If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don’t see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.
I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don’t want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it’s actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.
What am I missing?
The immunity from criminal prosecution has to do with official acts, not personal acts. It wouldn’t apply to Biden personally shooting Trump.
It would apply to a military proclamation as commander-in-chief that the Trump movement is a domestic insurrectionist movement that carried out an armed attack on the US Congress; that the Trump movement thus exists in a state of war against the United States; and directing the US Army to decapitate the movement by capturing or killing its leaders, taking all enemy combatants as prisoners of war, etc. (Now consider that the Army is only obliged to follow constitutional orders, and would have Significant Questions about the constitutionality of such an order.)
Further, the immunity is only from criminal prosecution and would not protect Biden from impeachment and removal from office by Congress while the Army is still figuring out whether the order is constitutional.
That sounds both crazy and not actually wildly far fetched. If the tables were turned and Trump was in the position of having the power to declare Biden’s movement as an enemy and carry out violent ways to stop them, I would almost expect it to happen.
It would make for an interesting movie, thatxs hopefully based in fiction.
If you’ve not seen it already, watch Civil War. It’s excellent!
…gonna need some more info. Who’s in it? What year was it released? Is it on Hulu?
- Nope
- Certainly not
- Tara Strong
Wow. I was honestly expecting a movie called “Civil War” to be from the 60s, or something, and actually cover the American civil war. The bad part is, I probably can’t find this on dvd for $3.
He can just pardon himself if he shoots Trump because he has immunity when issuing the pardon, since that is an official act.
Better do it in DC. Murder can be charged under state law, and the presidential pardon power only applies to federal charges.
If the president crossed state lines to commit the murder it is federal!
For that matter, immunity from criminal charges for attempting to pardon oneself is not the same as the pardon being valid.
DC has a local criminal code.
So, what happens if the president is charged? Is he automatically ousted? I mean, apparently a felon can run for president, so does them being a state criminal actually impede them at all, or no?
Not just an official act, it’s explicitly a constitutional power which is given absolute immunity.
So Biden could officially flood the supreme court with democrat judges, then officially ask them to revoke this stupid ruling?
Supreme Court judges must be confirmed by a majority of the Senate before being seated.
The ratio is 50, and dems have 51 senators.
Biden can order the murder of all the right wing justices and then the senate can rubber stamp them in.
the dems would never go for that, though, because then they’d actually be doing something. even if you took away oh no the two senators that somehow always conveniently oppose any action they take, you can be sure that they’d pull some other poor sap up out of the bowels in order to play the villain.
I mean, I would hope senators of any party would oppose a president that “legally” murders a supreme court justice, let alone 6 of them.
The fact that these 6 have it coming is besides the point.
I mean, do I have to say what you could just do to any senators which oppose you? It might be getting into coup territory, but eventually you’d probably reach a point where things just proceed as normal. Or you, as biden, could just take the L on it, make sure the newly stacked supreme court shuts it down, eat the, what, next 10 years of your life, if that, in federal prison or whatever it is, and blammo. Could probably even use the opportunity to step down but I imagine if he did some shit like that his approval rating might go through the glass dome protecting the flat earth aaaand post
Can the president declare them traitors and no longer fit for duty, thus ousting them physically?
They didn’t change anything other than reiterate what the president is immune from, what he has always been immune from and when he is not immune from prosecution
Absolutely nothing about this case is a mere reiteration of anything before it.
Could Biden just say “I officially declare Trump the head of a terrorist organization” before firing the gun?
All Biden has to do is claim that it’s an official act, because Trump is a terrorist, a threat to the Constitution, or some other questionable legal pretext. The problem is that there’s no remedy against such a claim. It could be litigated and go to SCOTUS again, who would have to decide whether it’s an official act or not. But this ruling gives no definite rule on what does or does not count as an official act.
The ruling is limited to “official acts”, but the same court is the one who decides if an act is official or not
Feel like the next logical step is to throw the 6 justices in question into jail. They obviously can’t rule on their own trial so…
Why couldn’t they? The supreme court is literally the final authority, and there is no mechanism to automatically remove a justice from the bench. There is an ethics code that says they should recuse themselves if they have a conflict in a case but it has no enforcement mechanism - two sitting justices have literally taken bribes in violation of the ethics code
The obvious thing would be the 14th amendment due process clause. Can’t have a fair and unbiased case against someone if they’re the one judging it. Thats been affirmed as far back as The Federalist.
