3 ms·
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?
by 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 agohttps://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 agothank 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.
- beej71 2y ago> If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. I suggest that courts might be _reluctant_ to make such a finding with Seal Team 6 visiting their homes at 3 AM. I pray when Trump is reelected he makes no such moves.
- ceejayoz 2y agoSeal Team Six is pretty clearly not a privately held steel mill; Truman was fairly clearly not the Commander in Chief of US Steel.
- wbl 2y agoBut Truman shouldn't have faced prosecution for that should he? It was after all done to ensure victory in Korea and he stopped after the court said no with apparent authority when he did it. This case goes too far and not far enough.
- mywittyname 2y agoThis demonstrates where the court is drawing the lines. Fascist dictatorships are fine, so long as they keep their mitts away from private industry. Of course, at this point, who is going to stop the President if he starts seizing companies? This ruling is like telling a hungry leopard, "you can eat anyone except for us." The hubris of this ruling is absurd. American's President Jinping won't be a Federalist.
- notacoward 2y agoThis court's citation of precedent in one decision is meaningless, since they've shown a lot of enthusiasm for overturning it as soon as it no longer suits their (or their patrons') interests. See also: Dobbs, Loper Bright.
- thih9 2y agoSounds like “nuke anything you want and walk away free”, hard to believe there would be no catch or failsafe. Absurd, to the point of being hilarious. Could a president use this (immunity and nukes) to become an absolute ruler? Edit: a failsafe is there, see sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40849357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40849357