bypass the process. Combined with Chevron doctrine precedent, agencies could enact what the executive branch wanted if the standard quo process failed
    • mmcgaha 2y ago
      Good thing the the courts just reigned in the powers that federal agencies claimed via the chevron doctrine. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
  • vundercind 2y ago
    They also cite the Federalist Papers in comically-vague support of their ruling, while the dissent cites the Federalist Papers right back to note that the founders had executive immunity very much on their minds and left it out of the constitution extremely on-purpose because they regarded subjecting the President to the same law as everyone else to be key difference between the system they were setting up, and monarchy.
• lapcat 2y ago
  > Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much. The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time.
  • rtkwe 2y ago
    There is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that a lot of the expanded War on Terror activity are nominally authorized under according to the Executive. Challenging that is up to Congress as afaik there's no standing for a random person to sue.
    • BobaFloutist 2y ago
      And Congress notably passed the dang thing and has pointedly refused to come back and limit it or curtail the admittedly expansive interpretations subsequent presidents have made of it, so I very much doubt they're going to ding a given president now.
      • rtkwe 2y ago
        Correct there's been several attempts to revoke or limit the 2001 AUMF and Congress has decided not to each time. It's pretty clear what is being done under the auspices of it too so failing to address the interpretation becomes a tacit endorsement at least at the institutional level. Personally I think it's been stretched to breaking but the fix is pretty simple and up to Congress.
  • margalabargala 2y ago
    > The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time. What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. Thus, ordering a drone strike without Congress' input would seem well within the scope of the President's powers.
• wnevets 2y ago
  This has to be one of the worse courts in the last 100 years.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • coldpie 2y ago
    For a man who talks so much about wanting to protect the legitimacy of the court, Roberts has done more than anyone in recent history to destroy it. In the best case, Roberts will have brought about the end of SCOTUS in its current form as a reaction to the blatant illegitimacy and corruption he allowed under his watch. If the US survives the next couple decades, the Roberts court will be talked about in the same light as the 3/5ths decision.
• 6510 2y ago
  How do you hotswap a government?
  • treeFall 2y ago
    So you want to be an insurrectionist? That's what replacing an elected government makes you.
    • 6510 2y ago
      You cant seriously be suggesting we should keep gluing new things onto the legacy code base until the end of time without ever considering a full rewrite? But to somewhat address the sentiment: We can replace the machines and keep the line operators. edit: Not sure now, should the government be considered the people running the country or the formula?
  • DEADMINCE 2y ago
    With lots of marketing to make people want the change as much as a new iOS version.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• treeFall 2y ago
  >The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/1807787300375445993 https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/1807787300375445993
  • kardianos 2y ago
    That's the minority opinion. Maybe people should read the majority opinion first?
    • ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      6 of 9 justices presumably felt they weren't enabling an executive with no limits
      • 7thaccount 2y ago
        Several of those are absolutely corrupt at this point and bought off by the corporatocracy that now rules the country.
        • mandmandam 2y ago
          Conveniently, buying off SC judges was also made legal this week.
  • throwawaymaths 2y ago
    in practice, not really much of a change. Did FDR stand trial for interning Japanese people? Ok, ok he died too soon. Would he have?
    • nashashmi 2y ago
      FDR did a lot of wrong, including paying farmers to not work.
• riffic 2y ago
  ah just laying the foundation for a lovely despotic future.
  • IamLoading 2y ago
    What is going on in our nation? its frustrating thing after thing. I honestly, need to unplug from news, and just focus on nature.
    • saboot 2y ago
      Hurry up, not much time left for that either.
  • umvi 2y ago
    Seems like the alternative is equally dystopian though. If ex-presidents don't have immunity for their actions in office, then every ex-president will have to fend off a flurry of lawsuits and prosecution attempts by the opposite party. It would be an absolute circus and turn the office of president into a joke.
    • tines 2y ago
      That's a false dichotomy, just allow the motivation for official acts to be taken into consideration for prosecution, and a lot of the problems go away.
    • beefnugs 2y ago
      Shouldn't there be some liability barrier to preventing just any bored old billionaire from fisting his way into presidency?
      • umvi 2y ago
        It's already not easy for billionaires to become president. Ross Perot tried and failed miserably.
        • 2y ago
• yongjik 2y ago
  IANAL so could someone explain to me - does this ruling apply to the "porn actress hush money" trial or is it a separate issue? (I'd like to think that there's no way it's an "official act" of a president, but again, IANAL.)
  • ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Honestly the decision is written in a fairly accessible style. You could try to read it
    • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/SCOTUSTRUMPDC.pdf https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/SCOTUSTRU...
  • kadoban 2y ago
    No, Trump was a candidate, not President at the time of most (all?) of those crimes. They also yeah probably can't be considered official acts even by _this_ Court.
    • laidoffamazon 2y ago
      That can't be concluded yet. It will most likely be decided again by SCOTUS - but by then, Trump may well have assumed office and pardoned himself and anyone else involved.
      • kadoban 2y ago
        Even this court would have a hard time concluding that acts taken while running for President are official acts. But practically they've made the President a dictator, so yeah who's going to stop him if he wins.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • 2y ago
• leotravis10 2y ago
  Folks, the blueprint for a American dictatorship has been created and you'll be a fool and a idiot to think otherwise.
  • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • leotravis10 2y ago
      I'm leaving this here for you to read: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848935
      • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Awesome. Media coverage. The actual ruling: https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/SCOTUSTRUMPDC.pdf https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/SCOTUSTRU... We are in an age where the media cannot be trusted. Gotta read the source documents.
  • koonsolo 2y ago
    If Trump gets elected, he will never give away his power easily.
  • citizen_friend 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • leotravis10 2y ago
      Read this and get back to me: https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immunity-dictatorship https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immuni...
      • citizen_friend 2y ago
• jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  If there's one thing the constitution seemed to try to prevent it's kings, and here the court is saying the president can do anything, to as maximally permissible as possible an "outer limit" of what might be at all considered official. (No matter what their motive; we are explicitly forbidden from even beginning an inquiry into motive.) It's hard to see even the remotest claims of their so called originalism (which is a stupid shit dumb practice anyhow) written into this very longwinded extensive permission-to-tyrant, permission to sedition. What a sad shameless age. It's embarrassing as hell having these useless Federalist Society shills tearing down the respectability of this nation. Utterly brazen. How 40%-50% of the population can be so on board with this, be so excited & happy to see such endless Calvinball for their team is beyond imagining. It feels like liberals always are hungry for more or different from our own, will criticize our representatives endlessly, but there's an unmatched purity of boosterism for any win any win at all no matter what that's totally taken half the country, that there's no system of moderation or self assessment left.
