16 ms·

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 ame

• 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...
      • Ancapistani 2y ago
        > when Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary As best I can tell, most who voted for him didn't actually believe he would do that - and he didn't. The whole "because you'd be in jail" was Trump being Trump, not a campaign promise. When Trump says something like that, knowing whether he's in earnest or being bombastic is like knowing what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are figurative - it's very much open to individual interpretation.
        • ModernMech 2y ago
          > and he didn't. Not for lack of trying. The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-tru... We now live in a world where in a future Trump administration: - Trump knows even if he's impeached he will not be removed because his party will protect him, since he was impeached and not removed for far more serious matters. - SCOTUS just told Trump that any conversations he has with his DOJ are under the umbrella of core authority and cannot be reviewed. - The current purity tests being employed at the RNC by his kin show a future Trump administration will not hire someone like Don McGahn who will tell him "no" about anything. Why are you so sure a future President Trump would not try again and be successful?
    • sickofparadox 2y ago
      I would imagine that Obama is quite happy with his presidential immunity for ordering the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen via drone strike[1]. [1] https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years-after-the-al-awlaki-killing-a-reckoning-for-the-united-states-drones-wars-awaits/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years-after-the-al-awlaki-kill...
      • afavour 2y ago
        Yes I'm quite sure Obama is happy with it. Should the rest of us be? Would a court case over the legality of such an action not be a positive thing?
      • ceejayoz 2y ago
        I mean, is that the out for Biden? A drone strike on Mar-a-Lago as an "official act" for which he enjoys absolute immunity?
        • newfriend 2y ago
          If he wants a civil war, sure.
          • ceejayoz 2y ago
            Obviously, but we're to believe it'd be entirely legal to do so?
            • Ancapistani 2y ago
              No, because of the use of the military within the borders of the country is separately and explicitly illegal under US law.
              • gaganyaan 2y ago
                But now that doesn't matter. The president is immune as long as there's the defense of it being an official act
    • throw0101b 2y ago
      > Why didn't that happen when Obama left office? What illegal acts did Obama do, while POTUS, yet outside of his 'official duties', what would warrant prosecution? Remember the context for this decision: Trump's participation in the events of January 6: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito... You know, the insurrection in which people have been found guilty of seditious action: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Seditious_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_Ja... Were his January 6 actions part of his official duties?
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • shadowtree 2y ago
        He droned and killed a US citizen without due process. Literal murder.
        • oblio 2y ago
          Based on other comments, that was unintentional. So manslaughter, at worst.
          • WillPostForFood 2y ago
            Obama killed 4 Americans in drone attacks. 3 unintentionally, but Anwar Awlaki was targeted.
            • tonynator 2y ago
              [flagged]
              • galactus 2y ago
                As american as Barak Obama, right?
    • lupusreal 2y ago
      Obama didn't prosecute Bush, so the Republicans didn't try to prosecute Obama. Professional courtesy.
  • kibwen 2y ago
    If presidents break the law, they should be prosecuted. I don't care who you are or what party you're with.
    • readthenotes1 2y ago
      First, I agree . Second, the first step in that is the impeachment process.
      • jkaplowitz 2y ago
        Impeachment is not required in order to allow prosecuting a president, and even Chief Justice’s majority opinion which granted presidents significant immunity explicitly rejected the idea that impeachment is such a prerequisite. Impeachment is only a prerequisite to the Senate possibly convicting in the political rather than criminal trial and removing the person from office, and then possibly disqualifying them from future federal office. It has no bearing on whatever criminal procedures are not blocked by immunity.
      • vundercind 2y ago
        It is super-duper clear that’s not intended by the authors of the constitution, judging from their writings and the records of the debate over the constitution, and from the very limited relevant text in the constitution itself. This is laid out clearly in the dissent, complete with references for further reading. Meanwhile the majority’s argument is “lack of immunity (which has, so far, not existed!!!) would make the president too timid, so we’re adding immunity”.
        • cogman10 2y ago
          Yup, all the originalists and textualists on the court running and hiding when the outcome benefits their person. Instead it's just "Well, we like trump so let's benefit him". What a horrible corrupt court. I'm 1000% sure that if trump wins and starts prosecuting his political rivals the court will give it the nod as being AOK.
  • jshier 2y ago
    Corrupt admins will already do that, so giving blanket immunity doesn't actually help anyone. All they need to then corruptly prosecute anyone is a court to agree that some act was "unofficial".
