6 ms·

> 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

> 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. Sotomayor's scathing dissent sums up my concerns on the matter. Even for Barrett, a conservative, the majority opinion was a bridge too far: even bribery now enjoys absolute immunity.

friend_and_foe 2y ago
This is factually incorrect, the president can be prosecuted for anything, he doesn't even have to commit a crime, but there's a special process for that called impeachment. This isn't new stuff and it has been understood to work this way for a couple hundred or so years, until very recently.
- gazook89 2y ago
  Impeachment is a political process to remove someone from office, it doesn’t send you to prison.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- jcranmer 2y ago
  The impeachment clause specifically lays out that impeachment doesn't inhibit criminal prosecution for the same acts. Hell, Trump's impeachment defense was essentially that he should be criminally prosecuted instead of impeachment.
- tines 2y ago
  What about after he has left office?
- science4sail 2y ago
  What if he/she assassinates the impeachers as an "official act"? That might be an example of Gödel's Loophole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole
- Karupan 2y ago
  Not an American but according to everything I’ve read, impeachment is not the equivalent of prosecution [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_St...
- tdb7893 2y ago
  Even the majority opinion doesn't agree with you. Literally the only people I've heard make this argument are Trump's lawyers in this case and in fact during the impeachment proceedings they said the exact opposite. Impeachment is a separate process and the president doesn't need to be impeached to be charged with a crime.
joshuaheard 2y ago
Assassinating a political rival is not an official act.
- tines 2y ago
  Says who? You can't ask me why I did it, according to the ruling. I could have had a good reason. And you can't use my private records, nor those of my assistants, either.
  - joshuaheard 2y ago
    Where in the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution does it give the the President the power to kill political opponents?
    - tines 2y ago
      The constitution gives me the power to kill people for good reasons (I am the commander in chief of the military, after all), and I assure you, I have good reasons. Which you can't ask about. And don't tell me I need Congress to authorize my killing people. I haven't needed that since Vietnam or something.
    - moreofthis 2y ago
      This is a silly response. The ruling has specifically left the definition of "official acts" for the lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis; they have not limited official acts to Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The president likely has modern "official acts" that are not in in the constitution (such as the ability to issue executive orders) so it is not as simple as pointing to it. As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size.
      - HaZeust 2y ago
        >"As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size." Easily the best way I've seen the impact of this ruling, articulated.
thallium205 2y ago
Judges and prosecutors also enjoy absolute immunity in their official capacities.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Fact.
  - avmich 2y ago
    False. Judge ordering something can be brought to court to review if the order was lawful. Judge making judicial decision - that is, not ordering something to support that decision, but actually deciding - is immune, but that is decision of the limited scope - it's not an action. Decision itself can be reviewed, so there's principally less scope for possible intentional or unintentional errors.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      Surely you acknowledge what a giant, wide, grey line of a no-man’s-land you just painted.
- adventured 2y ago
  There are vast problems with federal agency immunity protections as well. Whether as a federal employee or a civilian, trying to sue a federal agency for something it has done wrong can be nearly impossible.
_trampeltier 2y ago
Since last week, bribery is legal anyway. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-26/supreme-court-anti-corruption-law https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-26/suprem...
- Natsu 2y ago
  That article is bad. It ignores the ruling specifically pointing out that 18 USC 201 among other laws does cover 'gratuities' as well as bribes, and it misleadingly claims that "[t]he Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anticorruption law" when referring to 18 USC 666 (Federal Program Bribery, AKA "The Beast") which is just not true. You can see it's not true in the holding: > Held: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. Nowhere in there do they declare any part of 18 USC 666 unconstutional, which is what one usually takes "struck down" to mean. The LA Times is at least correct in stating that the ruling clarifies bribes come before the act and gratuities come after, with different legal effect, but they seem to leave out any discussion of this bit inexplicably: > For example, Congress has established comprehensive prohibitions on both bribes and gratuities to federal officials. If a federal official accepts a bribe for an official act, federal bribery law provides for a 15-year maximum prison sentence. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b). By contrast, if a federal official accepts a prohibited gratuity, federal gratuities law sets a 2-year maximum prison sentence. See §201(c). Point being, no, gratuities aren't really legal either, they're just punished under different statutes. David G. Savage could've just used this line from the ruling as a much more accurate summary: > Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666. And why did they do this? Because technically giving an apple to your teacher would be Federal Program Bribery otherwise: > The Government’s interpretation seems all the more unbelievable because §666 applies to the gift-givers as well as the state and local officials accepting the gifts. Specifically, §666(a)(2) makes it a crime punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment for someone to “corruptly” offer or give “anything of value” to state and local officials “with intent to influence or reward.” So under the Government’s approach, families, students, constituents, and other members of the public would be forced to guess whether they could even offer (much less actually give) thank-you gift cards, steak dinners, or Fever tickets to their garbage collectors, professors, or school board members, for example. But the "bribery is legal now" take you seemingly got from here is incorrect under any interpretation of the word "bribery." Using SCOTUS' version of the word, bribes are still punished by 18 USC 666, and gratuities are punished by 18 USC 201 (as well as other laws for both categories). But don't take my word for it, you can read the ruling directly: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Spooky23 2y ago
This isn’t conservatism. It’s despotism. We’re probably a decade away from a coup.
- failuser 2y ago
  Decade? You are optimistic.
demosthanos 2y ago
Killing an American citizen without due process should be outside the scope of official acts regardless of whether the President has immunity for said acts. Obama proved that it's not [0], which is a major problem that should have been addressed a long time before this ruling. On the whole the principle of this ruling is sound: The President shouldn't be in a position where he has to wonder before each choice if he'll later be prosecuted for it or not. The boundaries of official acts should be spelled out clearly in the law, and when acting within those boundaries the President should be confident that he's authorized to make the tough calls. The ambiguities that this ruling brings to light were already there, this ruling only exposes them. President Obama could theoretically have been personally prosecuted for killing al-Awlaki and now he can't. Now it's time for us to explicitly identify in the laws what the President can and cannot do. That's a change that's long overdue. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

