7 ms·

Everyone seems to be calling this "blanket immunity" but that's not right. It's immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically

• inpdx 2y ago
  Anything can be made an official act. That's why this is unfathomably bad.
  • treeFall 2y ago
    Only if you believe that words have no meaning. If you're already at that place in your mind, anything is possible regardless.
    • tcmart14 2y ago
      The problem isn't them. We just not too long ago have a court case that questioned whether the President is considered an "officer of the United States." The unfortunate part of law is, half of law is arguing about what 'is' is. So its not necessarily that words don't have meaning. Its more of, the words can change meaning.
      • electrondood 2y ago
        Not only that, but this same court removed the constitutional right to an abortion because it wasn't enumerated in the Constitution. Now, they completely invent criminal immunity out of thin air (which btw was never necessary in the last 250 years until we had a criminal president), when the intent of the drafters to never elevate any person above the law was crystal clear. The Roberts court is just arbitrarily choosing whatever justification they happen to like for any given case to push an extremist agenda.
        • tines 2y ago
          > Not only that, but this same court removed the constitutional right to an abortion because it wasn't enumerated in the Constitution. I'm as against this court as the next guy, but don't constitutional rights need to be, you know, in the constitution?
          • brewdad 2y ago
            Some rights, such as bodily autonomy, are so self-evident the Founders didn’t feel the need to enumerate them.
          • bane 2y ago
            No, the 9th recognizes that the Constitution doesn't capture every possible right in its enumeration.
          • i-am-fnord 2y ago
            No, because rights are not granted by the constitution, rights are self-evident and natural, and people retain them without them being explicitly enumerated. The constitution merely enumerates certain rights where the founders wanted to be extra clear that those things were rights, but it is not a limiting document. The 9th amendment states this explicitly: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
            • tines 2y ago
              Gotcha. So how do we know what rights we have for sure?
        • 8note 2y ago
          It would have been easy to bring Obama up on murder charges of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, but was not, due to this same presumed immunity
    • Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
      Not quite. If you’ve been following federalists you’ll see they’re rewriting and redefining whatever they need to in order to achieve their ends.
    • paulryanrogers 2y ago
      A majority on the supreme court seem willing to bend reasonable definitions backward to get whatever they want. Second amendment 'right' to (non-militia) personal firearms for example.
      • s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Thats about the worst example one can give, given that it has broadly been considered to allow [personal firearms] since the start of the country. The grammar isn't even confusing. [edit] removed the word militia to avoid confusion between historic and modern definition.
        • paulryanrogers 2y ago
          Then why do they even mention militias at all?
          • s1artibartfast 2y ago
            At the time the rationale for a right was frequently included in the text, just as a modern reading of the right implies it is being used as an explanatory clause. The entire concept was that there would be no governmental army and in times of need, citizens would be able to use their arms and organize for mutual defense. In this context, "Militia" is synonymous with an decentralized armed citizenry without government oversight. The clause provides this rationale and coveys a sentiment against a standing army. here are what some state constitutions had to say about gun ownership, prior to the bill of rights. Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 read: >That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided: >The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. James Madison produced an initial draft of the Second Amendment as follows: >The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. I pulled the quotes from this link, which has more text and discussion. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...
• autoexec 2y ago
  Ordering the murder of someone is their official duty as commander in chief of the military. The only thing they have to do is say they feel that a person was a threat to national security.
  • WillPostForFood 2y ago
    Given your example, under this decision, the President could be charged, and the courts would have to decide whether it was an official act. Was it the murder of their mistress? Then obviously not official. Was it the murder of a terrorist planning an attack? Probably official. Is there some grey area in the middle that will really hard to decide? Probably. This was a moderate decision that defers making broad rules and lets courts decide on a case by case basis.
    • jnsquire 2y ago
      The courts were explicitly not allowed to take account of presidential motivation when determining whether the act was official or not.
      • WillPostForFood 2y ago
        I agree, and motive is not required to understand that murdering a mistress is outside the bounds of the official duties of the president.
    • czl 2y ago
      > Was it the murder of their mistress? Then obviously not official. Why obviously? If mistress is causing "harm" to other official actions would it not be official duty to prevent this harm? You and I may not buy such a defence but a sympathetic audience of allies?
    • Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
      What about the turncoat operative of a foreign government who just so happens to be a political rival?
    • 2y ago
• jmcgough 2y ago
  If you order your military to murder someone, does it become an official act?
  • shadowtree 2y ago
    Obama droned a US citizen without due process, zero consequences. Nothing new.
• cogman10 2y ago
  What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling. Further, it should be noted that the lower court already did exactly what the supreme court remanded back to them. They said "we don't know what sorts of immunity are granted to a president, but if there is any they are not granted, it's overturning an election as is accused in this specific case". The supreme court took up this case specifically to help donald trump and because they couldn't challenge the ruling given they made up their own facts to give the ruling they wanted to give.
  • rayiner 2y ago
    There is a criminal statute for that! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383. Appropriately titled "rebellion or insurrection." Trump was not charged under that statute.