• shmerl 2y ago
  This court is a farce. People appointed by Trump grant him immunity for his crimes. That's some circular Kafkian absurdity that shouldn't be happening.
• unwound7115 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • OgsyedIE 2y ago
    You can't have any tech news without there being new stuff in tech to begin with, and you can only have new stuff in tech if tech workers/entrepreneurs are free from the danger of arbitrary expropriation (that has historically accompanied all autocracies). This site has threads on net neutrality and privacy laws, so where is the borderline?
• w10-1 2y ago
  The essence, from the majority opinion https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf > nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. > And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. > Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial > The Constitution does not tolerate such impediments to “the effective functioning of government” [as when] the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render [the President] “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.” > The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. > Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law > Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case Supreme Court history has no broader grant of immunity based on principles less definitive.
  • impalallama 2y ago
    > Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial Wouldn’t this have made it impossible to prosecute Nixon for Watergate?
    • venusenvy47 2y ago
      This is the big red flag for me. A court can't review whether the conduct was official. This seems like the court wants to remove the checks and balances between the government branches.
      • impalallama 2y ago
        Yes, immunity for "official duties" sounds reasonable until you read all the justices own words and realize how purposely broad and far reaching these duties are.
• legitster 2y ago
  Here is a very simplified TL;DR of the decision: A president's internal planning and discussions with his team are are at least granted "presumed" immunity unless the prosecutor can establish that the act in question fell outside of the office. So for the President pressuring Pence to uncertify the election results, prosecutors would need to make a case that it was outside of his power to do so - the reasoning behind it is largely irrelevant. When it comes to interactions with external groups - be it local election officials or even the press/media - prosecutors need to establish whether the president was acting on an official basis or an unofficial basis. (And they are clear that the president acting on behalf of his party or his campaign would be unofficial). > "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts." My reading of the decision is that of the four counts against Trump, three can proceed so long as prosecutors can make a case the actions were not official acts.
• whatever1 2y ago
  I understand why during their presidency the president needs to be immune (so that they can focus on their executive duties instead of spending their day in the court). But AFTER the end of their (last) term why not be held accountable for their actions?
  • InTheArena 2y ago
    Because they will stay in power rather than face accountability (real or imagined) for their actions (legitimate or illegitimate). See Caesar, J and the fall of the Roman Republic.
    • mandmandam 2y ago
      That logic is so twisted though. "The President might ignore laws on term limits, so we need to make laws that say he can't be held responsible for his actions". That's clearly insane.
      • InTheArena 2y ago
        This would not fall under the official powers that he has?
        • HaZeust 2y ago
          Who cares? Now we have rulings that say it can't be enforced if it can be convinced that the action of avoiding your term limit can be an "official act" in times of unrest, urgency or doubt. One must understand that the more safeguards we have to enact retribution in these cases, the better. You're not supposed to point to one after loss of another - you're supposed to point towards as many as possible. Before today, the courts were the one we pointed to the most, and they are no longer nearly as much at our disposal as they were before this morning.
    • seydor 2y ago
      how can the US president remain in power, aren't there checks and balances? Does he have absolute command of the army?
• wolfi1 2y ago
  if he's immune for "official actions" even after office impeachment after office must be possible as well
• injidup 2y ago
  Perhaps the simple solution is that all presidents should serve 15 years in jail after serving their term. Then only extremely socially minded people would dare to do the job. There was a similar sci fi story I read. At the end of a war the rule was that all allied ( not enemy ) generals would be executed. The idea was that war was such a horrible concept that to lead one would require extreme sacrifice and social consciousness on the part of the leaders. War was legal and to be fought without limit however on conclusion all leaders would be put to death. I don't remember the author or the story name.
  • imoverclocked 2y ago
    … so wars, once started, may never end.
  • ajuc 2y ago
    If there's no downside you just do your worst. Look at it from the perspective of the president near the end of their term.
  • dh2022 2y ago
    Re: war analogy. Executing all allied generals at the end of the war would enable opponents who elevate winning generals at the end of the war. Guess which side would win?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • lucianbr 2y ago
    One of the alien species in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Rama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Rama has this rule. The octospiders.
    • injidup 2y ago
      That was the story. Thankyou
  • deleted 2y ago
• Buttons840 2y ago
  Now that this has been cleared up by the courts, I want to ask. Is it even possible for the President to break the law? What would that look like?
  • citizen_friend 2y ago
    Impeach.
  • squidbeak 2y ago
    Sotomayor laid out some examples in her dissent, such as assassinating political rivals, staging a coup and taking bribes for favours.
    • tines 2y ago
      Those are examples of the president not breaking the law. She was saying that presidents now have carte blanche to do those things with no fear of prosecution.
• muaytimbo 2y ago
  This was an obvious outcome, the government always protects its own. The government class gets immunity from the bottom, cops and judges, all the way to the top, legislators, and now, the president.
• brendanyounger 2y ago
  So ... a president can now order an executive branch officer to ignore any Supreme Court decision or law passed by Congress with absolute immunity? Seems like the Supreme Court is going to get what they asked for.
• janalsncm 2y ago
  Maybe we can stop acting like the Founding Fathers were political geniuses. They created a system where the only real recourse against a president is political, and a political system where political recourse is essentially impossible. A two party system is the logical conclusion of a first past the post voting system, which they have created. It is a bug, and fixing it is also effectively impossible.
  • jedilord 2y ago
    [dead]
  • code_biologist 2y ago
    I mean, they were pretty good. The founding documents addressed many problems that been seen in British political history. I think they may have lacked tools to prevent two party rule, but some were aware it would be a problem. From George Washington's presidential farewell address: "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
    • janalsncm 2y ago
      Washington’s farewell address is exactly what I’m referring to. Hoping that people won’t form political parties rather than understanding that they are the logical result of the system that’s been created. No matter how nicely you ask, parties will form. Just as another example, the Framers forgot to even mention that courts could strike down unconstitutional laws, causing a political crisis that came up only 15 years later. Oops!
  • beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
    The 10th amendment was supposed to restrain the federal government to a few enumerated powers. It was gutted via interstate commerce being everything, and you can't give it up because people will start screaming about the civil rights act or the EPA or something. President, as envisioned by founders, should barely even matter outside of war.