    • pessimizer 2y ago
      It has never happened before now. It isn't because past presidents have never been criminals, it was convention. It's a way for your country not to turn into Haiti or Zimbabwe.
      • jkaplowitz 2y ago
        Nixon was very probably criminal, but Ford’s pardon prevented a prosecution without having to settle the question of whether Nixon would have been immune in the absence of a pardon.
  • ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
    People forget that Obama actually did some questionable things too. He greenlit drone strikes that killed at least 2 Americans, not to mention civilian casualties. And he was the president that the 'holding camps' at the border (not sure what to call them) were started. No one (that I know of) seriously thought he should go to prison for those acts, but honestly the argument seems pretty easy to be made without some sort of immunity.
  • vlovich123 2y ago
    They could be prosecuted, but prosecutors generally don’t like to bring losing cases. And the actions being official acts was already a defense. The distinction was that you could still get prosecuted, but you just had to show a non corrupt intent in doing the action and get the case easily dismissed. Now you don’t even need to show that you had non corrupt intent - just claim official acts and no lawsuit is possible in the first place.
  • pacifika 2y ago
    I guess you need some new parties
  • digging 2y ago
    Not if there was a grace period before prosecution could be brought, or literally any other mechanism that exists between the binary "impossible to prosecute" and "guaranteed to prosecute"
  • inpdx 2y ago
    "If presidents could be prosecuted for their official acts" This has always been presumed to be the case yet it has never resulted in what you say. It's a nonsense theoretical as cover for what is otherwise utterly indefensible as making the president king.
  • HaZeust 2y ago
    This wasn't even a problem before the last 4 years, and the only times it were - was when the suspecting president agreed they broke the law and stepped down, or got impeached. We have monarchy after monarchy to show that sovereign immunity builds toxic ontological relationships between participants of a political system, and often invites tyranny. Your suspicions, for 238 years straight, have been amiss.
    • electrondood 2y ago
      This hasn't been a problem for 250 years, and it's still not a problem anyone has. This ruling serves one specific purpose: to protect one single person from the consequences of their crimes.
      • HaZeust 2y ago
        We are in agreement.
• dustincoates 2y ago
  Sure. You want a President to be able to carry out the roles of the office without concern that his or her political opponents will use the courts to try to punish those actions. There are reasonable disagreements on where Presidential authority begins or ends on many topics, and you want the limits to be either through separation of powers (e.g., the Judicial Branch can bring an end to actions, the Legislative can impeach and remove the President) or through the ballot box. This does not mean, including from the majority opinion, that anything the President does is immune from challenges. If the President directs a cover-up for his campaign (Nixon) or directs a Governor to find enough ballots for him to win or directs "alternate electors" via fraud (Trump), this is not an official action. Trump's lawyers admitted as much in the oral arguments.
  • afavour 2y ago
    > Sure. You want a President to be able to carry out the roles of the office without concern that his or her political opponents will use the courts to try to punish those actions. Hrm. Surely the implication you're outlining here is that the President will be breaking the law while carrying out "the roles of the office"? Is that not a concern?
    • dustincoates 2y ago
      The next sentence addresses that—there are reasonable disagreements to the extent that some actions are legal or not.
      • afavour 2y ago
        Why is a court the wrong place to settle those disagreements? That is to say, why is it preferable for a President to face the possibility of impeachment by Congress over a jury of everyday citizens? Seems considerably easier to rig the former than the latter.
        • dustincoates 2y ago
          Let's take Biden's student loan forgiveness as an example. Some say that he overstepped his authority. The courts should decide if that act is legally permitted, but it would be a tough pull to think that he should be personally responsible for that, including potential jail time. Now egregious cases that fall outside of the reasonable expectations of the role of the President. Sure, those should go to the courts. But I don't think this case prevents that. Most of what Trump did after the election, IMO, was clearly as a candidate, not a President.
• ninininino 2y ago
  I believe the argument conservatives have been trying to make that aligns with the court's ruling is mostly about some very specific fear that an incoming or current president could prosecute former presidents and therefore crush dissent. So basically you have the right scared of former presidents being unjustly targeted in a way that threatens the democratic process, and then you have the left scared that the immunity will itself threaten the democratic process/enable dictators and corruption. Unjust use of prosecution as a political weapon vs just plain corruption being shielded. It sure seems to me like it would be better if these matters could be handled on a case by case basis rather than in some black and white "former presidents can" vs "former presidents can't" be prosecuted way, but perhaps that is what will end up happening, not a legal expert.
