9 ms·

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.
        TylerE 2y ago
        No, it bloody well isn’t. Republicans refused to hold the vote on Garland, spouting off nonsense about “No new justices in an election year”. The same people rammed judges through in Trumps last year. Typical right wing hypocrisy.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        And if they'd had the vote? The result would have been no. Same result.
        TylerE 2y ago
        It would have put a lot of prominent Republicans - including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - in an awkward position because a number of them had previously said he was a great candidate for the court. So, they either make a liar out of themselves, or become a rank hypocrite.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        They are politicians... Anyway, I'll grant it's symbolically different and it wasn't a good look. In practice though, the senate has to be on board with the nomination and in both cases they were not and it didn't go through in either.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    [flagged]
- belorn 2y ago
  Under the same line of thought, soldiers in the military will always follow what their commander say, least order to comes to remove a soldier and their loved ones.
shadowgovt 2y ago
I think that's rather her point. We are already doomed. Think about how the Executive handled rival political movements in the past. The Black Panthers. CPUSA circa 1919. Now imagine Fred Hampton had been running for President when he was killed. The line between "political opponent" and "enemy of the State" can become pretty blurry. This ruling gives the Executive broad power to act in its own interests when it can claim the line is blurry.
MPSimmons 2y ago
What does "Enemies, foreign and domestic" mean, really?
- o11c 2y ago
  That phrasing is so passé. It has been "enemies, real and imaginary" for over 2 decades now.
brendoelfrendo 2y ago
It is, frankly, moon logic. The President is commander-in-chief, ergo, they are immune from prosecution when issuing an order to the military, even if the order is illegal? Because the Constitution says the President can issue orders and doesn't say anything about whether those orders need to be legitimate or justifiable in any sort of national context? Repeat for the Justice Department, or Immigration, or any of the many offices that fall under the executive branch. Apparently if the President is insane, or corrupt, or treasonous... that's a problem for all of us, but not necessarily a problem for the President.
- jameshart 2y ago
  Really does a number on the ‘unlawful order’ doctrine for military accountability. Has SCOTUS made ‘just following orders’ a valid legal defense? They’ve also made much of the fact that the presidential authority to pardon is constitutionally unreviewable, so even if the president orders someone to commit a crime, he can pardon them preemptively. His appointment power is similarly in the constitution, so he can also fire and replace them until he finds someone willing to do it. Are we really left with ‘if the president were to issue illegal orders to his staff, Congress would definitely impeach him’?
  - wbl 2y ago
    No, the President gets to order it and the little guys fall for doing it.
skhunted 2y ago
[flagged]
- mcphage 2y ago
  > But this Court has essentially made it clear that Trump isn’t going to be prosecuted. He gets to try to co-opt the political process and attempt a coup with impunity. We are doomed. Well, then it sounds like sending a Seal team after him might be an official act.
- Muromec 2y ago
  If cops can have qualified immunity when killing basically anybody, then can't the grandcop have it. Of course.
jcranmer 2y ago
The president telling any member of his cabinet to do anything is presumptively an official act, and the evidence of him doing so is categorically forbidden from being used as evidence. (Hell, that's more extreme than even Trump's lawyers asked for! This basically overturns US v Nixon in its quest to elevate This is an opinion that might make sense if we were being asked if a president ordering drone assassinations makes him liable for murder. In the context of the president trying to instigate a coup for not being reelected, to the point that his own government is threatening mass resignation if he carries it out in protest at the sheer unconstitutionality of it... this is the kind of question that almost begs SCOTUS to say "make a narrow ruling as to whether or not this specific instance is permissible" and SCOTUS decides instead to make a grand, sweeping proclamation for all ages and circumstances and neglect to look at the specific facts in this case and leave it unanswered here. Roberts, let this case be your Dred Scott decision, your Korematsu decision. You've certainly done more to torpedo the credibility of the court in one decision than any other case in the past few decades... and that's saying quite a bit.
- monetus 2y ago
  And this is coming off of the heels of Chevron being overturned.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
> If a court decides that would fall under "official acts", we are already doomed. Everyone thinks lines don't get crossed, until they do.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  And if the last nine years have proven anything, most of the system will say "well, that wasn't technically a line, just something we've always done a certain way that was up for change at any moment's notice should one person decide to do so."
bcrosby95 2y ago
Official acts are still official regardless of the underlying reason and according to this case courts aren't even allowed to examine those reasons.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  "official acts" have yet to be defined.
  - Miner49er 2y ago
    They are partially defined, and the example given is part of the partial definition.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      No, it's not. Because contradictions exist (is it official when it's unconstitutional? Is it official because it's mentioned in the constitution?) and are not yet resolved.
      - Miner49er 2y ago
        Anything laid out as a Presidential power in the Constitution is definitely an "official act". What is left for definition is everything else, from my understanding.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        bcrosby95 2y ago
        IANAL, but those seem like constitutional acts, and have absolute immunity, rather than simply presumptive immunity. From the article: > “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.” There aren't just 2 types of acts. There are 3: constitutional, official, and unofficial.
enragedcacti 2y ago
You know the majority can read the dissent right? If they felt it so silly they could have addressed it. Rather than contesting the claim they dismiss it because they feel its not as likely as other (seemingly non-mutually exclusive) concerns: > The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” [...] The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself... Also important to note is that the hypothetical didn't sprout from thin air, Trump's lawyers (whose arguments SCOTUS in large part accepted) acknowledged that extrajudicial assassinations would fall under official acts. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-team-argues-assassination-of-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/ https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-t...
- lolinder 2y ago
  That's not what they say, you cut off their actual response: > 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. ... 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. Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    I wouldn't call that a failure mode. The US has a long history of relying purely on executive latitude and good faith to get things done. We now have a bad faith actor who wants back in the Oval Office with far fewer restrictions on his power. A lawsuit or criminal charge would absolutely be a good remedy in that situation. Furthermore, it's the implementation of a system. What the justices of the majority said today is "there is no system". When there is no system to deal with problems, then humans make them up ad-hoc, which usually results in violence, if history is any indicator - and it is.
downWidOutaFite 2y ago
We were doomed when Republicans decided that impeachment was a partisan tool and could not be used against Trump. They broke the system by abandoning their constitutional duties so we are now looking into the abyss.
- jameshart 2y ago
  A do-over of both impeachment trials in the Senate would seem to be necessary, given that many senators went on record as saying they believed presidents were subject to criminal prosecution and chose not to convict for that reason. This changes that calculus.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    It changes the excuse. They will surely find a different one.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  That... is a bold misstatement of basic facts. IIRC[1] Democracts introduced a bill to impeach Trump in very partisan fashion, and then cried foul when Republicans made an attempt to impeach Biden. Amusingly, this is partially how we got to see the other part of the Hunter Biden laptop saga. But to your main point, do you remember why Democrats tried to impeach Trump? I am leaving it as a question, because I am curious how you are intending to defend that record. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trum... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_Biden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_B...
  - laidoffamazon 2y ago
    They impeached Trump twice, members of both parties voted to impeach both times (more in the latter than the former). The first time Trump used his power as president of a superpower to attempt to force a poor country to make up a fake investigation into his political rival. This is bad, basically unprecedented.