friend_and_foe 2y ago

This is factually incorrect, the president can be prosecuted for anything, he doesn't even have to commit a crime, but there's a special process for that called impeachment. This isn't new stuff and it has been understood to work this way for a couple hundred or so years, until very recently.

gazook89 2y ago
Impeachment is a political process to remove someone from office, it doesn’t send you to prison.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jcranmer 2y ago
The impeachment clause specifically lays out that impeachment doesn't inhibit criminal prosecution for the same acts. Hell, Trump's impeachment defense was essentially that he should be criminally prosecuted instead of impeachment.
tines 2y ago
What about after he has left office?
science4sail 2y ago
What if he/she assassinates the impeachers as an "official act"? That might be an example of Gödel's Loophole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole
Karupan 2y ago
Not an American but according to everything I’ve read, impeachment is not the equivalent of prosecution [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_St...
tdb7893 2y ago
Even the majority opinion doesn't agree with you. Literally the only people I've heard make this argument are Trump's lawyers in this case and in fact during the impeachment proceedings they said the exact opposite. Impeachment is a separate process and the president doesn't need to be impeached to be charged with a crime.

joshuaheard 2y ago

Assassinating a political rival is not an official act.

tines 2y ago
Says who? You can't ask me why I did it, according to the ruling. I could have had a good reason. And you can't use my private records, nor those of my assistants, either.
- joshuaheard 2y ago
  Where in the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution does it give the the President the power to kill political opponents?
  - tines 2y ago
    The constitution gives me the power to kill people for good reasons (I am the commander in chief of the military, after all), and I assure you, I have good reasons. Which you can't ask about. And don't tell me I need Congress to authorize my killing people. I haven't needed that since Vietnam or something.
  - moreofthis 2y ago
    This is a silly response. The ruling has specifically left the definition of "official acts" for the lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis; they have not limited official acts to Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The president likely has modern "official acts" that are not in in the constitution (such as the ability to issue executive orders) so it is not as simple as pointing to it. As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size.
    - HaZeust 2y ago
      >"As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size." Easily the best way I've seen the impact of this ruling, articulated.