  • dustincoates 2y ago
    > if these matters could be handled on a case by case basis rather than in some black and white "former presidents can" vs "former presidents can't" be prosecuted way That's largely what's happening here. The President _can_ be prosecuted for things that fall outside of the official role as President. This is not a blanket immunity.
    • haswell 2y ago
      Defining what is considered “official” and more importantly, what is absolutely not official is now at issue and where things get sticky. Certainly a president carrying out actions that call for prosecution would make the claim that those actions were either official or required to carry out the official duties of the office. Any hope of justice now depends entirely on being able to draw that line and agree about where it’s drawn.
    • mywittyname 2y ago
      This is the same loophole applied to qualified immunity in general. On the surface, it appears like there's criteria to consider, but such criteria cannot possibly exist. It's like saying, "Bribery is only illegal if it is called bribery during the commission of the crime. But also, The State cannot investigate what was discussed during such events without evidence that a crime was committed." They are basically establishing legal paradoxes.
• dagmx 2y ago
  I can’t defend the ruling based on the actual effects, because it puts someone above the law. However one could argue that this is the logical extension of qualified immunity for police officers which is precedent the court has already set. To be clear though, I think qualified immunity of any sort shouldn’t be allowed. It’s a subversion of any kind of fair justice.
  • cushpush 2y ago
    Diplomatic Immunity
  • ethbr1 2y ago
    The office of the President has always been above many laws. The redress has been assumed to be federal elections. If the President were to abuse the law (to the extent he could with the power of the executive branch), then he would be voted out of office in (max) 4 years.
    • czl 2y ago
      > then he would be voted out of office in (max) 4 years. Assuming the abuse of power does not prevent this.
  • s1artibartfast 2y ago
    qualified immunity makes perfect sense. It would be impossible to have a police force without it. What is wrong with qualified immunity is the "clearly established law" standard, which requires prior case law precedent to pierce qualified immunity. It is also worth nothing that qualified immunity provides no protection for criminal actions, the enforcement of which are an entirely separate challenge.
• alistairSH 2y ago
  This is like qualified immunity (usually for police), but applied to POTUS. You want public servants to be able to do their jobs without fear of time-wasting litigation. But, if you grant blanket immunity, the poilice (or POTUS) are free to do whatever they want. We're quite clearly tilted way over into "do what they want" territory.
  • Waterluvian 2y ago
    I think that’s the argument, yes. I think it’s facially a bad one when you consider all the examples of functional police that lack QI. Makes me skeptical that it’s a good faith argument.
    • alistairSH 2y ago
      100% agree. AFAIK, QI no longer exists in England (not sure about Scotland or N.I.). And Germany never had it (civil cases for damages would be against the state, not the state representative).
      • ffgjgf1 2y ago
        > civil cases for damages would be against the state, not the state representative Isn’t that the same as QI?
  • Clubber 2y ago
    I believe qualified immunity only protects from direct civil litigation but not criminal.
    • alistairSH 2y ago
      Yep, it's a rough analogy, not a perfect match. And, given the state of policing and justice in the US, civil litigation is often the only way to get any relief for over-zealous policing. And QI makes that bar even higher than it should be.
    • Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
• mlinhares 2y ago
  A common thing in empires is that the behavior that was perpetrated in the colonies eventually comes back to the mainland to be applied to the, previously, sheltered population. Out of the US, US presidents have always had effective immunity from any consequences, committing war crimes, disrespecting local laws and eschewing even the UN. Kinda like an expected consequence of everything else.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• pyuser583 2y ago
  Sure. The Founders envisioned an extremely weak criminal justice system, especially for "their class of people." Defendants were given extremely strong protections, and convictions were the exception, not the rule. The Founders were more concerned about facing a duel than a criminal conviction. So they added other mechanisms for presidential accountability: impeachment, elections, and the weakness of the office. These other mechanisms have become weaker and weaker, while the criminal justice system has become stronger and stronger. Impeachment's happen, but not Senate convictions. The political parties have created a duopoloy on power which allow them to run weak candidates. Congress is less and less willing to hold presidents of their own party accountable. Dueling is prohibited not just criminally, but constitionally in most states. At the same time the criminal justice system is becoming more and more powerful. Convictions are in the high 90%. Juries are very weak and at the mercy of powerful prosecutors. The Constitution simply didn't envision a situation where the criminal justice system is more likley to hold someone accountable than an election or Congress. Impeachment, elections, and duels no longer deter bad conduct. Convictions do. So we have an edge case: a system that can only hold an ex-President accountable via a criminal charge. Edge cases are weird. They create "sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't" situations. And that's where we are now.
