4 ms·

How so? The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties", which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while

How so? The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties", which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president."

fzeroracer 9mo ago
And notably, before any further disagreement pops up the other dissenting judges literally said as much. The relevant quote: "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. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today."
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- terminalshort 9mo ago
  Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.
  - fzeroracer 9mo ago
    > Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?
    - seattle_spring 9mo ago
      If you think Roberts, Alito, and especially Thomas have actually been following the law as it was intended, then I have a beautiful bridge in New York to sell to you.
      - fzeroracer 9mo ago
        Make no mistake, I fully believe the Supreme Court is complicit in this manner and has long since abdicated their duties to uphold the law and the constitution. But my point is that when the Supreme Court comes out and says that the President is immune to all actions they take, it seems like a folly to try and pretend that they don't mean what they say, at least as long as Trump is President. The 'law' is what the Supreme Court says it is, and they've decided Trump is the law.
    - terminalshort 9mo ago
      Are you disagreeing with all 6 concurring Supreme Court justices on much the law protects the president? Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law? See how stupid that argument is?
      - Starman_Jones 9mo ago
        No, they aren't, because the concurring justices have not said that those acts are not covered. All we have is what the majority wow, which notably did not include any exceptions
      - cosmicgadget 9mo ago
        Important to note that the majority and concurring opinions typically respond to the dissent. The fact that they declined to make any clarifications on those matters is significant. You should read the decision.
  - avidiax 9mo ago
    Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces. The ruling makes it very clear that core constitutional powers have conclusive and preclusive (absolute) immunity. Other official acts have presumptive immunity. In all cases, the motive is above question. If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her. He doesn't even need to claim that she's a spy. It can never be questioned in court. He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court. In all cases, the official acts are explicitly not admissible as evidence. Using the example above, the District of Columbia can try to prosecute for murder, but is unable to introduce the fact of the order as evidence. If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.
    - terminalshort 9mo ago
      > Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces. Incorrect. The commander in chief, same as all military officers, has the authority to issue lawful orders to the chain of command below him. He does not have the authority to issue unlawful orders, and if he does, his subordinates have the legal obligation to disobey them. The president does not have constitutional power to order arbitrary violence. > If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her No he can't because this is against the law, and it is therefore not a presidential power. The president has no constitutional authority to order agencies to violate the law. > He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court. This is, unfortunately, true. But it has been true as long as the US has existed. > If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible. This is true, but the act of taking the bribe is not an exercise of presidential power so he can be charged with accepting a bribe. This is not new to the recent SC decision.
      - actionfromafar 9mo ago
        Ok he can tell his chain of command some lies then. Same difference.
  - refulgentis 9mo ago
    You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanation of why. I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening. Yes. Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.
    - terminalshort 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 9mo ago
        We blew up shipwrecked survivors a few weeks ago, which is a textbook example of a war crime. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attacks-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attac... > Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave at the aircraft after clambering aboard an overturned piece of the hull, before the military killed them in a follow-up strike that also sank the wreckage. It is not clear whether the initial survivors knew that the explosion on their vessel had been caused by a missile attack. And "textbook" is not an exaggeration. https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72b0a498ca08615b2589c772a1d9e642 https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72... > The Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war describes a scenario similar to the Sept. 2 boat strike when discussing when service members should refuse to comply with unlawful orders. “For example,” the manual says, “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
        terminalshort 9mo ago
        Ok, but that was not ordered by the president so is completely irrelevant to the discussion of presidential immunity.
        Shivatron 9mo ago
        It seems extremely relevant. Your argument suggests the president need only appoint a subordinate who will themselves give the desired illegal order without the president's public command. In the unlikely event the subordinate is called to account, the president can simply pardon them. This is certainly not a hypothetical "parade of horribles", since Trump has already pardoned military officers convicted of war crimes.[1] 1. https://apnews.com/article/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8 https://apnews.com/article/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8
  - cosmicgadget 9mo ago
    The coup question specifically came up in oral arguments. Trump's attorney said he would have immunity. The majority opinion more or less says it's up to congress to impeach. So yes.
terminalshort 9mo ago
> The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties" Yes. This was basically agreed upon before that the president has legal immunity for exercising his constitutional powers, but was never explicitly ruled on by the court. If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished. > which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president." This part is just false
- cosmicgadget 9mo ago
  > If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished. Your choice of words is rather telling.
- wtfwhateven 9mo ago
  You have clearly not actually read the opinion being discussed and have resorted to outright lying about what it says. Please stop it.