• cbxyp 2y ago
  Nixon confirmed not a Crook! "When a president does it, it's not illegal" - Richard Nixon (1979)
• inglor_cz 2y ago
  Hmm. Here in the Czech Republic, the president is immune to prosecution during his tenure, but can be prosecuted afterwards for illegal acts that weren't committed during performance of his duties. During tenure, he can only be impeached for anti-constitutional acts, and the only punishment if found guilty is removal from office. All in all, it sounds quite similar to this SCOTUS ruling, but of course, the consequences for the world are mitigated by the fact that globally, our president is a very, very small player.
• BadHumans 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • swang 2y ago
    the general public is expecting other people to protect them against it. "certainly someone (waves hands in the air) wouldn't allow it" also combined with how the media has been reporting this, as though it's just another ruling.. certainly doesn't help.
• suid 2y ago
  Time for "Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?"
  • riskable 2y ago
    No, that's the old way. The new way is for the President to issue an executive order to have their target officially arrested, rendered somewhere overseas, and then follow up with an official order to have them assassinated (just declare them a foreign agent). Any and all communications outside of the executive order would not be admissible as evidence even if the DOJ did want to prosecute!
• grotorea 2y ago
  It's interesting that even in the Roman Republic the immunity ended after the end of your term, and you could be prosecuted for official acts taken during it. And even let to Caesar fighting to keep himself in office at all times to avoid inevitable prosecution. https://theconversation.com/from-caesar-to-trump-immunity-is-a-hard-thing-to-give-up-103296 https://theconversation.com/from-caesar-to-trump-immunity-is...
  • nostromo 2y ago
    The prosecution of Trump was likely a big reason he's running again, for similar reasons. I'm not sure the prosecutors are even smart enough to realize they're the reason we're at where we're at.
    • mightyham 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • mywittyname 2y ago
      Trump's running again because his first pass in office was wildly profitable, and he thinks he could get another shot at it. And that's just considering the stuff we know about (emoluments violations, government loans/grants to family members, "investments" from Saudis). Who knows what he got for access to those documents stored at Mar-a-Lago or things we don't know anything about.
    • NotMichaelBay 2y ago
      Prosecutions*. And you say that as if their goal is to prevent Trump from becoming president again, instead of just... doing their job and prosecuting (alleged) criminals.
  • onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    Awfully bold of you to assume we are better governed than Rome - back when ther was still such a thing as honor.
    • 2y ago
• heleninboodler 2y ago
  Can't help but wondering if Joe is contemplating Seal Team Six's summer plans right about now.
  • dinglestepup 2y ago
    Right, the best way to avoid fascism is to become a fascist before your opponent does. In the name of democracy, of course.
    • riskable 2y ago
      Fascism is a political ideology and system (sort of) that requires a whole lot of people to keep it in place. A "lone President" assassinating his political rivals in a single act is just a regular old dictator move. No fascism required.
      • dinglestepup 2y ago
        Assassinating your political opponents using the military in the name of saving the nation fits quite neatly into the definition of fascism. You don't need the system to be fascist to be a fascist. Since the prevailing view of Trump and MAGA Republicans is that they are fascist, it's not a stretch to point out that the proposal in the parent comment is far closer to "actual" fascism than the actions of an incompetent enabler.
    • heleninboodler 2y ago
      Not endorsing the view, but that's how some people think. It would actually be incredibly interesting if he decided to commit political suicide by having Trump killed and spurring congress into amending the constitution to explicitly revoke the immunity. If presidents start murdering presidential candidates, we might be able to get together and pass a constitutional amendment. :)
• tociye9860 2y ago
  [flagged]
• tociye9860 2y ago
  [flagged]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• kemotep 2y ago
  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 required to be appointed by an act of Congress to investigate and then bring forward charges. 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, for official or unofficial acts that are crimes.
  • awb 2y ago
    On paper it makes sense. The people elect a congress charged with checking the powers of the President. States can also pass constitutional amendments to further limit or define the powers of the President. In reality, power can be consolidated to the point where these checks and balances no longer work properly.
    • lupire 2y ago
      And that's point where the SC is irrelevant. You can't paperwork your way out of civil war when the people want one.
    • dudinax 2y ago
      No it doesn't. There's nothing in the constitution that grants immunity to a president and no reason why Donald Trump had to commit the crimes he's charged with.
      • ac29 2y ago
        If every past, present, and future legal scenario was explicitly and unambiguously addressed by the constitution, we wouldnt need the Supreme Court. In reality it is an imperfect document that can never possibly be complete.
• siliconc0w 2y ago
  This court has blown up civil rights, legalized machine guns (bump stocks), blown up any ability to regulate with chevron and now elevates the president to king in order to give the president that appointed them immunity. How long before sotomayor rage quits. I guess this ruling means Biden can send some thugs to forcibly retire them? Let's just have a fully political court that flip flops what the laws mean every four years.
  • riskable 2y ago
    Replacing the court every four years wouldn't be that bad if the courts were more efficient. As it stands, however, cases can take over a decade during which any such SCOTUS rulings could flip flop entirely, resulting in legal chaos (which would be bad). Change isn't necessarily a bad thing... Imagine if we had a new court every four years and one of them behaved like the current SCOTUS, overturning over a hundred years of precedent basically every chance they get. The damage could be undone just as quickly.
  • agensaequivocum 2y ago
    Federal law defines "machine gun", a bump stock clearly doesn't meet it.
    • sirbutters 2y ago
      No need to be pedantic about it. Bump stocks can do just as much damage as a full auto weapon. SC is fine with that accessory in the hands of millions of citizens. As if we didn't have enough gun violence in this country.
• qqtt 2y ago
  It's really impossible to understand and determine before hand how the court would rule on any of these theoretical cases that may result as a consequence of this decision. It is up to further cases to actually establish was constitutes "official" versus "unofficial" capacities as President and we can absolutely not guess before hand what that entails. From the decision, it seems that only those duties constitutionally mandated would fall under the "official" capacity, with quite a lot of leeway for determining how to evaluate individual actions. Also I think we should all be reminded that there is separation of powers for a reason. The President is ultimately largely beholden to Congress. The government cannot sink into a dictatorship without the explicit approval of the majority of Congress. It is Congress' duty to remove Presidents from office that it feels are a danger to the country. All these checks and balances still exist and will still be enforced. The President can not unilaterally go off the rails as many of these extreme hypotheticals seem to be implying.
  • suzzer99 2y ago
    > It's really impossible to understand and determine before hand how the court would rule on any of these theoretical cases that may result as a consequence of this decision. I've got a pretty good guess, and it will be based on the political party of the defendant.