Beyond that, though I said it’d be up to the remaining 3 judges, I’m pretty sure it’d have to go up through the court system, and as Trump has shown, that can be slowboated to the end of time, or until those SC judges wisely decide to retire/get forcibly “retired”, after which the charges get dropped and everyone goes on their merry way, and then the courts (crazily enough!) establish again that the pres does not have that kind of immunity so history doesn’t repeat itself.
But I already know Joe wouldn’t play that kind of hardball.
Well since 2 judges are pro Jan 6 I’d remove them too as part of the conspiracy.
So he just has to order the CIA to do it.
The… the CIA and many other government agencies have a stories history of doing absolutely insane things that are absolutely crimes…
…And many of those things only get brought to light by a whistle lower or leak ot some Watergate level fuckup of being caught in the act, or years or decades of actual investigation later.
There are so many problems with this ruling its mind boggling.
The immunity from criminal prosecution has to do with official acts, not personal acts
Trying to overthrow a court and Congress sanctioned vote of the people to retain power is most certainly a personal act.
That’s your OPINION!
They can’t impeach if they can’t assemble a quorum.
Because what they really did was set themselves up as the ones who decide what is and isn’t an official act.
As long as there is a right-wing supreme court, any action by a republican president will be official and immune, but if a democratic president tried to throw their weight around in the same… They’ll get shut down.
Simply replace the SC judges in an official act.
Wait, maybe the justices just gave Biden the authority to do just that.
…
Naw. See, if he did, that’d delegitimize the presidency and cause a constitutional crisis.
But, if a Republican President does it, it’s an exercise in upholding American freedom and the true authority of the office. See the difference?
I would rather have the presidency delegitimized than take the gamble.
The SC will seem that an unofficial act… Got to jail
That’s the perfect! That’s why we nominate someone of Bidens age. Not only can he get away with it now as an “official act” but by the time the next court rules on it, he’ll be long gone
That presumes there’s still a
SCOTUSStar Chamber to rule on the issue…
don’t be ridiculous; it says official acts, so he can’t bring a gun himself.
he has to use seal team 6 instead. see? democracy isn’t dead!
“As an official act as President, I have issued an Executive Order that I blast Trump in the face.”
Boom, checkmate libruls
For the record, that would be an illegal order and should be refused by everyone involved in the military chain.
(Whether or not it is refused is a different matter.)
They sent back the question of what is an official act. And when the judge comes back with something like “official acts are those in which a president is acting in an official capacity as the president to fulfill obligations and duties of the president.” (IANAL….so there’s probably some anal retentive detail that is super critical in missing)
In any case, when challenging the election, that is not an official act- that was something done by Trump-the-candidate.
Inviting foreign dignitaries, however frequently is. (But probably not when selling out America and other spies to keep compromat from leaking)
Organizing an insurrection in the US never is, however.
I’m alarmed by the alarm in the dissent- they probably know where this is going, but POTUS has enjoyed some immunity anyhow as far as official acts go. And when it’s kept to a reasonable understanding… that’s more or less good.
Their alarm suggests that the majority here is not going to have a reasonable understanding when that gets appealed.
Reasonable
Who’s to say what’s reasonable.
when challenging the election, that is not an official act
Why not? He could make the argument that the election was stolen and ignoring it is in the best interest of the United states.
Why not? He could make the argument that the election was stolen and ignoring it is in the best interest of the United states.
because that act is not POTUS’s job. He’s making the argument as a candidate. he’s not supposed to be part of that process because he’s biased.
as for whose to say what’s reasonable… that is the problem. right now a dangerous number of SCOTUS are bought and paid for, or are absolutely partisan hacks.
His job is to support and defend the Constitution of the United states. You certainly can argue that protecting the integrity of the voting system is part of that job.
But that doesn’t sanction military members to break the law or the UCMJ. And that’s the point. They do not have immunity, qualified or otherwise. The order would be unlawful simply because of the issuing parties bias and personal gain from the act.
