6 ms·
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?
by 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 agoFDR did a lot of wrong, including paying farmers to not work.
- SoftTalker 2y agoA lot of presidents did a lot of wrong. The ones who did not would be a shorter list.
- nashashmi 2y agoThe point is there was a check and balance to make sure he did not get away with it
- SoftTalker 2y agoAFAICT 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 agoEven 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 agoThere’s a huge difference between “I think I can get away with this” and “The Supreme Court says I have absolute immunity”.
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoExcept the ruling doesn't say that.
- skhunted 2y agoWhile a president has total immunity for exercising “core constitutional powers,” a sitting or former president also has “presumptive immunity” for all official acts. That immunity, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion, “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.”
- redserk 2y agoWhat’s exactly said and what are the practical impacts are two completely different things. It will take many, many cases to elaborate on what defines an official act and what exactly decides immunity, and in the process we could see a lot of potential what-I’d-say is overreach. It is far too early to declare that there will be zero side effects from this — as with literally any Supreme Court ruling. We’ve already seen what qualified immunity gets us, and I’d bet many people didn’t expect it to go that way.
- lenerdenator 2y agoIt absolutely says that. A President, if they act in an "official" capacity, cannot later be charged with a crime for something they did in that official capacity. Not "can offer being an official as a defense", "cannot be charged". What is an official capacity? Well there's the traditional stuff like vetoes, appointments, and the like, but there's a lot of stuff that is far more nebulous. Does the President act in an official capacity when telling the Vice President what to do with regards to certifying an electoral college result? Well, if that's official, Trump has to be more-or-less let go for what happened on January 6th. We are now basically saying that it's up to a judge - who may or may not have been appointed by the President in question - to decide whether something was an official act. If it is? Welp, sorry the President's wanton order violated your Constitutional rights, but no trial.
- dooglius 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States?use...
- throwawaymaths 2y agoNote v. United States, not v. FDR
- flyingpenguin 2y agoHe very likely should have at least been tried (and probably acquitted). I don't understand this modern take so many people have that "Freedom to act" somehow means "act without consequences".