  • riskable 2y ago
    > The President is ultimately largely beholden to Congress. The government cannot sink into a dictatorship without the explicit approval of the majority of Congress. This is nonsense. The President can just assassinate all of their political rivals in Congress that would hold them to account. Before this ruling there was an assumption that any such actions would be prosecuted after the President was no longer in office (assuming they didn't have enough power to interfere with a free election). Now that can't realistically happen. There's a reason why folks are saying this ruling, "paves the way to a dictatorship"!
    • qqtt 2y ago
      This is not really true though. Congress is responsible for granting authority to the President regarding valid military targets. This is why drone strikes are only legal against targets recognized by Congress as security threats. It cannot realistically happen for the President to start targeting individuals outside of Congressional authority. For your hypothetical situation to arise, Congress would have to declare members of Congress themselves as valid military targets.
• dboreham 2y ago
  This seems like a "there's no way to get a bug in the hypervisor fixed" moment.
• gaoshan 2y ago
  Now I'm wondering what constitutes an "official act". Is is anything at all done while President or is it things that fall under the normal official duties of President? If it's the former then a President is free to murder anyone, if it's the latter then what is official about a random homicide?
• stevefeinstein 2y ago
  It's time to test this ruling. Joe Biden can have let's say oh, about six supreme court justices detained for suspicion some wishy-washy thing or another.
  • neogodless 2y ago
    There's no winning if you're on the side that kind of leans towards playing fair. We can't protect democracy by throwing it out the door, and hoping you still get elected come fall. If Biden would take advantage of this ruling in a way the American public doesn't like, he won't be elected. So he would have to further throw out democracy the way Trump is comfortable doing, by ignoring the election results. But enough Americans seem to be leaning towards re-electing Trump such that he'll have 4 more years in office to perform official acts to his heart's content and set himself up for whatever he has in mind by the end of his term, January 2029.
    • mywittyname 2y ago
      Lincoln didn't save the Republic by being a nice guy.
• tomohawk 2y ago
  The Supreme Court took what should be a straightforward and elegant decision — the president is immune from prosecution for acts committed in office unless he has been impeached for those acts — and turned it into angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin litigation about what constitutes official and unofficial acts. Starting on page 44 of the opinion, Thomas makes some very good points. I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President. No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding. ... Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause. For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Even if he is an inferior officer, the Attorney General could appoint him without Presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation only if “Congress . . . by law vest[ed] the Appointment” in the Attorney General as a “Hea[d] of Department.” Ibid. So, the Special Counsel’s appointment is invalid unless a statute created the Special Counsel’s office and gave the Attorney General the power to fill it “by Law.” Whether the Special Counsel’s office was “established by Law” is not a trifling technicality. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office. Given that the Special Counsel purports to wield the Executive Branch’s power to prosecute, the consequences are weighty. Our Constitution’s separation of powers, including its separation of the powers to create and filled offices, is “the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government” and the liberty that it secures for us all. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 697 (Scalia, J., dissenting). There is no prosecution that can justify imperiling it.
• GreedIsGood 2y ago
  BTW, great title. There have been multiple awful titles of for this ruling, yours was exactly correct.
• black_13 2y ago
  [dead]
• ChildOfEru 2y ago
  > (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32 For example, from my understanding this means that Nixon's tapes could never have been used in any form in a criminal trial regarding Nixon's actions. 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.
  • throwaway4220 2y ago
    Nixon resigned knowing an impeachment was pending. I cannot imagine that ever happening today.
    • tstrimple 2y ago
      Conservatives since Nixon have been working to ensure none of them could be taken down like he was. This is just the final chapter in them successfully implementing their plan that began with Fox News.
      • vsuperpower2020 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • tstrimple 2y ago
          It's pretty well documented. Not my fault you're ignorant to it and think it must be a conspiracy. Maybe try learning something about Roger Ailes and his history with the administration and creation of Fox News.
        • dang 2y ago
• greentxt 2y ago
  I'm imaging an index that measures the semantic similarity between reddit and hn threads on a particular topic. I feel like adding that measure to front page to allow users to sort threads would be beneficial in increasing signal-to-noise and help hn maintain a more distinct brand identity.
  • TimTheTinker 2y ago
    Comparing HN to reddit is expressly off-topic: > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • greentxt 2y ago
      Thanks for the guidance. To try and clarify, I was not saying that hm is turning into reddit. Rather I was saying the opposite, that I value hn for its distinct non-redditness and that I would love it if there were features that optimized that difference. I say that in a thread with many comments that do not imo follow the spirit of the guidelines you posted, which is not to say they were posted by redditors -- saying that would itself violate the guidelines, but many of the comments are probably by people who post a lot on some other forum besides hn. I only post here, and again prefer the here-ness of this place over those other places.
      • whoknowsidont 2y ago
        >I only post here, and again prefer the here-ness of this place over those other places. I think you should get out more. There is nothing exceptional about HN other than there's a lot less eyes on it.
• itissid 2y ago
  Barret mentioned that: If one bribes the president in appointment of an official - like an embassador - since the appointment of the embassador is an official act, under this ruling, one cannot bring this as evidence to the jury in a criminal trial because it was part of an official act.
  • asdff 2y ago
    But the official act is appointing the ambassador. Taking a bribe is not part of the official act of that. That's something else entirely not connected to that act at all, at least in my eyes. I'd hope the eyes of the law as well.
    • goodluckchuck 2y ago
      Yes. It does limit theoretically limit the evidence, but it’s the same crime whether they accept the money and follow through with the appointment or reneg and appoint someone else. The crime is in the solicitation.
• WheatMillington 2y ago
  Does anyone know where I can find a nuanced view on this issue?
  • Clubber 2y ago
    I would certainly read the opinions directly. You probably won't find a rational nuanced view from any forum or news outlet today. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24785411-trump-v-united-states https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24785411-trump-v-uni...
  • wilsonnb3 2y ago
    scotusblog is the gold standard for all Supreme Court related news https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-s...
  • ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
    Hamilton. Da da da da-da, da-da-da-da daayyy-ya-da, da-da da da da-dayyy-ya da
• paulryanrogers 2y ago
  How have presidents not been paralyzed by fear of prosecution until now? Strange that only now, with a super majority of conservatives and a 'conservative' former president facing insurrection charges, that such a ruling should come down. And all this after McConnell assured us that impeachment wasn't appropriate for a 'criminal' matter like January 6.
