6 ms·

Can anyone pencil out the real danger of this position? Sotomayors opinion seems to posit that a president can receive a bribe and pardon someone for that and t

by asdff 2y ago

Can anyone pencil out the real danger of this position? Sotomayors opinion seems to posit that a president can receive a bribe and pardon someone for that and this is an official, immune act. However, I don't think soliciting a bribe would be considered an official act of the POTUS, and by what I have been able to understand from this opinion would still be subject to prosecution. I also think that this opinion seems to be exactly in line with existing legal precedent. Truman was never prosecuted for the massacres he presided on. Nixon was never prosecuted. Reagen was never prosecuted. We just don't seem to ever prosecute ex presidents at all whether we had this opinion to spell it out for us or not.

BadHumans 2y ago
With the Court killing the Chevron Deference, they have given themselves all the power to decide what is an official act and what isn't. Anything not spelled out in plain terms will be interpreted by them and nothing is spelled in plain terms.
- asdff 2y ago
  I though the chevron deference related to how federal orgs like e.g. the epa pen their own policy and trying to put that policy writing power back into the legislative branch vs through the executive who appoints these orgs? I am not educated in law and would like to clear up some of my misunderstanding.
  - metabagel 2y ago
    So, this is about connecting the dots between different Supreme Court decisions. Further reading... https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/the-imperial-supreme-court/ https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/the-imperial-supr...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- lolinder 2y ago
  This comment is a classic example of the ridiculous state of discourse around the Supreme Court right now on HN. So many people are trying to process legal theories through the amygdala and the result is a legal word soup that doesn't actually have any meaning. Chevron deference has absolutely zero to do with this and never would have. I'd go deeper, but Brandolini's Law is real and I simply don't have the energy any more.
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    I'm certainly not law trained and open to being wrong so if you could find the energy I'm happy to listen. My reading of the situation is that the main confusion here is what constitutes an official act and a non-official act. With the removal of the Chevron Deference, all of the interpretation of ambiguous law now rest with the courts.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      It's nothing about you personally, it's that this thread is filled with hundreds of bad takes and I actually can't keep up. The bullshit asymmetry principle is working hard today because actually doing the work of understanding the law takes time. The short version is that Chevron was not a doctrine used in any and all cases where the law was ambiguous, it was always about whether an administrative agency's interpretation of the law was permissible. The subjects under consideration here do not fall under administrative law [0] and so Chevron would never have been relevant. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_law https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_law
      - BadHumans 2y ago
        Ok. My misunderstanding was that this only applied to an administrative agency's interpretation of the law. That is my mistake. However, I still believe that gives a pretty large latitude for abuse considering the GOP is openly antagonistic to many of these agencies like the IRS and FDA.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
metabagel 2y ago
Trump is being prosecuted right now. That's what this case is about.
- asdff 2y ago
  But he is being prosecuted for fraud not for an official act as president
  - laidoffamazon 2y ago
    He was prosecuted for fraud and he is also being prosecuted for things he did as president on January 6th and after his presidency.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      And the court very specifically leaves open the possibility that he's guilty for his actions on January 6th if he was acting in his capacity as a candidate for office.
      - Ancapistani 2y ago
        As they should, as that wasn't the issue before them.
      - laidoffamazon 2y ago
        The issue is he did many things also in his capacity as president
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        asdff 2y ago
        If it wasn't illegal, then what else is new? Republicans always try and twist the knife and get whatever profit seeking muck they can passed while they hold the reins.
BWStearns 2y ago
The issue is that this could prevent even opening up the discussion of whether a transaction was a bribe if the former president can claim it was an official act. Nixon was never prosecuted because he was pardoned so the official acts stuff is moot. Crimes committed in war/putting down rebellion/etc are bad but more clearly within the scope of official acts than anything Trump is accused of. Reagan, to the extent that he did/didn't coordinate with Iran to delay the hostage release, would be the closest parallel since it would have been a crime (Hatch act violation) in the direct pursuit of winning an election. But that was before he was president so this also wouldn't be relevant for today's ruling. We don't prosecute ex presidents often because most of them either don't commit crimes or the ones they do are arguably part of the job. Trying to prevent the legitimate transfer of power is not close to a part of the job. The opposite in fact. Nixon only gets pardoned because he agrees to fuck off and spare the country the shitshow we currently have.
lolinder 2y ago
[flagged]