How so? The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties", which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president."

fzeroracer 9mo ago

And notably, before any further disagreement pops up the other dissenting judges literally said as much. The relevant quote: "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. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today."

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
terminalshort 9mo ago
Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.
- fzeroracer 9mo ago
  > Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?
  - seattle_spring 9mo ago
    If you think Roberts, Alito, and especially Thomas have actually been following the law as it was intended, then I have a beautiful bridge in New York to sell to you.
    - fzeroracer 9mo ago
      Make no mistake, I fully believe the Supreme Court is complicit in this manner and has long since abdicated their duties to uphold the law and the constitution. But my point is that when the Supreme Court comes out and says that the President is immune to all actions they take, it seems like a folly to try and pretend that they don't mean what they say, at least as long as Trump is President. The 'law' is what the Supreme Court says it is, and they've decided Trump is the law.
  - terminalshort 9mo ago
    Are you disagreeing with all 6 concurring Supreme Court justices on much the law protects the president? Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law? See how stupid that argument is?
    - Starman_Jones 9mo ago
      No, they aren't, because the concurring justices have not said that those acts are not covered. All we have is what the majority wow, which notably did not include any exceptions
    - cosmicgadget 9mo ago
      Important to note that the majority and concurring opinions typically respond to the dissent. The fact that they declined to make any clarifications on those matters is significant. You should read the decision.
- avidiax 9mo ago
  Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces. The ruling makes it very clear that core constitutional powers have conclusive and preclusive (absolute) immunity. Other official acts have presumptive immunity. In all cases, the motive is above question. If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her. He doesn't even need to claim that she's a spy. It can never be questioned in court. He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court. In all cases, the official acts are explicitly not admissible as evidence. Using the example above, the District of Columbia can try to prosecute for murder, but is unable to introduce the fact of the order as evidence. If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.
  - terminalshort 9mo ago
    > Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces. Incorrect. The commander in chief, same as all military officers, has the authority to issue lawful orders to the chain of command below him. He does not have the authority to issue unlawful orders, and if he does, his subordinates have the legal obligation to disobey them. The president does not have constitutional power to order arbitrary violence. > If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her No he can't because this is against the law, and it is therefore not a presidential power. The president has no constitutional authority to order agencies to violate the law. > He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court. This is, unfortunately, true. But it has been true as long as the US has existed. > If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible. This is true, but the act of taking the bribe is not an exercise of presidential power so he can be charged with accepting a bribe. This is not new to the recent SC decision.
    - actionfromafar 9mo ago
      Ok he can tell his chain of command some lies then. Same difference.
- refulgentis 9mo ago
  You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanation of why. I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening. Yes. Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.
  - terminalshort 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 9mo ago
      We blew up shipwrecked survivors a few weeks ago, which is a textbook example of a war crime. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attacks-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attac... > Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave at the aircraft after clambering aboard an overturned piece of the hull, before the military killed them in a follow-up strike that also sank the wreckage. It is not clear whether the initial survivors knew that the explosion on their vessel had been caused by a missile attack. And "textbook" is not an exaggeration. https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72b0a498ca08615b2589c772a1d9e642 https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72... > The Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war describes a scenario similar to the Sept. 2 boat strike when discussing when service members should refuse to comply with unlawful orders. “For example,” the manual says, “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
      - terminalshort 9mo ago
        Ok, but that was not ordered by the president so is completely irrelevant to the discussion of presidential immunity.
        Shivatron 9mo ago
        It seems extremely relevant. Your argument suggests the president need only appoint a subordinate who will themselves give the desired illegal order without the president's public command. In the unlikely event the subordinate is called to account, the president can simply pardon them. This is certainly not a hypothetical "parade of horribles", since Trump has already pardoned military officers convicted of war crimes.[1] 1. https://apnews.com/article/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8 https://apnews.com/article/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8
- cosmicgadget 9mo ago
  The coup question specifically came up in oral arguments. Trump's attorney said he would have immunity. The majority opinion more or less says it's up to congress to impeach. So yes.

terminalshort 9mo ago

> The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties" Yes. This was basically agreed upon before that the president has legal immunity for exercising his constitutional powers, but was never explicitly ruled on by the court. If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished. > which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president." This part is just false

cosmicgadget 9mo ago
> If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished. Your choice of words is rather telling.
wtfwhateven 9mo ago
You have clearly not actually read the opinion being discussed and have resorted to outright lying about what it says. Please stop it.