• KingOfCoders 2y ago
  "It is my duty to protect American democracy so I killed my un-democratic challenger". This opens a can of worms - no one can today imagine what that means, with a willy nilly fluffy definition of official act.
  • HaZeust 2y ago
    Yup.
• autoexecbat 2y ago
  Hopefully everyone is now motivated to clear up legislation regarding what a President may or may not do as part of their official actions
• sharpshadow 2y ago
  Really expected result. How would the US not give their presidents immunity. This counts for all of them not only for Trump and in conjunction anything else would simply be impossible.
  • guywithahat 2y ago
    They all basically agreed too, the only difference being whether it should be complete immunity or mostly-complete immunity. Meanwhile there are people in the comments saying this is the end of our democracy lol
• jmward01 2y ago
  The reality with this ruling is it will embolden future presidents to do things that are to their advantage even if they think those actions may be illegal. Presidents don't need more protection from people. We the people need more protection from them.
  • Vegenoid 2y ago
    This is the best way I've heard it put. The United States was founded to escape rulers who were above the law, and the Constitution was created to protect it. For the justices who claim to be primarily driven by the constitution to make this ruling seems bizarre, and it's hard for me to see it in any other way than partisan bias. The president does not need this power and protection. The past 2 years are the first time this 'prosecuting a former president' thing has been an issue, and there are lots of unusual circumstances around it. To give the president such power in response to this seems like a very, very, very bad idea. Presidents do not need protection from the people, the people need protection from presidents.
    • slibhb 2y ago
      > Presidents do not need protection from the people, the people need protection from presidents. I know this sounds good but is it true? I've never needed protection from the president but presidents are occasionally shot at and sometimes killed. Presidents need the secret service because they do, in fact, need protection from the people.
      • edflsafoiewq 2y ago
        No one is talking about "protection" in the sense of physical defense.
      • Vegenoid 2y ago
        Of course presidents need more physical protection. The "protection" being referred to is protection from the government and legal system. If there were a pattern of presidents being unjustly punished for their actions, for political gain or retribution, then something like this might make sense. There is not yet a pattern, and I think that to strengthen the power of the president in such an undefined and potentially very broad way, should be done with great caution and only when it is clear that the ability of the government to use the legal system against former presidents is being systemically abused. I don't think that is at all clear, there just isn't enough data yet. If they wanted to protect Trump from some of the current prosecution against him, they could have done so much more narrowly.
• KingOfCoders 2y ago
  The US killed itself.
• xyst 2y ago
  Maybe this is a good time to finish my dual citizenship application with Norway.
• asdff 2y ago
  Can 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 to be exactly in line with existing legal precedent. Truman was never prosecuted for the massacres he presided on. Nixon was never prosecuted. Reagen was never prosecuted. We just don't seem to ever prosecute ex presidents at all whether we had this opinion to spell it out for us or not.
  • BadHumans 2y ago
    With the Court killing the Chevron Deference, they have given themselves all the power to decide what is an official act and what isn't. Anything not spelled out in plain terms will be interpreted by them and nothing is spelled in plain terms.
    • asdff 2y ago
      I though the chevron deference related to how federal orgs like e.g. the epa pen their own policy and trying to put that policy writing power back into the legislative branch vs through the executive who appoints these orgs? I am not educated in law and would like to clear up some of my misunderstanding.
      • metabagel 2y ago
        So, this is about connecting the dots between different Supreme Court decisions. Further reading... https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/the-imperial-supreme-court/ https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/the-imperial-supr...
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    • lolinder 2y ago
      This comment is a classic example of the ridiculous state of discourse around the Supreme Court right now on HN. So many people are trying to process legal theories through the amygdala and the result is a legal word soup that doesn't actually have any meaning. Chevron deference has absolutely zero to do with this and never would have. I'd go deeper, but Brandolini's Law is real and I simply don't have the energy any more.
• vlovich123 2y ago
  I think the saddest thing is how lying under oath during a Senate confirmation hearing doesn’t revoke the confirmation. Basically Kavanaugh did what everyone said he would and he overturned US v Nixon even though he lied about it during his confirmation even though before he argued repeatedly it was a bad decision. So either he lied or he miraculously changed his beliefs for the duration of the Senate hearing. https://www.peoplefor.org/press-releases/fact-check-kavanaugh-praises-us-v-nixon-after-suggesting-it-should-be-overturned https://www.peoplefor.org/press-releases/fact-check-kavanaug...
  • amadeuspagel 2y ago
    I think the saddest thing is that judges are expected to answer how they would rule on specific cases to be confirmed. What is even the point of an independent supreme court, if politicians can have guarantees as to how specific cases are decided?
    • standardUser 2y ago
      Kavanaugh was not forced to lie under oath, he chose to.
    • skhunted 2y ago
      I think the saddest thing is that judges are expected to answer how they would rule on specific cases to be confirmed. That’s the sad part? We have different perceptions reality.
    • torstenvl 2y ago
      Appreciate your moral courage in going against the grain on HN. Not as sad, but still deeply sad that a site that prohibits ideological battle in its guidelines has become powerless to stop Twittermobbing on here.
      • lolinder 2y ago
        I'm normally one who will defend HN as being a haven for calm, rational disagreement, but these Supreme Court ruling discussions are really bad. Someone's going to come along and tell me that the vitriol is necessary and good because the Supreme Court is so clearly and unequivocally evil, but that's just the point. Even the threads on the Israel-Hamas war have had better-quality discussions with more nuance than the hot takes and hatred that have been plaguing HN the last few weeks on these threads. We can do better. I've seen it.
• jordanb 2y ago
  "If the president does it, that makes it legal." -- Richard Nixon
  • paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Sounds familiar. Trump thinks taking classified documents without telling anyone means he has officially declassified them.
  • gradientsrneat 2y ago
    I couldn't believe Nixon said that, but he actually did! (approximately) https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/transcript-of-david-frosts-interview-with-richard-nixon/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/transcript-of-d...
• openasocket 2y ago
  Frankly, this is terrifying. The decision gives complete criminal immunity from any "official acts" as President. It goes on to define that term so broadly as to include any conversation with Justice department officials. Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible. Soliciting bribes to not prosecute is now fair game. I find it particularly concerning regarding the military. The President is Commander in Chief, and thus any orders he gives or attempts to give to the military would be undeniably official acts. This was even brought up in oral arguments, where it was asked of Trump's council "if the President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, would that be considered an official act?" I find it absolutely terrifying that this possibility was brought up, and any mention of the military is conspicuously absent from the majority decision, even in passing (though Sotomayor explicitly brings it up in her dissent). The most concerning part is how this decision is being made entirely on constitutional grounds. At least in the case of Rowe v Wade being overturned, we have the possible remedy of Congress passing a law enshrining the right to an abortion. But here, there is no legislation Congress could pass to create criminal liability for the President, no executive action. The only option would be a constitutional amendment.
