17 ms·

>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 m

• 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.
    • SoftTalker 2y ago
      A lot of presidents did a lot of wrong. The ones who did not would be a shorter list.
      • nashashmi 2y ago
        The point is there was a check and balance to make sure he did not get away with it
        • SoftTalker 2y ago
          AFAICT nothing changes as far as the remedy of impeachment as a check. The court is saying that the president has broad immunity from criminal charges in the judicial system, not that he can't be removed from power.
  • vundercind 2y ago
    Even if he had—he might have been acquitted! Even under a relatively fair trial! The dissent notes that official acts as a defense is already A Thing. What’s changed is upgrading that to immunity, which means they can’t be tried in the first place, no defense needed. The law is simply held not to apply.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • skhunted 2y ago
    There’s a huge difference between “I think I can get away with this” and “The Supreme Court says I have absolute immunity”.
• danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  It's extreme to the point of silliness. If a court decides that would fall under "official acts", we are already doomed.
  • OgsyedIE 2y ago
    In practice the court will say whatever POTUS tells it to say, lest an 'official act' remove some of the members of the court and their loved ones.
    • TylerE 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • mandmandam 2y ago
        [flagged]
      • mandmandam 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
          The funny thing is.. we are in a similar spot now too -- what with gerontocracy unwilling to let go of power -- and, it will likely surprise no one, amazingly long lived consequences.
        • TylerE 2y ago
          The Rs refused to given Garland his day in Congress, and they had the majority. What were the Dems supposed to do exactly?
          • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
            Get control of the senate. It wouldn't have mattered if they gave him his day, he wasn't going to get nominated. The republicans nominated Robert Bork back in the day, and the dems (then in control of the senate) voted it down. It's basically the same thing - the system working as intended.
• bitlax 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • rafram 2y ago
    An incorrect off-the-cuff comment during oral arguments != an incorrect assertion in a published decision.
  • squidbeak 2y ago
    She's a Supreme Court Justice so her cautions shouldn't be lightly dismissed.
• alphabetatheta 2y ago
  This is a terrible take. The Supreme Court case severely limits even the use of evidence to prosecute a President. The majority ruling says that as long as something is done in "official" capacity the intentions don't matter. EDIT: This ruling probably retroactively clears Nixon from Watergate. It would make it illegal to use the tapes as evidence against him.
  • vessenes 2y ago
    Would it? I am skeptical about this take and I am skeptical of Sotomayer’s take. What official capacity would Nixon have been undertaking? What official capacity would a seal team six assassination of trump be designated as? I’m also skeptical of her dissent strategy; dissents are key places to limit a ruling. Why not just say what seems crystal clear and say ‘nothing about this ruling should be taken to mean calling something an official act as a fig leaf for criminality is okay; it’s not okay to assassinate a political rival ever.’ Instead she says it might be okay by the ruling. I dislike this approach in the extreme; it feels like grandstanding and complaining about the Roberts court rather than engaging with her own substantial influence.
    • darkerside 2y ago
      Thank you for verbalizing something that was really bothering me here. Sotomayor is playing the victim in a way that is bad for America.
    • chasd00 2y ago
      >Instead she says it might be okay by the ruling yeah it seems like a traditional FUD strategy, i would expect Supreme Court justices to be more analytical and sober than that.
    • vharuck 2y ago
      >Would it? I am skeptical about this take and I am skeptical of Sotomayer’s take. What official capacity would Nixon have been undertaking? For the Nixon tapes, today's SCOTUS ruling would require the prosecution to convince a federal judge before trial that the value of the tapes in the criminal case greatly outweighs the general immunity from oversight presidents have when consulting advisors. Difficult, but not impossible. It probably would've given the same result in the Nixon case, because Nixon didn't use presidential powers to carry out the plan (just the cover up in the Saturday Night Massacre stage). If he had used an active FBI agent instead of a former one to place the bugs, then it might have been OK, according to today's ruling (see III.B.1 which grants immunity to Trump for his sham investigations using the DOJ). >What official capacity would a seal team six assassination of trump be designated as? The President is the head of the military and can direct them without consulting Congress. Congress is free to impeach him if he does so without authorization, but he'd have absolute immunity because this is a core power of the office. Maybe you meant, "What reason could there be to justify that killing in the name of the nation or its people?" In which case, the President would never have to say. His motives are not even allowed to be investigated. See III.A from the majority opinion: >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.
• lolinder 2y ago
  To give the majority opinion its own voice: > 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 Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf EDIT: OP left a reply to this comment that I think was unfairly flagged, visible here with showdead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848860
  • jampekka 2y ago
    "It's not illegal when the president does it."
    • moshun 2y ago
      Turns out Nixon won the battle for an American dictatorship after all. Well played, Dick.
  • treeFall 2y ago
    Then it sounds like Sotomayor is being extreme by conflating domestic political assassinations as an "official act." Does she not understand the difference?