  • chadash 2y ago
    > Convictions are in the high 90%. Juries are very weak and at the mercy of powerful prosecutors. This is a bit misleading. DAs have latitude about what to prosecute and if they don't think they can win, they dont have to bring it to court.
    • BobaFloutist 2y ago
      And even if they do think they can probably win, they'll usually leverage that into a plea deal.
      • qingcharles 2y ago
        And even when the case is a sure loser they'll often leverage that into a plea deal too, especially if the defendant is being held in pretrial detention.
• MagicMoonlight 2y ago
  You have a whole congress and senate to hold them accountable. If they haven’t, then why should a random prosecutor in a city court be able to issue an arrest warrant and prosecute the leader of the country? Without immunity you’ll get the kind of shit they’ve done with trump, but against sitting presidents. Imagine if Obama had been arrested every time he entered Texas because the locals just feel like prosecuting him to send a message.
  • ModernMech 2y ago
    We don't have to imagine, because it didn't happen, because it's not and was not and won't be a real problem. Okay, but now that hypothetical problem is solved, we have the opposite hypothetical problem. Let's see if it turns out to be more of an actual problem compared to your imaginary one, which never materialized in 250 years of the presidency. My guess is it's going to be an actual problem almost immediately, as soon as someone with low moral character is elected. Wonder how long that will take.
• danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  It's worth reading the actual ruling rather than the reporting on it, which is downright awful.
  • squidbeak 2y ago
    Here's a sample of Sotomayor's dissent: > 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. > 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.
    • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • fzeroracer 2y ago
        Do you really want this kind of thing to be speculated to be possible? The court should be putting the squash on this kind of thing full stop, not giving any wriggle room at all. The fact that you have to argue that a supreme court justice is speculating on the downstream effects of a monstrous decision should tell you something is very wrong. Step back and think for one second.
        • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
          It's been speculated on for ages. Humans tend to deal with things as they come up. The entire system is built that way. We don't write legislation that deals with every single possibility, we deal with it in the courts as it happens. It seems to basically work.
• coffeemug 2y ago
  Yes. Ever since Bill Clinton (and probably before that, I was too young) the President and a non-trivial number of presidential candidates were either under an investigation of some sort, or a threat of such an investigation. Obviously Bill, Hillary, constant threats of investigation of George W Bush and Obama, special counsel investigating Biden, and all the Trump cases. Notably nothing ever comes out of these. This is ridiculous! It's blatantly political and both parties are guilty of this. The justice system is meant to hold people accountable for breaking the law, not as an additional political mechanism for checks and balances. I haven't looked into the case and don't know the legal precedent SCOTUS used for this decision, but from a consequentialist standpoint this seems to me an obviously good outcome.
  • jauntywundrkind 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • mywittyname 2y ago
      Clinton was charged with lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. The first and second charges were approved while the third was rejected. He was only found guilty of the obstruction charge. The behavior of Ken Starr in this case was abhorrent. In my eyes, there was a degree of witness intimidation going on in this case. Ironically, this SCOTUS ruling would have blocked Clinton's impeachment because Ken Starr was an Independent Counsel, which SCOTUS ruled cannot be used in such matters.
      • mrguyorama 2y ago
        >Clinton was charged with lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Which were none of the things he was initially accused of or investigated for. Ain't that funny
    • ImJamal 2y ago
      Are you seriously suggesting that Democrats don't commit war crimes? You should probably look up Obama's track record on this. Killing Americans without due process, torture, killing civilians, etc. Not to mention other crimes like the massive amount of spying on Americans. Don't forget Snowden revealed all his stuff during Obama's reign and those crimes were still ongoing.
• ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Do you mean beyond what's written in the decision itself? Do you have a specific criticism of what was written by the justices themselves?
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• legitster 2y ago
  The ruling says that 3 of the 4 indictments against Trump can proceed so long as prosecutors make a case that the President was acting outside of his duties. A president being incompetent or immoral in his line of duty is an issue for voters or congress to decide on. But a White House bogged down in lawsuits or petty criminal charges would cease to function.