  • ClarityJones 2y ago
    > Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible. I think we have fundamentally different views of the Executive's role. We have 3 branches of government, and the President is the guy who enforces the law. The Justice department is not a 4th branch of government.
    • openasocket 2y ago
      The Executive branch does have the authority to enforce laws, but that authority is not absolute. The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "hey, that guy who committed murder, don't prosecute him, because he promised to pay me a lot of money if I let him off". The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "stop investigating me and my political allies or I'll fire you". That second one is what led to Nixon having to resign. At least, that's what I think should be the case. The majority in this case disagree. They seem to think that any usage of the powers of President is free from any criminal liability.
• mediumsmart 2y ago
  totally agree, they need immunity for whatever the hell they are doing these days. btw - this thread is hilarious, thank you thank you thank you
• cdme 2y ago
  It's remarkable the speed at which the court has discarded any semblance of legitimacy. Perhaps future administrations should simply ignore them and dare them to act.
  • boole1854 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Philosophical arguments aside, the fact that three justices appointed by Trump are then ruling on whether he should be granted immunity is in itself a conflict of interest that would not be allowed on any lesser court.
      • creer 2y ago
        That is a good one and in better times might have seen them recuse themselves? Justices have recused themselves in the past for apparent possible economic conflict of interest - don't know about political conflict of interest. "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" is probably what's meant to address political conflict with a specific person: They nominally can't be removed by the person who nominated them.
        • cdme 2y ago
          Alito, Thomas nor any of Trump's appointees have the scruples or decency to recuse themselves.
      • gpm 2y ago
        It actually would be allowed. I agree it's a questionable practice but it's long standing precedent that judges can hear cases which involve the party that appointed them, e.g. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/769025/in-re-executive-office-of-the-president/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/769025/in-re-executive...
    • 2y ago
• locococo 2y ago
  I think a big problem here is that all existing laws and the system concerning presidents rests on one very important assumption. That the commander in chief is a decent, rational human being that carefully considers his actions and holds the interest of the United States and the Citizens in high regards. It all falls apart and gets too complicated to regulate when the assumption is that you can't trust the person in office.
  • tines 2y ago
    I don't think this is true. The constitution was designed with the idea of preventing a king from coming to power. The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.
    • ignoramous 2y ago
      > individual is bad, but groups are less bad Bad groups tend to scape goat individuals until their next rodeo.
    • neogodless 2y ago
      I kind of (OK totally) need a history lesson / refresher. How was the Judicial Branch supposed to function? Because I don't believe it was supposed to be able to basically override the Legislative Branch. Just like the Executive Branch wasn't supposed to have unchecked power as long as it's "Official" business. How were the three Branches intended to keep each of the other in check?
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • mschuster91 2y ago
        By everyone doing their job and respecting the authority that the other branches had. Something like an executive outright ignoring court orders (e.g. Joe Arpaio [1]) is as unexpected as the legislative refusing to pass laws because it's gridlocked due to malfeasance on the side of the Republicans. There's a reason why the Supreme Court ended up playing such an important rule: Congress hasn't done shit in decades now, and the same goes for the States, the last Constitutional Amendment was passed in 1992 and the one before that in 1971. Something like the right to abortion should have been enshrined into a constitutional amendment loooong ago. EPA rules should have been set by law, not by executive order. The list goes on and on and on. And the last failsafe the founders intended was the populace. Officials found breaking the law or be otherwise unfit of office were supposed to be at the very least not reelected by the populace - and yet, Arpaio was reelected for 24 years in a row, Biden was elected (he was better than Trump, but that doesn't mean someone of his age should have been president!), and Trump will most likely be reelected. The voters share a huge part of the blame. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/31/joe-arpaio-convicted-contempt-immigration-patrols https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/31/joe-arpaio-c...
• creer 2y ago
  > White House spokesman: "As President Biden has said, nobody is above the law." Well yes. And since the Supreme Court just clarified the law... Isn't THIS White House the first that might use what was until now a misunderstanding?
• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Article III of the U.S. Constitution is incredibly brief [1]. I propose the Supreme Court be reconstituted such that for each case a panel of judges from the appellate courts is chosen by lot. They hear that case, write their opinion, and then go back to that work. New case, new lot. Having a permanent bench of judicial oligarchs made sense before telecommunication. It doesn’t anymore. Every ancient democracy used randomness to control corruption. I think it’s time we took a lesson from them. (Note: this could be done by statute. How the supreme Court is constituted is entirely left to Congress.) [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
  • bloopernova 2y ago
    Prediction: trump wins presidency. Midterms swing hard towards Dems. Next president's Congress reforms supreme court.
    • lotsofpulp 2y ago
      How would a president reform the judicial branch? That power is in the legislature's hand.
      • mullingitover 2y ago
        After today? Easy: the entire court is loaded into a black helicopter in the middle of the night and never seen again. The White House spokesperson says, winking, “The White House officially has no comment.” This quickly becomes a standard ritual at the changing of each administration, and an accepted job hazard for incoming justices.
        • sergiogjr 2y ago
          Oh, look, the moment decisions don't go the way I agree with, we throw democracy and institutions out of the window. Who's a "threat to democracy" now? Good on you!
• sterlind 2y ago
  > The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Sotomayor's scathing dissent sums up my concerns on the matter. Even for Barrett, a conservative, the majority opinion was a bridge too far: even bribery now enjoys absolute immunity.
  • friend_and_foe 2y ago
    This is factually incorrect, the president can be prosecuted for anything, he doesn't even have to commit a crime, but there's a special process for that called impeachment. This isn't new stuff and it has been understood to work this way for a couple hundred or so years, until very recently.
    • gazook89 2y ago
      Impeachment is a political process to remove someone from office, it doesn’t send you to prison.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    • jcranmer 2y ago
      The impeachment clause specifically lays out that impeachment doesn't inhibit criminal prosecution for the same acts. Hell, Trump's impeachment defense was essentially that he should be criminally prosecuted instead of impeachment.
    • tines 2y ago
      What about after he has left office?