    • downWidOutaFite 2y ago
      The ruling is extremely wishy washy about what is official vs unofficial, and keeps saying that it is very hard to determine, and even prohibits prosecutors from using certain legal tactics to determine if something is official or unofficial.
      • 2y ago
• blue_dragon 2y ago
  My naive assumption is that ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival is not an official nor constitutionally authorized power, and thus would be prosecutable.
  • saucetenuto 2y ago
    Guess again! Roberts explicitly calls out orders to the military as covered by absolute immunity. EDIT: and motive is explicitly barred from review too.
    • thih9 2y ago
      Do you have a source? I didn’t find this in the article, could you add a quote - or link if it’s from elsewhere?
      • ceejayoz 2y ago
        https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf Page 14 notes that the President's official responsibilities "include, for instance, commanding the Armed Forces of the United States; granting reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States; and ap- pointing public ministers and consuls, the Justices of this Court, and Officers of the United States." Page 17 states "We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority." Page 26 states "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives."
        • saucetenuto 2y ago
          thank you, friend
        • Aunche 2y ago
          > Page 14 notes that the President's official responsibilities "include, for instance, commanding the Armed Forces of the United States; granting reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States; and ap- pointing public ministers and consuls, the Justices of this Court, and Officers of the United States." Right below that it clarifies > If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id., at 582–589 (majority opinion). But once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• Aunche 2y ago
  [flagged]
• jhp123 2y ago
  This example came up during oral arguments, Trump's lawyer agreed that assassination of a political rival could be a protected official act[0] [0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/seal-team-6-assassination-hypothetical-scotus-presidential-immunity/story?id=111583216 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/seal-team-6-assassination-hy...
• crazygringo 2y ago
  I see a lot of people here in the comments claiming that this is still knee-jerk, or silly, or obviously that would not be an "official act". To the contrary -- this is an explicit example that came up during oral arguments, where a Trump lawyer specifically claimed that indeed, Trump could not be convicted criminally of this (unless he had first been impeached and convicted). Nowhere in the majority opinion does it try to draw some kind of line against this. And indeed, the President is constitutionally "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", and the opinion states this authority is "conclusive and preclusive". Quite simply, according to this decision, anything the president commands the Navy to do, including a Navy Seal, is an official act because it a power explicitly granted by the constitution, and thus immune from prosecution. To repeat: this specific scenario was brought up during oral arguments, indeed as one of the main arguments that was also widely reported. This is not a far-flung wacko example Sotomayor came up with herself -- it's the very heart of the case. The fact that the opinion does not even attempt to explain why this would still be considered criminal, and the fact the Sotomayor is confirming why it would be allowed, is not a misreading or a mistake. It is clearly intentional and genuinely scary.
  • specialist 2y ago
    > ...is not a misreading or a mistake. Nice bit of jujitsu by Trump's defense. Make an outrageous claim so out of bounds that any one who quotes you sounds like a lunatic. Surely the critic is exagerating, lying, offbase, or... ? No one would seriously claim they could murder some rando on Fifth Ave in broad daylight and get away with it. Right?! Results in opponents discrediting themselves. Brilliant.
• legitster 2y ago
  > As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity. FYI, the court is not saying Trump is granting Trump blanket immunity. For three of the counts the court is saying Trump is probably not immune but prosecutors need to clarify that his acts were outside of the duties of his office. > 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.
• Lerc 2y ago
  To extend the absurdity further. If the President truly believes that if their rival winning the presidency would endanger democracy, it would be the _duty_ of the President to take that action. This seems like a path towards civil war. [edit] Thinking about a way out of this mess. Here's a proposal. Biden asserts that he has this right, writes up a new amendment taking the right away, gives a date by which he will take action if the amendment has not been passed. (Then he should probably resign for effectively blackmailing the legislative branch)
  • Jsebast24 2y ago
    The deterrent for such action is that government officials are under the obligation to disobey orders that are unconstitutional. But that loyalty to the constitution doesn't seem to be strong anymore. High positions in the US government are now occupied by the kind of people who would follow those orders without hesitation.
    • Lerc 2y ago
      It seems unreasonable to require everyone who follows orders to be an expert on constitutional law. Especially when the highest court in the land can't seem to agree. Is it permissible to disobey an order that you merely believe is unconstitutional? What happens when your superior asserts that it is constitutional?
• Qahlel 2y ago
  Biden can order seal team 6 to clear out scotus, appoint new judges. If congress denies, then send the seal team 6 to congress. Seal team 6 FTW
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Impeachment? Wouldn't that also be an unlawful order?
• awb 2y ago
  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf > 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.” I’m hoping that the assassination of a political rival would be “palpably beyond” the authority of the President.