  • nprateem 2y ago
    Which they can't because official duties haven't been defined. Trump can now continually appeal his actions were official, delaying charges until after November when, if he wins the election, he can instruct the DoJ to drop the case.
    • legitster 2y ago
      > Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. And the parties’ brief comments at oral argument indicate that they starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations. The concerns we noted at the outset—the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties—thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial. The majority opinion is pretty clear that of the indictments, 3 have pretty good grounds to proceed.
      • nprateem 2y ago
        And after the district court determines, if it's against Trump he'll appeal back to his buddies in the Supreme court again who'll let him off.
  • riskable 2y ago
    If a president assassinates his political rivals I don't think you can say it's, "an issue for voters or congress to decide on." That would be impossible, since anyone the voters wanted to replace the sitting executive or his allies would just be arrested or murdered outright (as an official act, no less!).
• jimbob45 2y ago
  Impeachment is the intended vehicle for presidential punishment.
  • riskable 2y ago
    That's irrelevant since the SCOTUS ruling is all about what happens after a president is no longer president. Impeachment only applies to a sitting president. Not one who is no longer in office.
  • alluro2 2y ago
    Oh yeah, Trump was really severely punished by being impeached twice.
    • fulladder 2y ago
      That’s because neither resulted in a conviction by the Senate.
• GreedIsGood 2y ago
  Prosecutors have wide ranging discretion, our laws are complex and subject to a tremendous amount of interpretation. Without protection the executive would be at the mercy of the judicial branch. This is clearly an inversion of power. Perhaps the solution is clean out our legal system wholesale so that it is obvious to all involved whether an action or set of actions could not result in prosecution in the future. Such an action was not within the power of the supreme court.
• marcell 2y ago
  Generally the way to hold a president accountable is to impeach him and remove him from office. Under this ruling, the court system is generally not a way to keep him accountable. So it’s not that there is no accountability or way to “punish”, a rogue president, it’s just a different method of accountability than what applies to you and me.
  • insane_dreamer 2y ago
    This does put the President above the law. Congress can choose to impeach, but they are not doing so based on the laws of the land, but based on their own determination (whether it is in their best interest for that President to be gone or not), which (unsurprisingly) is split along political lines (which is why it's so hard to actually impeach the president). Therefore impeachment is not a means to hold a President accountable for illegal or anti-democratic actions, but rather it is a means for a united Congress to have some power over the President in the event he managed to piss off enough people from both parties.
  • kristjansson 2y ago
    > Generally the way to hold a president accountable is to impeach him and remove him from office. Impeachment is a political solution to political disagreements. This opinion makes most disagreements with 'official acts' a political question, to be settled by election or impeachment. Critically (and thankfully) it rejects outright the idea that impeachment is the _only_ mechanism restraining a president. Criminal liability is still a viable mechanism for holding a president responsible for all unofficial acts, and potentially for some official acts.
• throwadobe 2y ago
  Everyone seems to be calling this "blanket immunity" but that's not right. It's immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically the president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal. This doesn't mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.
  • inpdx 2y ago
    Anything can be made an official act. That's why this is unfathomably bad.
    • treeFall 2y ago
      Only if you believe that words have no meaning. If you're already at that place in your mind, anything is possible regardless.
      • tcmart14 2y ago
        The problem isn't them. We just not too long ago have a court case that questioned whether the President is considered an "officer of the United States." The unfortunate part of law is, half of law is arguing about what 'is' is. So its not necessarily that words don't have meaning. Its more of, the words can change meaning.
        • electrondood 2y ago
          Not only that, but this same court removed the constitutional right to an abortion because it wasn't enumerated in the Constitution. Now, they completely invent criminal immunity out of thin air (which btw was never necessary in the last 250 years until we had a criminal president), when the intent of the drafters to never elevate any person above the law was crystal clear. The Roberts court is just arbitrarily choosing whatever justification they happen to like for any given case to push an extremist agenda.
• rayiner 2y ago
  The counterpoint is both obvious and obviously correct. Assume we accept that the President has immunity for whatever constitutes official conduct (which this decision does not get into). Presidents have fixed terms, so unless ex-presidents have immunity, they can be prosecuted for anything they do in office, including their official duties. That would make it difficult for the president to take action while in office. Can we prosecute Obama for ordering drone strikes on U.S. citizens? Can we prosecute Bush for the Iraq war? Can we prosecute Biden in a few months for deaths caused by his border policies? Also, this is just how immunity works! Judges have immunity for their judicial conduct in office, and don’t lose it when they retire. When the GOP wins a trifecta next year, can they prosecute retired liberal justices for homicide for abortion rulings?