    • science4sail 2y ago
• ChicagoDave 2y ago
  This is all because very wealthy and powerful people see a future American demographic that doesn’t support their interests and they want an alternate government that can’t stop them. The problem is what will democratic presidents do with this fundamental alteration of the three “equal” branches that now leaves Congress as the weakest link. What will republican presidents do? And of course, what would Trump do? I think front and center is Stephen Miller’s desire to reverse that future demographic by either incarcerating or deporting anyone that isn’t white or even sympathetic to a white nationalist movement. This is real people. And very frightening.
• chasing 2y ago
  Lifetime appointments for Supreme Court Justices is fucking absurd. My out-of-my-ass fix is that each Justice is on an 18-year term. Every two years one Justice is replaced. Two per Presidential term. Makes it legitimately fair. Elect a President, get two Justices. None of this "one corrupt game-show host accidentally gets to appoint half the Court" horseshit.
  • guywithahat 2y ago
    If it makes you feel better they all agreed the president should have immunity, they just disagreed whether it should be totally absolute or mostly absolute. The dissenting opinions would basically lead to the same result
• lunarboy 2y ago
  Surely the "impeachment exists" arguments are in bad faith. Otherwise, I'm convinced they've abandoned reason. Impeachment process takes time, and in that window, the president can do whatever. POTUS can even mobilize the army (an official power) to block congress from meeting, since apparently the motive behind the use of official power doesn't matter. If they can't meet, how are they going to impeach.
  • chasing 2y ago
    Of course they're in bad faith. The whole idea is to punt accountability off to something else endlessly. "We can't do X because Y already exists to handle that." Later: "We can't do Y because we already have Z." And thus: "X is the proper way to handle that, not Z."
    • HaZeust 2y ago
      Precisely. One must understand that the more safeguards we have to enact retribution in these cases, the better. You're not supposed to point to one avenue after loss of another - you're supposed to point towards as many as possible. Before today, the courts were the one we pointed to the most, and they are no longer nearly as much at our disposal as they were before this morning.
  • ImJamal 2y ago
    If a president is illegally mobilizing an army I'm not sure how this ruling would change anything? Do you think congress would be slower than courts to work this out? If a president was stopping congress from meeting then they could stop courts from meeting as well. Or he could just ignore the courts if it had really gotten that bad...
  • goodluckchuck 2y ago
    Impeachments take time because the impeachments we’ve had so far have tended to be political theater. I have no doubt that if there was a bi-partisan super-majority wanting to remove the president, they’d hop on a Zoom call and have it done by the close of business. Edit: My example was going to be if the President addressed the nation and declared himself to be king… but Biden literally just did that, reluctantly accepting that he was beyond the review of the courts and accountable to no one but himself.
• paulvnickerson 2y ago
  So many people reacting irrationally and misunderstanding what the ruling says. The first few pages are very readable, and I encourage all to read [1] - Actions within the President's conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority: Absolute immunity, in accordance with constitutional separation of powers. - Other actions done within an official capacity: Presumptive (though not full) immunity, to "to safe-guard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution." - Unofficial actions: No immunity. Who is the arbiter of whether an action is official or unofficial? The courts, according to the ruling: "The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial." In this case, a very liberal judge appointed by Obama. One may disagree with the ruling, but it does not, as Sotomayor (who recently has been making more public and political appearances than is appropriate for someone of her position [2]) states, give the president the ability to drone strike his political opponent. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf [2] https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/24/politics/sotomayor-crying-supreme-court-decisions/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/24/politics/sotomayor-crying-sup...
  • munchler 2y ago
    The president already has official authority to drone strike terrorists. All he has to do now is make an official determination that his political opponents are terrorists.
    • demosthanos 2y ago
      Yeah, we should definitely fix the fact that the President can order hits on US citizens. That's a pretty obvious problem regardless of whether they can technically be prosecuted for it, and doesn't really change the merits of the question at hand. All this case says is we shouldn't leave a President's legal culpability for any given action up to prosecutorial discretion. If they're using their official powers they're not culpable, if they're acting outside the bounds of their powers they should be prosecuted. The actual problem is that the President has too much power, not that the next administration should have the right to prosecute them for exercising it.
• godelski 2y ago
  Federalist 51 > The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. > A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. ... But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. ...The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. This right here is talking about why there is the separation of powers. This is the reason judges are supposed to be without party. But we all know that this is a facade. But of course it is, when we see how these judges are appointed. How could it be any other way? The recognition here is that there are no perfect solutions as to optimize towards one thing results in a worse outcome (see the other parts of the writing). I think not enough people have read the Federalist papers. They are an important context to why the US was founded and what problems it was trying to solve. Littered throughout them are discussions of how power creeps and how functions couple. How government can do great good but at the same time great harm. They reiterate the notion that liberty is hard work and many of the writers fear things like parties as they are not only concentrations of power but umbrellas to remove thinking. You can see them wrestle with ideas and that they know they aren't getting them right, but instead try to set a framework that can course correct to adapt to the unknown unknowns. But however you read them, I think you can and will read that such a conclusion is precisely the thing they were trying to stop. There is no ambiguity in this. They were fighting against monarchs who have written into the law that they are above the law. At least as it pertains to others. And so that's what that phrase means "no one is above the law" that not so literally (because making a law that makes special cases for you would not technically make you "above" the law, but part of it), but rather that the laws apply equally to all peoples and entities. That there are no special cases because there are no "to big to fail" and "too important to prosecute". Because the belief is that if it is wrong for one man to commit an act, then it is wrong for any man to commit such an act. [0] Federalist 51: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp
• PHGamer 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • monetus 2y ago
    There were pipe bombs planted next to the dnc and rnc headquarters, probably to bait away police and emergency responders. It wasn't a protest that got out of hand for those who organized it.
• vadiml 2y ago
  Biden need to sign executive order to jail all judges voted for this verdict for high treason of not protecting US constitution. And he will be immune thanks to them.
• Rapzid 2y ago
  This is certainly the sort of decision I'll have to read for myself. While I certainly share the concerns, the hyperbole is peak right now and everything is emotional and overly editorialized.
• FpUser 2y ago
  Congrats. SCOTU have just promoted president to dictator. Now wait for Putin to come.
