9 ms·
> This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. Immune from judicial prose
by paulddraper 2y ago
> This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival.
Immune from judicial prosecution.
Not immune from Congressional prosecution.
---
This isn't a unique concept.
For example, if SEAL Team 6 improperly kills someone on a mission, they aren't prosecuted in criminal court; they are court-martialed.
There is accountability, but due to the unique nature of the profession, it has a specialized venue.
- foogazi 2y ago> Not immune from Congressional prosecution. SEAL Team 6 can take care of that too how can SEAL Team 6 even refuse a presidential order ?
- quartesixte 2y agoBecause they swear loyalty to the US Constitution, not POTUS, and can refuse to obey unlawful orders.
- DEADMINCE 2y agoIt's no longer unawful for the commander in chief to consider an opponent a threat to the country and have them killed. That's the problem.
- TeeMassive 2y agoThat's not what the judgement says.
- Hammershaft 2y agoIt in Sotomayer's dissenting opinion of the judgement.
- 0xBDB 2y agoIt's pretty much a truism that one should never rely on a dissent's characterization of what the majority opinion says. Especially if the dissent writer is Sotomayor or Alito, frankly. Murdering political rivals isn't a core constitutional duty of the President with automatic immunity. If he orders Seal Team 6 to do it, it's an official act, for which he has a rebuttable presumption of immunity. That means the prosecution has to prove he hasn't got immunity. Roberts at least strongly hints in the majority opinion that Trump's immunity for trying to coerce Pence to commit crimes on Jan. 6 should be rebuttable. If that's the bar then ordering Seal Team Six to kill people will definitely get a president sent to prison the day he leaves office, whether the regular way or by impeachment. Immunity before impeachment has pretty much been the position of the Justice Department (I think wrongly btw) with regard to current presidents for decades, including the Biden justice department. This isn't as big of a change as it makes sense for the Democrats to make it out to be.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago> Especially if the dissent writer is Sotomayor or Alito, frankly. Weird. Sotomayor is one of the few credible justices we have.
- TeeMassive 2y agoI've listened to her during the vaccine mandates oral arguments. She was emotional during all the hearing and made blatantly false emotion based statements such as "think of all the millions of dead children".
- DEADMINCE 2y agoThe example you gave doesn't seem emotional or blatantly false, but factual and appropriate.
- 0xBDB 2y agoPersonal preference admittedly, but I much prefer Kagan and so far, Jackson. Sotomayor, like Alito and sometimes Thomas but generally not the rest, strikes me as purely results-oriented. The Chief justice is results-oriented in a different way. I think the reasoning matters more than the outcome, but I understand that not everyone does. Kagan's also a much better writer.
- DEADMINCE 2y agoActually, that's exactly what the judgement allows for.
- ttyprintk 2y agoCitation needed. Now on, we understand that powers granted the President by the Constitution are official. Actions even marginally associated with those powers cannot produce evidence in a court of law.
- leereeves 2y agoThe judgement says that the President has immunity (in certain narrow cases). It does not say that members of the military have immunity for following an unlawful order. It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity.
- ModernMech 2y ago> (in certain narrow cases) Again, citation needed. The whole problem today is that the category of immunity is so vague so as to be overly broad. > It does not say that members of the military have immunity for following an unlawful order. No, but it does say the President has an unreviewable pardon power to absolve them from any crime they are ordered by the President to commit. > It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity. It's now also very easy for a court to decide that it is. That is the problem.
- leereeves 2y agoThe citation is the Supreme Court ruling itself, which I had assumed people participating in this discussion were familiar with. It grants "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution [only] for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". That is a narrow standard. The only acts in this case which met that standard were discussions with Justice Department officials. Everything else in this case was in fact remanded, and it remains within the power of the lower courts to deny Trump immunity on all other aspects of the case.
- ModernMech 2y ago
- EasyMark 2y agoSotomayor disagrees with you, as does the current President of the USA, so I dissent your interpretation
- TeeMassive 2y agoAnd? She's not really seen as a the smartest justice out there, to put it gently.
- EasyMark 2y agoShe is one of the best lawyers and jurists in the country, certainly much better than 99.999999% of the people on HN
- gdilla 2y agobut they will comply when the law will back the POTUS and not them.
- mrkeen 2y agoThis only works if the head of the executive branch doesn't select for loyalty.
- bigfishrunning 2y agoThe head of the executive branch doesn't select the members of seal team 6
- ModernMech 2y agoWhat’s stopping them from doing so?
- underdown 2y agoThe Pendleton civil service reform act of 1883. It effectively ended the spoils system that previously allowed what you’re suggesting.
- NickC25 2y agoDonald Trump doesn't give a fuck about any civil service act. He never has, and never will. He will do as he pleases, and a GOP led congress will simply let him, laws and precedent be damned (and the Supreme Court will comply). A DEM led congress will throw up their hands in uproar, and then refuse to actually do anything.
- mrkeen 2y agoThe first part sounds right, but the house introduced and voted yes on two impeachments, which isn't nothing.
- tremon 2y agoHow is that not nothing? He continued to remain in Office until the end of his term and even attempted to prolong his stay. If those impeachments were worth more than the paper the Constitution is written on, that would never have happened.
- pyuser583 2y agoThey must refuse to follow unlawful orders. They never get a choice. They always must follow the law. Refusing a lawful order is a crime, and following an unlawful order is a crime. But they never get a choice.