• awb 2y ago
  I think it’s consistent with the philosophy that States should curtail the powers of the President through constitutional amendments. It’s a strict constructionist interpretation, where the judiciary shouldn’t fix problems that the people, congress and States have the power to fix. In the example of the President (Commander in Chief) directing the military to thwart political enemies, I think a strict constructionist might say, the people freely elected that President, 2/3 of States failed to pass an amendment curtailing the President’s unilateral command of the military and the Congress failed to impeach and convict the President, so the judiciary is hardly to blame when the people, congress and States all could have intervened if there was a concern. There are obviously counter arguments to this strict constructionist view, which the minority documented. The counter-argument is basically, yes there are those other options, but we have to use a liberal interpretation in this moment instead of a strict interpretation in order to prevent some potential disastrous consequences. And if the people, states and congress don’t like our liberal interpretation, then they can overrule us using the same methods of voting, laws, constitutional amendments, etc. that the strict constructionists advocate.
  • mrkeen 2y ago
    > I think it’s consistent with the philosophy that States should curtail the powers of the President through constitutional amendments. Who's going to hold him to that? https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-ducks-opportunity-trump-emoluments-cases https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supr...
  • BatmansMom 2y ago
    I thought the strict constructionist arguments fell apart when the dissent quoted the Constitution which says even if a president is impeached, they “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7 I don't see how any interpretation of this text could imply that the president is immune from criminal prosecution. It clearly says a president is not immune from criminal penalties, how could they write this while also considering the president immune for offical acts?
    • 2y ago
• snickerbockers 2y ago
  Sure. * Bush fabricated evidence to start a war and never got prosecuted. * Obama's administration literally sold guns to a Mexican drug cartel for no apparent reason. * Reagan had iran/contra * various different "collateral damage" fuckups under every administration during my lifetime where dozens of civilians are killed but nobody cared because they're poor, brown, and not American * Kennedy authorized the CIA to raise a private army and launch an invasion of a country we weren't at war with. And many more, this is but a small sample of the crimes presidents have committed. But nobody ever gets held personally accountable for anything until Doritos Hitler comes along and commits a series of crimes which, while unconscionable, are comparatively minor next to the above listed. This ruling hasn't actually changed anything. It just codified something that has obviously been true for at least 80 years, and it prevented one party from selectively applying the law to a political opponent in a way which it almost never gets applied. So my defense isn't that the president should be above the law (he shouldn't), but that he obviously already has been above the law for a very long time and pretending otherwise is just lying to yourself and the american people.
  • enceladus06 2y ago
    As an Independent who is not voting for Trump or Biden and has largely stopped following the election drama: Starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan post-September 11 (Bush -- Republican), and the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam conflict (LBJ -- Democrat) these were much more costly and problematic than the issues that happened while Trump was president. The United States should concentrate on its citizens and not on being the world police, and should never get into any external war. Israel can get tank ammunition pushed through with no problem, but we can't get healthcare, childcare, housing, or education at affordable rates. This means that the priorities of the government are not aligned with the priorities of the citizenry and we need to re-align the governemnt with the citizenry. We also have a childhood obesity crisis, with about 20% of children obese, which will cause much larger problems 20 years down the road when Gen Alpha is all grown up, and Trump and Biden are both dead. This country is not able to think long-term about how expensive GLP-1 agonists will be for 20% of the population. Also, real inflation is still high; groceries, at least at Trader Joe's, are still much more expensive than pre-pandemic prices. I don't care what is going on in the world until we fix our own internal problems, which neither major party has shown a willingness to do. As I see it the major political parties both use certain emotional issues including gun control, abortion, immigration to drive voter outrage, while ignoring the issues that are actually important.
• remarkEon 2y ago
  Here's the link to the actual Opinion, which is worth reading because the arguments are complicated and nuanced - and this makes sense, because no former president has faced criminal charges before. The reporting on this topic is atrocious. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
• erichocean 2y ago
  > can someone defend it? You're in luck! The Supreme Court itself writes down why the decision was made. You can just…read it.