5 ms·

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 h

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.
- ameister14 2y ago
  Well, to be fair, the first two examples she uses are very likely official acts and the third requires an official act to be bribery in the first place.
- bobsomers 2y ago
  I don't think it is, to be honest. All three of those examples are clearly official acts. The President is commander-in-chief of the military, and is also responsible for granting pardons. The key piece of the ruling which lends credibility to her examples is that any motive or details behind the official acts are immune from scrutiny. The only real difference is whether the acts are official or not. So the President is allowed to order the military to assassinate a political rival, but not to pay a private hitman to do so. It's a pretty ridiculous and indefensible stance from the majority opinion.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    They are not clearly official acts. It's going to be years of decisions and debate to define official acts. As an example, the fact he's in charge of the military doesn't make everything he asks them to do official because he is obliged to follow the constitution. There are arguments to make against what I just said. It's as clear as mud once you start going through concrete scenarios.
    - metabagel 2y ago
      This is as the Imperial Supreme Court wants it, so that it will come back to them every time an important decision needs to be made. This enhances their power and ability to shape events. Murkier is better.
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        It also makes it easier for partisan rulings on a case-by-case basis. If defendant is on your team: allow it, if not, issue a self-contained ruling (or don't pick up the case at all if lower courts ruled against them). We have front-row seats to how empires decline and fade away. I guess those who missed the 20th century decline of the British Empire (culminating in Brexit) can study this one.
        theGnuMe 2y ago
        Yep, peak hypocrisy.
- denton-scratch 2y ago
  > like, those assume the court will find anything to be an official act, which is nonsensical. But the Supremes haven't said what they think an official act is; that's a matter for the court of first instance, according to the Supremes. To me, in the UK, it looks like vandalism. There's no clear law on what constitutes an official presidential act, and until there is, the Pres is beyond the reach of the law. I don't think these very senior lawyers are fools, I don't think they made a mistake. They've deliberately fucked-up the US legal system (even more than it's already a mess).
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    That's not how it works. If he does X and the court decides X is not an official act, he isn't immune. He doesn't get to say "well it was undefined at the time". Read the actual ruling. They haven't fucked up anything. They haven't actually said much. Any time you read media coverage of a supreme court decision you've already made a mistake. You have to read the source material.
bbddg 2y ago
A president who is willing to do those things, and has a military willing to carry those orders out, isn't likely to be stopped by the court telling them it's illegal.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  Bad logic. Is someone more or less likely to perform such an act if there's a possibility of legal consequences? If not, then we don't really need courts at all, do we?
- kibwen 2y ago
  The fact that the courts have explicitly legalized these blatantly criminal acts is what gives the military the cover and the imperative to dutifully carry them out.
mrcwinn 2y ago
Serious question: how is assassination an official act? Asked another way, under what constitutional authority is the president charged with assassinating political leaders inside the United States? I'm not saying a president couldn't try. I can imagine that. I cannot understand how it would be an official act. If the president runs out of Kleenex and opts for toilet paper instead, that is not an official act merely because he is president.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  If Lincoln had a Seal Team Six, and ordered said team to take out Jefferson Davis, would Lincoln have been open to prosecution, or immune as he had been undertaking an official act as commander in chief?
- electrondood 2y ago
  That's the problem. The ruling provides no guidance whatsoever, so as long as a President can make the case, it's an official act.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    No, that's not right. The court will decide, and they do give some thoughts/guidance.
    - redserk 2y ago
      Well no, you’re making an assumption with how a court would rule in this situation. There is nothing mandating that a court has to put careful consideration between what is and isn’t official business.
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        No, wrong. The comment says the court will rule, not how they'll rule. How on earth do you read that comment and think it says how they'll rule?
    - deleted 2y ago
Aunche 2y ago
> Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. There is no way that Sotomayor genuinely believes this. If Trump becomes president and is prosecuted again, I guarantee she'll argue that his crimes don't fall under the President's official duties.
- notacoward 2y ago
  And she'll be on the minority side. Case decided, six to three, and she gets to write another dissent that will be ignored.
- BatmansMom 2y ago
  I don't understand how you could not believe this under the majority opinion. The constitution is very clear that supreme command of the armed forces falls to the Commander-in-Chief. The President. It must follow that when the president directs the armed forces he is performing an official action that is exclusively given to him via the constitution. If that is not an official action, then what is? There is nothing in the constitution directing how the president should direct the armed forces. And it follows from that if its an official action then he is immune.
  - Aunche 2y ago
    If Donald Trump ordered the military to manicure the lawn at Mar-a-Lago, would that be considered an official act? Obviously not. The Emoluments Clause dictates that all federal officeholders cannot benefit from their positions besides their direct compensation.
    - hn_acker 2y ago
      I don't think that the Domestic Emoluments Clause's concept of "Emolument" goes so far as to apply to the death of a political opponent. Suppose that I'm a manager at a corporate job and the second-most likely candidate for a promotion. If I order a subordinate to kill the most likely candidate and I get promoted, I don't think that the prosecutor would think to add a "prohibited employment compensation" charge on top of the inevitable "conspiracy" and "first degree murder" charges. (In a previous version of my comment, I thought that the previous commenter was referring to the Foreign Emoluments Clause and cluelessly asked whether there was a domestic version.)

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.
ameister14 2y ago
Well, to be fair, the first two examples she uses are very likely official acts and the third requires an official act to be bribery in the first place.
bobsomers 2y ago
I don't think it is, to be honest. All three of those examples are clearly official acts. The President is commander-in-chief of the military, and is also responsible for granting pardons. The key piece of the ruling which lends credibility to her examples is that any motive or details behind the official acts are immune from scrutiny. The only real difference is whether the acts are official or not. So the President is allowed to order the military to assassinate a political rival, but not to pay a private hitman to do so. It's a pretty ridiculous and indefensible stance from the majority opinion.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  They are not clearly official acts. It's going to be years of decisions and debate to define official acts. As an example, the fact he's in charge of the military doesn't make everything he asks them to do official because he is obliged to follow the constitution. There are arguments to make against what I just said. It's as clear as mud once you start going through concrete scenarios.
  - metabagel 2y ago
    This is as the Imperial Supreme Court wants it, so that it will come back to them every time an important decision needs to be made. This enhances their power and ability to shape events. Murkier is better.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      It also makes it easier for partisan rulings on a case-by-case basis. If defendant is on your team: allow it, if not, issue a self-contained ruling (or don't pick up the case at all if lower courts ruled against them). We have front-row seats to how empires decline and fade away. I guess those who missed the 20th century decline of the British Empire (culminating in Brexit) can study this one.
      - theGnuMe 2y ago
        Yep, peak hypocrisy.
denton-scratch 2y ago
> like, those assume the court will find anything to be an official act, which is nonsensical. But the Supremes haven't said what they think an official act is; that's a matter for the court of first instance, according to the Supremes. To me, in the UK, it looks like vandalism. There's no clear law on what constitutes an official presidential act, and until there is, the Pres is beyond the reach of the law. I don't think these very senior lawyers are fools, I don't think they made a mistake. They've deliberately fucked-up the US legal system (even more than it's already a mess).
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  That's not how it works. If he does X and the court decides X is not an official act, he isn't immune. He doesn't get to say "well it was undefined at the time". Read the actual ruling. They haven't fucked up anything. They haven't actually said much. Any time you read media coverage of a supreme court decision you've already made a mistake. You have to read the source material.

bbddg 2y ago

A president who is willing to do those things, and has a military willing to carry those orders out, isn't likely to be stopped by the court telling them it's illegal.

mandmandam 2y ago
Bad logic. Is someone more or less likely to perform such an act if there's a possibility of legal consequences? If not, then we don't really need courts at all, do we?
kibwen 2y ago
The fact that the courts have explicitly legalized these blatantly criminal acts is what gives the military the cover and the imperative to dutifully carry them out.

mrcwinn 2y ago

Serious question: how is assassination an official act? Asked another way, under what constitutional authority is the president charged with assassinating political leaders inside the United States? I'm not saying a president couldn't try. I can imagine that. I cannot understand how it would be an official act. If the president runs out of Kleenex and opts for toilet paper instead, that is not an official act merely because he is president.

ensignavenger 2y ago
If Lincoln had a Seal Team Six, and ordered said team to take out Jefferson Davis, would Lincoln have been open to prosecution, or immune as he had been undertaking an official act as commander in chief?
electrondood 2y ago
That's the problem. The ruling provides no guidance whatsoever, so as long as a President can make the case, it's an official act.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  No, that's not right. The court will decide, and they do give some thoughts/guidance.
  - redserk 2y ago
    Well no, you’re making an assumption with how a court would rule in this situation. There is nothing mandating that a court has to put careful consideration between what is and isn’t official business.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      No, wrong. The comment says the court will rule, not how they'll rule. How on earth do you read that comment and think it says how they'll rule?
  - deleted 2y ago

Aunche 2y ago

> Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. There is no way that Sotomayor genuinely believes this. If Trump becomes president and is prosecuted again, I guarantee she'll argue that his crimes don't fall under the President's official duties.

notacoward 2y ago
And she'll be on the minority side. Case decided, six to three, and she gets to write another dissent that will be ignored.
BatmansMom 2y ago
I don't understand how you could not believe this under the majority opinion. The constitution is very clear that supreme command of the armed forces falls to the Commander-in-Chief. The President. It must follow that when the president directs the armed forces he is performing an official action that is exclusively given to him via the constitution. If that is not an official action, then what is? There is nothing in the constitution directing how the president should direct the armed forces. And it follows from that if its an official action then he is immune.
- Aunche 2y ago
  If Donald Trump ordered the military to manicure the lawn at Mar-a-Lago, would that be considered an official act? Obviously not. The Emoluments Clause dictates that all federal officeholders cannot benefit from their positions besides their direct compensation.
  - hn_acker 2y ago
    I don't think that the Domestic Emoluments Clause's concept of "Emolument" goes so far as to apply to the death of a political opponent. Suppose that I'm a manager at a corporate job and the second-most likely candidate for a promotion. If I order a subordinate to kill the most likely candidate and I get promoted, I don't think that the prosecutor would think to add a "prohibited employment compensation" charge on top of the inevitable "conspiracy" and "first degree murder" charges. (In a previous version of my comment, I thought that the previous commenter was referring to the Foreign Emoluments Clause and cluelessly asked whether there was a domestic version.)