  • plandis 2y ago
    Well assassination of a political rival might be but what about the killing of the perceived head of a terrorist organization who attempted a coup to overturn a federal US election? Sounds like a national defense concern that the president could decide to handle. I think this is logically in line with the ruling but is completely absurd morally. SCOTUS explicitly says you cannot question the motive of a presidents actions when making a determination for what is protected and not.
    • Tadpole9181 2y ago
      And how, pray tell, is that compatible with them also saying that neither Congress nor Courts can call into question the motivation of the President for doing so? All the president need do is say "they were a national security concern" and they are now absolutely immune from anyone so much as presenting evidence in a trial that says otherwise!
      • kristjansson 2y ago
        The ultimate Congressional remedy is impeachment, which this ruling doesn't contemplate (except to reject silly arguments presented by the defense). However, the limits on congress and the judiciary are not absolute: > Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. It follows that an Act of Congress — either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one — may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. It's only the executives exclusive powers (which are more limited) that cannot be restrained.
• tivert 2y ago
  >> 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. Wouldn't something like that be essentially an illegal order and therefore invalid? And/or something that would be trivial to fix (e.g pass a law saying it's not within the president's official powers to order a domestic assassination)?
  • Miner49er 2y ago
    How can it be an illegal order when this decision makes all of the Presidents "official actions" legal?
    • tivert 2y ago
      > How can it be an illegal order when this decision makes all of the Presidents "official actions" legal? Because "official actions" doesn't mean "every action" or "every action attempting to use presidential authority," I think it has to be an action exercising the constitutional powers of the president. For instance: for the purposes of simplicity, lets assume all legislation authorizing the president to take military action without prior congressional approval has been repealed, and the congress has not declared war on anyone or authorized the use of military force in any circumstances. The president then orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a waitress who spilled coffee on him, ruining his lucky suit. That would be illegal order since the president does not have constitutional authority to take such action on his own without authorization by congress and that authorization does not exist.
      • darkerside 2y ago
        So I guess a hypothetical path forward would be a prosecutor choosing to pursue the charge, and the defense pleading not guilty on the basis of it being an official act. It would then be up to the prosecutor to prove that this was not an unofficial act, without using motive as a piece of evidence. Seems backwards, like proving a negative. How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no official basis for an act? Especially when the response is almost certainly going to be, "the reason for the official action is classified".
• woodruffw 2y ago
  To be clear: Sotomayor is interpreting the majority decision, not stating her own opinion. She's opposed to the interpretation in question. (I can't tell whether the OP was confused by this, but the linked Tweet has enough people being confused by it to make it worth mentioning.)
• blindriver 2y ago
  Obama ordered an American Citizen to be assassinated via a drone attack, without a trial or anything. Should he be charged with murder? https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/is-it-legal-for-the-u-s-to-kill-a-16-year-old-u-s-citizen-with-a-drone/ https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/is-it-legal-for-the-u-s-t...
  • breaker-kind 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • jampekka 2y ago
    He should be charged with war crimes, like more or less all US (and many other) presidents. Of course it's not gonna happen.
    • blashyrk 2y ago
      The fact that George Bush Junior is a free man is downright insulting
      • jampekka 2y ago
        There's not much in geopolitics that isn't downright insulting. Different flags, same scumbags.
  • yoavm 2y ago
    Comparing the idea of ordering the killing your political opponent with approving an operation with killed of someone related to an Al-Qaeda and even saying it was a mistake is weird, to say the least.
    • blindriver 2y ago
      It sounds like you have no concept of the law.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• jmyeet 2y ago
  A lot of people, myself included, expected some carve out for "official acts". There was never going to be blanket immunity and the Court was going to take the case just to agree with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals [1]. SCOTUS slow walked this case. They could've taken it back when they were asked to in December. They waited until the end of hte term to deliver a verdict. The verdict ensures that any trial court findings of "official court" are going to simply make their way back to this exact same court. The majority opinion even had the gall to call the prosecutions "hasty" when we're largely talking about things that happened in 2021. But this decision is so much worse than many (myself included) expected. Not only is there blanket immunity for "official acts" but there is presumptive innocence for anything on the peripherey. Even worse, if something is a statutory or constitutional power of the office of President, the reason does not matter. The reason can't even be considered in deciding if something is an "official act" or not. So the president has the right to issue pardons with ultimate discretion. If they want to sell pardons, now they can. Why? Because the reason this "official act" happened is irrelevant. That's what the Court decided. Same for selling judgeships or presidential appointments. We already have the donor-to-ambassador pipeline [2]. Now we don't even need the ruse of it being a donation. The President can simply sell ambassadorships for personal gain. That's what this decision did. [1]: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1AC5A0E7090A350785258ABB0052D942/$file/23-3228-2039001.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1AC5A0E7... [2]: https://campaignlegal.org/press-releases/new-campaign-legal-center-report-donor-ambassador-pipeline https://campaignlegal.org/press-releases/new-campaign-legal-...