- LMYahooTFY 2y ago
  Agreed, it's unfortunate to say but I think it should be noted. We on HN are not immune to this.
- tootie 2y ago
  You can see the hot emotions right in the dissent. Sonia Sotomayor is writing this is a threat to democracy. That carries a lot of weight. Try this live reaction from the Lawfare crew: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-live--scotus-rules-on-presidential-immunity https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-live--scotus-ru... They are ripping this apart not just on it's merits, but how oddly it's constructed. They established a framework for assigning immunity and then leave completely open what the test is to assign actions to the framework, then list a bunch of Trump's activities that are definitely immune and none that are not, and then Clarence Thomas says the DOJ can't empower special counsels apropos of nothing (except the documents case that is not before the court).
  - gunapologist99 2y ago
    You're right, this is a high-emotion one and probably doesn't belong on HN at all, since it is just devolving into a poorly informed flame war. (although Lawfare itself is not an objective observer either.)
    - tootie 2y ago
      Lawfare is a very well-informed source and I think at this point we should really quit pretending that "liberal" sources are biased in any meaningful way and that their staunch opposition to the political right is thoroughly justified on objective grounds. This decision is a bad one. Previous decisions by the conservative justices that were derided by the left have been bad for the country in tangible ways. They were appointed by a guy who lead an insurrection. Who committed a load of crimes they are fine with him getting away with. Strict construction isn't even a fig leaf on much of what they're writing
1668911361 2y ago
One danger, to quote Barrett's in-part concurrence (p.66 of the ruling) is: > The Constitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so. [... citations ...] Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability. (I wanted to quote Barrett since she's a Trump-appointed justice.)
paulryanrogers 2y ago
I didn't think supreme court justices could take bribes. Yet they do, just from "friends" in the form of lavish vacations together and gifts to family.
r_sreeram 2y ago
The article explains this concern: > One example not relevant to this case but which came up in arguments was the hypothetical payment of a bribe in return for an ambassadorial appointment. Under Monday’s decision, a former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case. So, imagine: Prosecution: You took a bribe! Defense: Bribe? No! It was just a gift. Prosecution: It preceded the intended action, so it WAS a bribe. Defense: What action? Prosecution: Oops.
- asdff 2y ago
  I would hope the law isn't so loose in interpretation where people could get away this easily with this looney tunes legal defense. For example I used to work in a public capacity and we couldn't even take gifts, so I would think the president couldn't just say they were gifted a huge yacht or something for a wink wink nudge nudge, or else it would have been done by now.
  - vharuck 2y ago
    You should read their recent decision in a corruption case. There is a federal law for agents of government bodies or organizations that receive above a certain threshold of federal money, saying they can't accept or solicit bribes or rewards for official acts. The reasoning is federal money shouldn't be squandered on crooked deals. A mayor gave a large contract to a local business owner who then gave the mayor $13,000 in gifts and "advisory" fees. SCOTUS said that was okay, because the mayor didn't explicitly agree to a "quid pro quo" bribery deal before giving out the contract. They jumped through hoops to avoid the "rewards" part of the law. So if you get your old public position back, you might be able to reap some SCOTUS-blessed rewards.
    - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
      It’s actually for state actors, not federal. I think it would have been problematic if giving your public school teacher a gift lands them in jail for 15 years.
- 2y ago
o-90 2y ago
> I also think that this opinion seems to be exactly in line with existing legal precedent. Truman was never prosecuted for the massacres he presided on. Nixon was never prosecuted. Reagen was never prosecuted. We just don't seem to ever prosecute ex presidents at all whether we had this opinion to spell it out for us or not. I think you are looking at this backwards. There was an unwritten agreement between the people and the Executive, namely, that we understand there are things that you might have done or had to do while President that to the ordinary person would be a crime and we will let you ride off into the sunset unbothered after you leave office, but in exchange for this, we expect there to be a peaceful transfer of power. We have entrusted this experiment in democracy to you, and when its time to go, you make sure it is passed on. Even Nixon did this. There have always been contentious elections - some have ended up in the courts - but at the end of the day, a process was observed and followed. Donald Trump was the first President to not respect this unwritten agreement between the Office and the people. And now conservatives are doing what they always do: They are saying that we the people are not protected when the Executive doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, but that we are bound to uphold ours.
Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]

by asdff 2y ago

BadHumans 2y ago

With the Court killing the Chevron Deference, they have given themselves all the power to decide what is an official act and what isn't. Anything not spelled out in plain terms will be interpreted by them and nothing is spelled in plain terms.