    • i-am-fnord 2y ago
      But if one overthrows the government via official acts, then one enjoys absolute immunity. For example, the president can deem opposition party leaders to be terrorists and then in an official capacity order them to be assassinated by the SEALs. He can grant blanket pardons to everyone involved while he himself enjoys absolute immunity for his official acts. The Senate will never be able to impeach or convict you when you’ve killed off those who would do it. This ruling makes the president a temporary dictator, and it’s reeeeeally easy to go from a temporary dictator to a lifetime one.
      • chii 2y ago
        > deem opposition party leaders to be terrorists why is it so easy to just deem some group of people terrorists, without any evidence presented? And if this is true, why can't biden do it today, and preempt trump from doing it?
        • nmd1 2y ago
• mixologic 2y ago
  If by "Everyone" you mean at least one of the sitting supreme court justices. What is considered "official duty" is not clearly defined, and will certainly be twisted to include things that seem like they obviously shouldnt be considered "official". But if a president claims that a surgical strike to eliminate an "enemy of the country" was within their prerogative, then yes, a president can murder somebody without fear of consequences.
  • hughesjj 2y ago
    They also specifically called out any dealings with the justice department as being legal (like what was going on with comey way back when)
    • kristjansson 2y ago
      This is the biggest impact of this opinion IMO. The president can do basically any supervisory action within the executive branch for any reason without risk of criminal liability. His ability to direct federal agencies is only limited by the supply of palatable lackeys.
  • ethbr1 2y ago
    With regards to (b)(ii)(3), i.e. Trump's attempt to influence non-federal officials to select fake electors... >> On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial. Pp. 24–28. Which seems a key window for the lower court to send the case back up. Trump attempted to influence non-federal election officials. Trump had no Presidential authority to do so. (Elections being run by the states) Ergo, that was not an official act. Granted, the special counsel would have to prove that without using the Presidential personal notes... but it's still a pretty clear path given the non-Presidential documentation all the conspirators kept. And it does make sense by the Supreme Court's reasoning: you can't restrict the President from running the executive branch, but you can hold him accountable for the things he does outside of the executive branch, which critically includes elections themselves.
• tcmart14 2y ago
  Which seems reasonable on its face, but it faces another issue. Now, what defines an 'official' act as president. And how loose do we want to play with those terms. If we want to play slippery slope, which is what the court seems to like to do, then something that should be illegal but can be deemed an official act is a President ordering the military to keep voters out of voting locations because they have a 'tip off' from someone in national security that a potential terrorist attack may or may not happen at voting locations. Right, we can end up in a situation where the president can find any loose way to justify anything they do. That is where probably the blanket immunity comes into play. Its not definitionally blanket immunity, but it might as well functionally be blanket immunity.
  • gunapologist99 2y ago
    The Court said what defines an 'official' act was up to lower courts to decide, which seems eminently reasonable.
    • pas 2y ago
      sure, until then it again ends up on their docket.
      • kristjansson 2y ago
        I mean that’s the only way anything gets to the Supreme Court. “Court of review, not if first view” and all that. They’re not structurally or practically equipped to preside over the early phases of questions like that
        • Forgeties79 2y ago
          This just sounds like a convenient shield/excuse (not by you specifically) for them to drop grenades into our society without any consideration for the damage when it’s convenient for their politics. They have absolutely had no issue expanding the discussions/interpretation when the 6-3 partisan majority gets to side with general GOP values and policy aims. How else could we explain Thomas bringing up Obergfell during Dobbs?
• HaZeust 2y ago
  It is not de jure blanket immunity, but when terminologies like "official acts" aren't clearly defined, and have an innate bias for slippery-sloping - given the nature of the President's office - it becomes de-facto blanket immunity. It doesn't invoke sovereign immunity through a loud roar, but from an understood nod.
• kristjansson 2y ago
  That's not quite it. There's absolute ('blanket') immunity for acts that exclusively reserved for the president (vetos, pardons, etc.). There's presumptive immunity for other 'official acts', but that doesn't preclude the possibility that some official acts could be deemed or made illegal. There's no immunity for unofficial acts, but there's a pretty fine needle to thread in to determine an action is unofficial (if it's not 'palpably' so).
  • czl 2y ago
    Say a president builds up an "official" retirement fund for himself (and friends) by holding a "pardon auction" with top bidding few dozen criminals being released each year during a presidential term. Is this an "official" action covered by this immunity ruling? Their justification could be it keeps taxes lower, etc.
    • kristjansson 2y ago
      No, the bribery would not be an official act, see footnote 3 of the opinion: > in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety Admittedly it’s a bit contradictory, but still helpful I think. The pardon is the official act, and the president is immune from criminal prosecution (and legislation) of the form “it was a crime to give that pardon” without further qualification. The prosecutor cannot compel presidential records or testimony. All the other tools are still available to the prosecutor and the unofficial act of accepting a bribe is still a crime.
• dudinax 2y ago
  Their definition of official act includes ordering an officer to take an official act. So if the pres has anyone who can kill someone for legal reasons this decision allows the pres to use that person to kill for illegal reasons.
• Valakas_ 2y ago
  "The president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal." "Such a problem this thing called 'law' that people made, doesn't let me govern. If only i could do everything i want without having to concern myself with such petty things." I can't believe this is the type of argument people are using to defend this abysmal situation. The US should have invested more in teaching kids about fascism and identifying its signs. Unbelievable that people are so blind to what's going on.
  • throwadobe 2y ago
    I'm not defending anything. I'm just stating the argument of the majority.