- a3n 2y agoOfficer's oath swears to protect and defend the Constitution, no mention of the president. Enlisted oath adds they will obey the orders of the president. So a president or his intermediary just needs to find the right Master Sergeant. In theory. But not to worry, there are plenty of authoritarian-friendly colonels available. Their oath doesn't prohibit them from following a president's orders. Wrinkle: all officers and enlisted are required to refuse illegal orders. But if you do so, you better be right. Of course, in this new United States that the Supreme Court created this week, summary executions could become a motivational tool. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment&diffonly=true https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_A... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Serv... https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/what-the-law-of-military-obedience-can-and-cant-do-what-happens-if-a-presidents-orders-are-unlawful/ https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/what-the-law-of-military-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution
- mojomark 2y agoYou must not have seen "A Few Good Men" Who ordered that code red? Not LT Weinberg, that's for sure.
- paulddraper 2y ago> SEAL Team 6 can take care of that too No different than the judiciary, right? --- I am constantly amazed by the number of new discoveries made on HN, like military coups.
- dudeinjapan 2y agoSEAL Team 6 can just keep killing any one who would charge them with a crime, until they reach the final boss level i.e. SCOTUS who have X-Men like powers and attack all at once. It’s a toss-up at that point, it comes down to which side can successfully recruit Chuck Norris (both a member of Delta Force and an accomplished legal scholar.)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kaba0 2y agoAnd they can be pardoned by the president after the fact.
- aredox 2y agoIf Biden sends SEALs to kill Trump, do you think Democrats in Senate would impeach him? (Reminder, you need a 2/3 majority in that chamber).
- schroeding 2y agoI'm not an American, but I would assume so? Or wouldn't they? If not so, is there a reason why not? "Murdering an oppositional politician in your own country" seems quite clean-cut bad and unjustified. I know your political system is very much "they vs us", but it can't be that bad?
- tjarrett 2y agoYou would think so right? The problem is, the way things have been for the last couple of decades, many of us are not absolutely certain that the Senate would ever convict a sitting president unless it was 2/3rds of the opposite party -- which is pretty rare. Probably, if a sitting president (regardless of party) assassinated a political rival, the Senate would convict. Probably. They are almost certainly hyper-partisan Senators (of both parties) who would not convict a president from their own party no matter what. The reasons for that would be multiple... greed, fear, a weird sense of loyality to the person, or even just a warped view of reality. For example, if you thought Trump was Hitler 2.0 coming to take over the government and hunt down minorities and LGBTQ people, then you might feel justified in doing anything possible to prevent that -- including assassination.
- schroeding 2y agoInteresting, thanks for the insight! Hard to judge what's going on in the US sometimes from the other side of the pond :)
- scelerat 2y agoPart of the ruling was that the conversations between the Department of Justice, the main law enforcement arm of the US federal government, and the President -- which are among his "official duties" -- cannot be entered into a criminal proceeding as evidence against him. Part of the criminal case brought against Trump regarding his attempted coup on January 6 relied on evidence and testimony from conversations where he requested unlawful things or showed an unlawful motive, but he did so within the framework of his official duty as President. The case now returns to a lower court and the prosecutor must prove it without that evidence. So henceforth from this Supreme Court ruling, the President can call up the Attorney General ("official duties," remember) and say, "find a reason to investigate and arrest my political opponent." That act, that conversation is now protected. And that action will be carried out, and there is no legal recourse, at least not long after much damage has been done. At many junctures, not only the January 6 capitol riot, but many others, Trump was only prevented from disastrous anti-democratic actions by principled staff and officials around him. This time around, Trump (or any other dictatorial pretender) will not make the mistake of filling their administration with anyone but sycophants. Trump installed many federal judges. Even leaving it up to the courts to decide if something is an "official" or "unofficial" act, after the fact, is now left to fiat.
- geekraver 2y agoWhich they can avoid by resigning. So the worst penalty for almost any crime is they might have to step down,
- senordevnyc 2y agoIs anyone really worried about a situation where a president commits a crime and then voluntarily resigns? Authoritarians only do the first half...
- amalcon 2y agoThat has literally happened in the United States before.
- DarknessFalls 2y agoTrump has already proven himself to be more corrupt and sociopathic than Nixon. He was impeached and convicted and didn't resign. He is now a convicted felon and continues to pursue a second term. This is a different world.
- valleyer 2y agoTrump was not convicted at the impeachment trials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_trial_of_Don... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Do...
- teknopaul 2y agoHe was impeached, and every single politician voted on party line, the whole GOP is 100% corrupt (if you agree he clearly did do it) impeachment is not a useful tool in this situation.
- 2y ago
- EasyMark 2y agoThat assumes that it occurs under a demoratic and moral president, all he has to do is blanket pardon them. It’s an easy problem to solve for the President. Circular logic is often just fine in legal circles.
- torstenvl 2y agoCourts-martial are criminal courts. Ortiz v. United States, 585 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 2165 (2018).
- TheNewsIsHere 2y agoThis remains a constructive problem though because the U.S. Congress is either variously outright dysfunctional or captured by self-interested parties. Which we need to fix regardless, but in the interim it’s hard to conclude that the federal government isn’t starting to crumble under the combined weight of that problem and the general, concerning erosion of trust in expertise and institutions, and the rise of populism. The Supreme Court is very efficiently pouring gas on that fire.