asdff 2y ago
I though the chevron deference related to how federal orgs like e.g. the epa pen their own policy and trying to put that policy writing power back into the legislative branch vs through the executive who appoints these orgs? I am not educated in law and would like to clear up some of my misunderstanding.
- metabagel 2y ago
  So, this is about connecting the dots between different Supreme Court decisions. Further reading... https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/the-imperial-supreme-court/ https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/the-imperial-supr...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lolinder 2y ago
This comment is a classic example of the ridiculous state of discourse around the Supreme Court right now on HN. So many people are trying to process legal theories through the amygdala and the result is a legal word soup that doesn't actually have any meaning. Chevron deference has absolutely zero to do with this and never would have. I'd go deeper, but Brandolini's Law is real and I simply don't have the energy any more.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  I'm certainly not law trained and open to being wrong so if you could find the energy I'm happy to listen. My reading of the situation is that the main confusion here is what constitutes an official act and a non-official act. With the removal of the Chevron Deference, all of the interpretation of ambiguous law now rest with the courts.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    It's nothing about you personally, it's that this thread is filled with hundreds of bad takes and I actually can't keep up. The bullshit asymmetry principle is working hard today because actually doing the work of understanding the law takes time. The short version is that Chevron was not a doctrine used in any and all cases where the law was ambiguous, it was always about whether an administrative agency's interpretation of the law was permissible. The subjects under consideration here do not fall under administrative law [0] and so Chevron would never have been relevant. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_law https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_law
    - BadHumans 2y ago
      Ok. My misunderstanding was that this only applied to an administrative agency's interpretation of the law. That is my mistake. However, I still believe that gives a pretty large latitude for abuse considering the GOP is openly antagonistic to many of these agencies like the IRS and FDA.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

metabagel 2y ago

Trump is being prosecuted right now. That's what this case is about.

asdff 2y ago
But he is being prosecuted for fraud not for an official act as president
- laidoffamazon 2y ago
  He was prosecuted for fraud and he is also being prosecuted for things he did as president on January 6th and after his presidency.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    And the court very specifically leaves open the possibility that he's guilty for his actions on January 6th if he was acting in his capacity as a candidate for office.
    - Ancapistani 2y ago
      As they should, as that wasn't the issue before them.
    - laidoffamazon 2y ago
      The issue is he did many things also in his capacity as president
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - asdff 2y ago
        If it wasn't illegal, then what else is new? Republicans always try and twist the knife and get whatever profit seeking muck they can passed while they hold the reins.

BWStearns 2y ago

The issue is that this could prevent even opening up the discussion of whether a transaction was a bribe if the former president can claim it was an official act. Nixon was never prosecuted because he was pardoned so the official acts stuff is moot. Crimes committed in war/putting down rebellion/etc are bad but more clearly within the scope of official acts than anything Trump is accused of. Reagan, to the extent that he did/didn't coordinate with Iran to delay the hostage release, would be the closest parallel since it would have been a crime (Hatch act violation) in the direct pursuit of winning an election. But that was before he was president so this also wouldn't be relevant for today's ruling. We don't prosecute ex presidents often because most of them either don't commit crimes or the ones they do are arguably part of the job. Trying to prevent the legitimate transfer of power is not close to a part of the job. The opposite in fact. Nixon only gets pardoned because he agrees to fuck off and spare the country the shitshow we currently have.

lolinder 2y ago

[flagged]

LMYahooTFY 2y ago
Agreed, it's unfortunate to say but I think it should be noted. We on HN are not immune to this.
tootie 2y ago
You can see the hot emotions right in the dissent. Sonia Sotomayor is writing this is a threat to democracy. That carries a lot of weight. Try this live reaction from the Lawfare crew: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-live--scotus-rules-on-presidential-immunity https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-live--scotus-ru... They are ripping this apart not just on it's merits, but how oddly it's constructed. They established a framework for assigning immunity and then leave completely open what the test is to assign actions to the framework, then list a bunch of Trump's activities that are definitely immune and none that are not, and then Clarence Thomas says the DOJ can't empower special counsels apropos of nothing (except the documents case that is not before the court).
- gunapologist99 2y ago
  You're right, this is a high-emotion one and probably doesn't belong on HN at all, since it is just devolving into a poorly informed flame war. (although Lawfare itself is not an objective observer either.)
  - tootie 2y ago
    Lawfare is a very well-informed source and I think at this point we should really quit pretending that "liberal" sources are biased in any meaningful way and that their staunch opposition to the political right is thoroughly justified on objective grounds. This decision is a bad one. Previous decisions by the conservative justices that were derided by the left have been bad for the country in tangible ways. They were appointed by a guy who lead an insurrection. Who committed a load of crimes they are fine with him getting away with. Strict construction isn't even a fig leaf on much of what they're writing

1668911361 2y ago

One danger, to quote Barrett's in-part concurrence (p.66 of the ruling) is: > The Constitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so. [... citations ...] Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability. (I wanted to quote Barrett since she's a Trump-appointed justice.)

paulryanrogers 2y ago

I didn't think supreme court justices could take bribes. Yet they do, just from "friends" in the form of lavish vacations together and gifts to family.

r_sreeram 2y ago

The article explains this concern: > One example not relevant to this case but which came up in arguments was the hypothetical payment of a bribe in return for an ambassadorial appointment. Under Monday’s decision, a former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case. So, imagine: Prosecution: You took a bribe! Defense: Bribe? No! It was just a gift. Prosecution: It preceded the intended action, so it WAS a bribe. Defense: What action? Prosecution: Oops.

asdff 2y ago
I would hope the law isn't so loose in interpretation where people could get away this easily with this looney tunes legal defense. For example I used to work in a public capacity and we couldn't even take gifts, so I would think the president couldn't just say they were gifted a huge yacht or something for a wink wink nudge nudge, or else it would have been done by now.
- vharuck 2y ago
  You should read their recent decision in a corruption case. There is a federal law for agents of government bodies or organizations that receive above a certain threshold of federal money, saying they can't accept or solicit bribes or rewards for official acts. The reasoning is federal money shouldn't be squandered on crooked deals. A mayor gave a large contract to a local business owner who then gave the mayor $13,000 in gifts and "advisory" fees. SCOTUS said that was okay, because the mayor didn't explicitly agree to a "quid pro quo" bribery deal before giving out the contract. They jumped through hoops to avoid the "rewards" part of the law. So if you get your old public position back, you might be able to reap some SCOTUS-blessed rewards.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    It’s actually for state actors, not federal. I think it would have been problematic if giving your public school teacher a gift lands them in jail for 15 years.
2y ago

o-90 2y ago

> I also think that this opinion seems to be exactly in line with existing legal precedent. Truman was never prosecuted for the massacres he presided on. Nixon was never prosecuted. Reagen was never prosecuted. We just don't seem to ever prosecute ex presidents at all whether we had this opinion to spell it out for us or not. I think you are looking at this backwards. There was an unwritten agreement between the people and the Executive, namely, that we understand there are things that you might have done or had to do while President that to the ordinary person would be a crime and we will let you ride off into the sunset unbothered after you leave office, but in exchange for this, we expect there to be a peaceful transfer of power. We have entrusted this experiment in democracy to you, and when its time to go, you make sure it is passed on. Even Nixon did this. There have always been contentious elections - some have ended up in the courts - but at the end of the day, a process was observed and followed. Donald Trump was the first President to not respect this unwritten agreement between the Office and the people. And now conservatives are doing what they always do: They are saying that we the people are not protected when the Executive doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, but that we are bound to uphold ours.

Slava_Propanei 2y ago

[dead]