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.
      - TylerE 2y ago
        No, it bloody well isn’t. Republicans refused to hold the vote on Garland, spouting off nonsense about “No new justices in an election year”. The same people rammed judges through in Trumps last year. Typical right wing hypocrisy.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        And if they'd had the vote? The result would have been no. Same result.
        TylerE 2y ago
        It would have put a lot of prominent Republicans - including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - in an awkward position because a number of them had previously said he was a great candidate for the court. So, they either make a liar out of themselves, or become a rank hypocrite.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        They are politicians... Anyway, I'll grant it's symbolically different and it wasn't a good look. In practice though, the senate has to be on board with the nomination and in both cases they were not and it didn't go through in either.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  [flagged]
belorn 2y ago
Under the same line of thought, soldiers in the military will always follow what their commander say, least order to comes to remove a soldier and their loved ones.

shadowgovt 2y ago

I think that's rather her point. We are already doomed. Think about how the Executive handled rival political movements in the past. The Black Panthers. CPUSA circa 1919. Now imagine Fred Hampton had been running for President when he was killed. The line between "political opponent" and "enemy of the State" can become pretty blurry. This ruling gives the Executive broad power to act in its own interests when it can claim the line is blurry.

MPSimmons 2y ago

What does "Enemies, foreign and domestic" mean, really?

o11c 2y ago
That phrasing is so passé. It has been "enemies, real and imaginary" for over 2 decades now.

brendoelfrendo 2y ago

It is, frankly, moon logic. The President is commander-in-chief, ergo, they are immune from prosecution when issuing an order to the military, even if the order is illegal? Because the Constitution says the President can issue orders and doesn't say anything about whether those orders need to be legitimate or justifiable in any sort of national context? Repeat for the Justice Department, or Immigration, or any of the many offices that fall under the executive branch. Apparently if the President is insane, or corrupt, or treasonous... that's a problem for all of us, but not necessarily a problem for the President.

jameshart 2y ago
Really does a number on the ‘unlawful order’ doctrine for military accountability. Has SCOTUS made ‘just following orders’ a valid legal defense? They’ve also made much of the fact that the presidential authority to pardon is constitutionally unreviewable, so even if the president orders someone to commit a crime, he can pardon them preemptively. His appointment power is similarly in the constitution, so he can also fire and replace them until he finds someone willing to do it. Are we really left with ‘if the president were to issue illegal orders to his staff, Congress would definitely impeach him’?
- wbl 2y ago
  No, the President gets to order it and the little guys fall for doing it.

