3 ms·

Didn't the Supreme Court declare anything the administration does, legal..? Or was that just for the president?

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
It declared the president to be immune from prosecution for actions falling within the scope of his office. It did not declare that the president cannot be impeached. It did not declare that the president cannot be criminally charged for what he does that exceeds the scope of his office (though it's a high bar to prove it). And most of all, it did not declare that whatever he does is automatically constitutional.
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  It declared that he is literally above the law for anything that the most devoted loyalist court can consider part of the job. He could order the assassination of rival politicians for national security purposes and we would get a 6-3 ruling that nothing can stop him except the GOP congress.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Didn't the Supreme Court declare anything the administration does, legal..? No. > Or was that just for the president? Also no. It established a three-branch approach to whether the President is immune to criminal prosecution for acts that, ignoring any immunity he might have due to being President at the time of the act, would be within the domain of potential criminal prosecution, in which (loosely): (1) Acts relating to a narrow set of core Constitutional powers of the Presidency are given absolute immunity, (2) Other official acts have a case-by-case analysis for immunity weighing whether allowing prosecution for the kind of act involved would impair the functioning of the office, (3) Acts that, despite being committed while President, have no official character have no immunity stemming from the fact that they were committed while President.
- jhp123 1y ago
  this is a largely meaningless distinction, immunity covers all the most concerning Presidential misbehavior (i.e. abuse of the powers of the office) while leaving him vulnerable to prosecution for petty personal crimes like getting in a fist fight or something.
- HaZeust 1y ago
  The distinction is irrelevant, and if you read the ruling - any evidence that proves difference between the three is inadmissible in court. It is impossible to challenge grounds of the Executive saying that any and ALL actions he takes is within the capacity of an "official duty". The ruling makes clear that we simply HAVE to take their word for it. One must understand that the more safeguards we have to enact retribution in these cases, the better. You're not supposed to point to one after loss of another - you're supposed to point towards as many as possible. Before last July, the courts were the one we pointed to the most, and they are no longer nearly as much at our disposal as they were before then. It doesn't invoke sovereign immunity through a loud roar, but from an understood nod.

It declared the president to be immune from prosecution for actions falling within the scope of his office. It did not declare that the president cannot be impeached. It did not declare that the president cannot be criminally charged for what he does that exceeds the scope of his office (though it's a high bar to prove it). And most of all, it did not declare that whatever he does is automatically constitutional.

unethical_ban 1y ago
It declared that he is literally above the law for anything that the most devoted loyalist court can consider part of the job. He could order the assassination of rival politicians for national security purposes and we would get a 6-3 ruling that nothing can stop him except the GOP congress.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> Didn't the Supreme Court declare anything the administration does, legal..? No. > Or was that just for the president? Also no. It established a three-branch approach to whether the President is immune to criminal prosecution for acts that, ignoring any immunity he might have due to being President at the time of the act, would be within the domain of potential criminal prosecution, in which (loosely): (1) Acts relating to a narrow set of core Constitutional powers of the Presidency are given absolute immunity, (2) Other official acts have a case-by-case analysis for immunity weighing whether allowing prosecution for the kind of act involved would impair the functioning of the office, (3) Acts that, despite being committed while President, have no official character have no immunity stemming from the fact that they were committed while President.

jhp123 1y ago
this is a largely meaningless distinction, immunity covers all the most concerning Presidential misbehavior (i.e. abuse of the powers of the office) while leaving him vulnerable to prosecution for petty personal crimes like getting in a fist fight or something.
HaZeust 1y ago
The distinction is irrelevant, and if you read the ruling - any evidence that proves difference between the three is inadmissible in court. It is impossible to challenge grounds of the Executive saying that any and ALL actions he takes is within the capacity of an "official duty". The ruling makes clear that we simply HAVE to take their word for it. One must understand that the more safeguards we have to enact retribution in these cases, the better. You're not supposed to point to one after loss of another - you're supposed to point towards as many as possible. Before last July, the courts were the one we pointed to the most, and they are no longer nearly as much at our disposal as they were before then. It doesn't invoke sovereign immunity through a loud roar, but from an understood nod.