• SubiculumCode 2y ago
  People mistake the Constitution as the fabric that holds our Republic together. Sure the articles stipulations set a framework, but it's built primarily around a common set of mores and walls beyond which is the pale. When a sizable proportion of Representatives, voters, etc, conduct themselves in a way that always maximizes short-term wins and power and and aimed at disempowering the opposition, that framework that is the Constitution is powerless to keep the Republic together. Is only the will of the people to stay together they'll keep them together. In all our legislative executive and judicial war, there seems to be less and less reason for restraint, for avoiding constitutional crisis, and to grab power by whatever means so that the other side does not. This ruling by the Supreme Court, as many people are commenting on social media, creating Powers Biden too, and there seems little reason not for Biden to pack the court, for the Senate to go to majority rule and rid themselves of the filibuster. If we keep pushing the boundaries we will fall, or we will reconfigure.
• camgunz 2y ago
  Honestly I just don't think the conservative Justices are that smart. Here's Roberts arguing that because something never happened (criminal prosecution of a former president) no one could have reasonably assumed it would happen: > Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. Literally on the next page, here's Roberts arguing that though something has never happened (criminal prosecution of a former president) it is very likely to happen: > The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “ ‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’ ” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Just like, full on embarrassing. These guys need better clerks or something.
• s5300 2y ago
  [dead]
• HaZeust 2y ago
  Well, I guess this ruling makes me eat my words, almost exactly a month ago, that Trump's 34 felony counts was "a good day" for the spirit of Montesquieu checks and balances in this country: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40529062#40529905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40529062#40529905 Sotomayor has channeled her inner-Scalia in her dissent, and she hit the nail on the head. This is now kingship, this is de-facto sovereign immunity. This ruling was not constitutionally purposivist, it was not textualist, it was not originalist. It goes against the very founding of America in the contexts of its original conception and revolution. This is BAD.
• mjfl 2y ago
  And they do not have immunity for unofficial acts, which do seem to be many of the things that that Donald Trump is being charged for. The fact that many of the top comments here don't mention this tells me that we are grips of a partisan hysteria. Fortunately, the court is not, and one 'conservative' judge was in the dissent, and one 'liberal' judge concurred with the majority.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• NicoJuicy 2y ago
  Guess the calm, not insane US leadership could potentially only last 4 years. Hoboy, I hope there's not another round of Trump...
• alberth 2y ago
  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 https://youtu.be/_UPvTdDB-h0 —- SCOTUS essentially ruled in favor of this theory.
  • tdeck 2y ago
    Unitary executive theory: Something conservatives on the Supreme Court came up with to defend any government action they like. Major questions doctrine: Something conservatives on the Superme Court came up with to defeat any government action they don't like.
  • api 2y ago
    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.
    • 3836293648 2y ago
      They control SCOTUS, they can just undo it when the president does something they don't like.
    • wumeow 2y ago
      They’re betting that the Democrats won’t have the guts to test the limits of this ruling.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • jaredhallen 2y ago
      Totally agree. Look at the Supreme Court nominations under Trump. He hit the jackpot. But then there was a bunch of talk by the other side of adding justices. Do we really want to open that can of worms? That's a blade that will cut both ways once the precedent is set.
    • ClarityJones 2y ago
• amai 2y ago
  It says: Immunity for official acts. Going after your opponents is rarely an official act. Nixon and Co. don‘t have immunity for un-official acts.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • tedd4u 2y ago
    I wish. An official act is not one that is motivated by government business. It's defined as the exercise of official powers. In the decision, the motive behind exercise of official powers can't be examined and the exercise itself (let alone the motivation) cannot be introduced into evidence at trial.
• romellem 2y ago
  A law podcast reacting to the ruling: - https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-43-well-so-much-for-the-republic https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-43-well-so-much-for-the-... - (non-paywall link) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-43-well-so-much-for-the-republic/id1727769913?i=1000660897146 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-43-well-so-much-for...
• HTG43 2y ago
  There was no way the Supreme Court was going to make a ruling that didn’t provide a backdoor for former, current, and future presidents. Mainly because it might open the door to some of the decisions a president makes that could be perceived as having criminal fallout. For example, ordering a strike (missile or something else) that results in collateral damage to civilians. Official acts is one of the super broad statements that’s open to interpretation and will take years of case law (if that ever happens) to narrow down to what it actually means.
• westurner 2y ago
  The 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. How does the comma matter in contracts? This: "Impeachment for, and Conviction of" Is distinct in meaning from this: "Impeachment for and Conviction of" Furthermore: "Judgement in cases of Impeachment" Is not: "Conviction in cases of Impeachment" Doesn't this then imply that "Judgement in cases of Impeachment" (i.e. by the Senate) is distinct from "Conviction"? 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.)
  • westurner 2y ago
    The 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. > Such would imply that presidents can be Impeached and Judged, and Convicted. Convicted just as other citizens with Limited Privileges and Immunities. OPINION: In the US Constitution, removal upon "Impeachment for" is distinct from removal for "Conviction of". Thereby there is removal from office for both: a) Impeachment by the Judgement of the House and Senate, and also by b) Conviction by implied existing criminal procedure for non-immune acts including "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Conviction is not wrought through Impeachment by the House & Senate, who can only remove from office. Neither is Arrest Removal from Office, nor is Removal from Office Arrest. Thereby, a President (like all other citizens) can be Convicted and then Impeached. That the Executive's own DOJ doesn't prosecute a sitting President is simply a courtesy.
• light_triad 2y ago
  This 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-recognize-an-unlawful-order/ https://www.militaryjusticecenter.com/blog/2022/03/can-you-r...
  • 7jjjjjjj 2y ago
    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.
• geekraver 2y ago
  So 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.
• Kalanos 2y ago
  The judicial branch is supposed to keep the legislative and executive branch in check. That's how the whole checks and balances thing works.
• Yawrehto 2y ago
  'Supreme Court Really Hoping Biden Has Morals And Won't Assassinate Them As An Official Act'.
• skdd8 2y ago
  All hail king...reads notes...Biden?
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• emrah 2y ago
  > The Seal Team 6 example is batted around because it is specifically cited by Trump's legal counsel as an official act that isn't bound by law No one and nothing should be above the law, even temporarily, period. That just opens up so many cans of worms.
• mikhael28 2y ago
  I hope when Trump is gone, one day, this fever will break and we can return to something resembling decency and decorum. He truly brings out the worst in everyone, left and right. Politicians used to resign when they were caught in scandal, now they lie, sue and spread misinformation when they get caught.
• Rakshith 2y ago
  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.
• pona-a 2y ago
  I 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.
• dakial1 2y ago
  So, can the president order the army to commit war crimes or genocide and not be prosecuted if it is set as an official act?