skhunted 2y ago

[flagged]

mcphage 2y ago
> But this Court has essentially made it clear that Trump isn’t going to be prosecuted. He gets to try to co-opt the political process and attempt a coup with impunity. We are doomed. Well, then it sounds like sending a Seal team after him might be an official act.
Muromec 2y ago
If cops can have qualified immunity when killing basically anybody, then can't the grandcop have it. Of course.

jcranmer 2y ago

The president telling any member of his cabinet to do anything is presumptively an official act, and the evidence of him doing so is categorically forbidden from being used as evidence. (Hell, that's more extreme than even Trump's lawyers asked for! This basically overturns US v Nixon in its quest to elevate This is an opinion that might make sense if we were being asked if a president ordering drone assassinations makes him liable for murder. In the context of the president trying to instigate a coup for not being reelected, to the point that his own government is threatening mass resignation if he carries it out in protest at the sheer unconstitutionality of it... this is the kind of question that almost begs SCOTUS to say "make a narrow ruling as to whether or not this specific instance is permissible" and SCOTUS decides instead to make a grand, sweeping proclamation for all ages and circumstances and neglect to look at the specific facts in this case and leave it unanswered here. Roberts, let this case be your Dred Scott decision, your Korematsu decision. You've certainly done more to torpedo the credibility of the court in one decision than any other case in the past few decades... and that's saying quite a bit.

monetus 2y ago
And this is coming off of the heels of Chevron being overturned.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

> If a court decides that would fall under "official acts", we are already doomed. Everyone thinks lines don't get crossed, until they do.

lenerdenator 2y ago
And if the last nine years have proven anything, most of the system will say "well, that wasn't technically a line, just something we've always done a certain way that was up for change at any moment's notice should one person decide to do so."

bcrosby95 2y ago

Official acts are still official regardless of the underlying reason and according to this case courts aren't even allowed to examine those reasons.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
"official acts" have yet to be defined.
- Miner49er 2y ago
  They are partially defined, and the example given is part of the partial definition.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    No, it's not. Because contradictions exist (is it official when it's unconstitutional? Is it official because it's mentioned in the constitution?) and are not yet resolved.
    - Miner49er 2y ago
      Anything laid out as a Presidential power in the Constitution is definitely an "official act". What is left for definition is everything else, from my understanding.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - bcrosby95 2y ago
        IANAL, but those seem like constitutional acts, and have absolute immunity, rather than simply presumptive immunity. From the article: > “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.” There aren't just 2 types of acts. There are 3: constitutional, official, and unofficial.

enragedcacti 2y ago

You know the majority can read the dissent right? If they felt it so silly they could have addressed it. Rather than contesting the claim they dismiss it because they feel its not as likely as other (seemingly non-mutually exclusive) concerns: > The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” [...] The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself... Also important to note is that the hypothetical didn't sprout from thin air, Trump's lawyers (whose arguments SCOTUS in large part accepted) acknowledged that extrajudicial assassinations would fall under official acts. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-team-argues-assassination-of-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/ https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-t...

lolinder 2y ago
That's not what they say, you cut off their actual response: > 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. ... 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. Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  I wouldn't call that a failure mode. The US has a long history of relying purely on executive latitude and good faith to get things done. We now have a bad faith actor who wants back in the Oval Office with far fewer restrictions on his power. A lawsuit or criminal charge would absolutely be a good remedy in that situation. Furthermore, it's the implementation of a system. What the justices of the majority said today is "there is no system". When there is no system to deal with problems, then humans make them up ad-hoc, which usually results in violence, if history is any indicator - and it is.

downWidOutaFite 2y ago

We were doomed when Republicans decided that impeachment was a partisan tool and could not be used against Trump. They broke the system by abandoning their constitutional duties so we are now looking into the abyss.

jameshart 2y ago
A do-over of both impeachment trials in the Senate would seem to be necessary, given that many senators went on record as saying they believed presidents were subject to criminal prosecution and chose not to convict for that reason. This changes that calculus.
- jfengel 2y ago
  It changes the excuse. They will surely find a different one.
A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
That... is a bold misstatement of basic facts. IIRC[1] Democracts introduced a bill to impeach Trump in very partisan fashion, and then cried foul when Republicans made an attempt to impeach Biden. Amusingly, this is partially how we got to see the other part of the Hunter Biden laptop saga. But to your main point, do you remember why Democrats tried to impeach Trump? I am leaving it as a question, because I am curious how you are intending to defend that record. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trum... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_Biden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_B...
- laidoffamazon 2y ago
  They impeached Trump twice, members of both parties voted to impeach both times (more in the latter than the former). The first time Trump used his power as president of a superpower to attempt to force a poor country to make up a fake investigation into his political rival. This is bad, basically unprecedented.