thallium205 2y ago

Judges and prosecutors also enjoy absolute immunity in their official capacities.

dgfitz 2y ago
Fact.
- avmich 2y ago
  False. Judge ordering something can be brought to court to review if the order was lawful. Judge making judicial decision - that is, not ordering something to support that decision, but actually deciding - is immune, but that is decision of the limited scope - it's not an action. Decision itself can be reviewed, so there's principally less scope for possible intentional or unintentional errors.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    Surely you acknowledge what a giant, wide, grey line of a no-man’s-land you just painted.
adventured 2y ago
There are vast problems with federal agency immunity protections as well. Whether as a federal employee or a civilian, trying to sue a federal agency for something it has done wrong can be nearly impossible.

_trampeltier 2y ago

Since last week, bribery is legal anyway. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-26/supreme-court-anti-corruption-law https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-26/suprem...

Natsu 2y ago
That article is bad. It ignores the ruling specifically pointing out that 18 USC 201 among other laws does cover 'gratuities' as well as bribes, and it misleadingly claims that "[t]he Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anticorruption law" when referring to 18 USC 666 (Federal Program Bribery, AKA "The Beast") which is just not true. You can see it's not true in the holding: > Held: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. Nowhere in there do they declare any part of 18 USC 666 unconstutional, which is what one usually takes "struck down" to mean. The LA Times is at least correct in stating that the ruling clarifies bribes come before the act and gratuities come after, with different legal effect, but they seem to leave out any discussion of this bit inexplicably: > For example, Congress has established comprehensive prohibitions on both bribes and gratuities to federal officials. If a federal official accepts a bribe for an official act, federal bribery law provides for a 15-year maximum prison sentence. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b). By contrast, if a federal official accepts a prohibited gratuity, federal gratuities law sets a 2-year maximum prison sentence. See §201(c). Point being, no, gratuities aren't really legal either, they're just punished under different statutes. David G. Savage could've just used this line from the ruling as a much more accurate summary: > Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666. And why did they do this? Because technically giving an apple to your teacher would be Federal Program Bribery otherwise: > The Government’s interpretation seems all the more unbelievable because §666 applies to the gift-givers as well as the state and local officials accepting the gifts. Specifically, §666(a)(2) makes it a crime punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment for someone to “corruptly” offer or give “anything of value” to state and local officials “with intent to influence or reward.” So under the Government’s approach, families, students, constituents, and other members of the public would be forced to guess whether they could even offer (much less actually give) thank-you gift cards, steak dinners, or Fever tickets to their garbage collectors, professors, or school board members, for example. But the "bribery is legal now" take you seemingly got from here is incorrect under any interpretation of the word "bribery." Using SCOTUS' version of the word, bribes are still punished by 18 USC 666, and gratuities are punished by 18 USC 201 (as well as other laws for both categories). But don't take my word for it, you can read the ruling directly: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf

Spooky23 2y ago

This isn’t conservatism. It’s despotism. We’re probably a decade away from a coup.

failuser 2y ago
Decade? You are optimistic.

demosthanos 2y ago

Killing an American citizen without due process should be outside the scope of official acts regardless of whether the President has immunity for said acts. Obama proved that it's not [0], which is a major problem that should have been addressed a long time before this ruling. On the whole the principle of this ruling is sound: The President shouldn't be in a position where he has to wonder before each choice if he'll later be prosecuted for it or not. The boundaries of official acts should be spelled out clearly in the law, and when acting within those boundaries the President should be confident that he's authorized to make the tough calls. The ambiguities that this ruling brings to light were already there, this ruling only exposes them. President Obama could theoretically have been personally prosecuted for killing al-Awlaki and now he can't. Now it's time for us to explicitly identify in the laws what the President can and cannot do. That's a change that's long overdue. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki