3 ms·
6 of the people who think all this is completely fine are Supreme Court justices. All of this is enabled by the completely illegitimate Supreme Court decision
by jmyeet 1y ago
6 of the people who think all this is completely fine are Supreme Court justices.
All of this is enabled by the completely illegitimate Supreme Court decision that made the president a god-king by inventing out of thin air the concept of "presidential immunity".
Not only is the scope of "official duties" so broad to make prosseuction next to impossible but the majority went out of its way to say you can't even examine the communications between the president and the DoJ.
- peterfirefly 1y agoIt was not out of thin air. There's a reason why the impeachment process is in the Constitution -- and why it's perfectly normal for countries to have Parliamental Immunity and processes quite similar to the US impeachment for government ministers.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoWe have legislative immunity called the speech and debate clause. It doesn't shield lawmakers from other crimes, nor should it, and it certainly doesn't imply some sort of expansive executive immunity. The founders were rebelling agaisnt an untouchable executive, remember?
- voidfunc 1y agoIf the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such rather than leaving it to interpretation.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> If the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such They did; by writing in explicit immunities for some constitutional officers for certain activities, they implicitly rejected other immunities for those and other constitutional officers, by the legal principle “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”.
- wqaatwt 1y agoThat the opposite of how laws work..
- voidfunc 1y agoOpposite of common law, but exactly how the Constitution works.
- wqaatwt 1y agoWell if the constitution does not explicitly grant a certain right it can’t just appear out of nowhere? At this point it’s about the “spirit” of the constitution not what is in the document itself since there is no mention of presidential immunity. On the other hand it does grant the members of congress immunity under certain circumstances so it’s unlikely they just forgot about the president when writing it.
- nradov 1y agoThis contract dispute has nothing to do with Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Cancelling SpaceX contracts for political reasons would be wrong but not criminal.
- catlifeonmars 1y agoThe point is we won’t find out because presidential immunity also protects against discovery. Cases that previously could have been decided on the merits won’t even make it to adjudication.
- nradov 1y agoNo, that's not how it works. The Trump v. United States case had no bearing on civil discovery.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoWhat about Nixon?
- overfeed 1y agoBur it protects against criminal discovery, Civil cases can be quashed by current president uaing methods that used to be criminal for a president.