I’m not saying there are not people in the military who would follow this type of order. I’m saying that they don’t have the protections or immunity, qualified or otherwise, and honestly, a presidential pardon doesn’t do anything for them if the state decides to prosecute them. Plus military members are basically the only people in the US subject to legal double jeopardy because they can be tried by the military separately from state and federal law.
The supreme Court is specifically saying the order is legal. He could say it’s part of his official duties, in which case the order itself would be legal. His official duties include commanding the armed forces. If the president gives an order, a marine or a Navy SEAL cannot choose to not follow that order on legal grounds. They can choose to not follow on moral grounds but that refusal in itself would be illegal. Should it come to that, I would hope the vast majority of the armed forces would refuse the order.
In her dissent, justice Sotomayor specifically said that the president could order an assassination and could not be prosecuted for it. I am assuming she knows more than you are I about how the legal system works.That conflicts not just with other established law, but also with what I actually said and what the ruling says. The problem with it is that the order can’t be considered lawful regardless of what the Supreme court ruled because it doesn’t fit all the criteria of a lawful order.
“What is considered a lawful order in the military? It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. Finally, it must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. In sum, an order is presumed lawful if it has a valid military purpose and is a clear, precise, narrowly drawn mandate.”
https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-lawfulness-of-orders.html
One other thing is that you’re quoting dissenting members of the SCOTUS, not the ruling itself. That’s a single interpretation of it, and one deliberately intended to alarm people so that they push back against it.
It’s very clear this will be abused, most notably by letting Trump off the hook for his insurrection. That’s why there’s huge alarm.
He’s the commander in chief, ordering a seal team or the CIA to assassinate someone is an official act and legal now. What you fail to mention in your haste to try to downplay this is that they also made it impossible to present evidence of crimes by the president, so any non-public action by the president is de facto legal. It would be impossible to prosecute because even if you gathered evidence he ordered the hit, you couldn’t use it in court.
Yes, it’s that bad. No, it’s not that people are over reacting.
Read Sotomayor’s dissent, she says explicitly that this gives the president legal immunity against assassinations.
Declare a national security emergency. Have the SEALS eliminate Trump for being a traitor. Bing bang boom, America is Great Again.
And replace SCOTUS.
Yeah, I mean if we’re going to the store you might as well get a cart full right?
They did not say that he was immune. They said that the president has immunity for certain acts. What acts? Whatever acts they, the SCOTUS, decide they should be immune from. So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.
So… Biden could target SCOTUS as being treasonous & appoint new justices under immunity with the three remaining liberal justices quickly ruling he has executive privilege to do so?
Yes. I joked about this scenario when I didn’t think the scotus would hand down such a fucked up ruling, but we’re halfway to some really funny shit.
I think that “some bullshit reason” would be murder.
People have gotten fucking ridiculous lately.
They said “some bullshit reason” because the same logic would very clearly not be applied to trump if he were to do the same. Think a bit. It’s ok.
The bullshit in this example is not that they would find Biden guilty but that they could/would find Trump innocent.
That would be bullshit. Biden killing Trump being ruled as murder would not be bullshit, it’d be accurate.
Guilt or innocence is irrelevant in this case. The only thing that matters is whether the President was acting in an “official” capacity or not. If a Republican does it, it was official. If a Democrat does, it was not.
I agree, that’s how it would go. But you can’t start advocating for a Democratic president to murder his opponent with official impunity, just because of some politically motivated bullshit SCOTUS ruling. That way total anarchy and facism lies.
If people start calling for that, then it’s no better than the shit show of a second Trump presidency may be. The rule of law matters, and it should apply to all equally. If Trump did it and got away with it, it would be bullshit, he should not get away with it. If Biden did it, he should not get away with it either, whether it’s “official” or not. Murder is murder.
You’re correct, and I wasn’t saying otherwise. I’m just pointing out that the corrupt SCOTUS has set themselves up as the arbiter of consequences for the President. They can protect or not on a whim, with no way for anyone else to challenge them.
Agreed. It’s properly fucked up. Genuinely worried about the state of the States in the next few years if the Dems don’t get their acts together and win in November (and even if they do, tbh)
That court also wouldn’t be able to have the president arrested. He would need to be impeached and removed from office before any of that could happen.
So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.
Ah! But with what evidence? They also ruled that presidential conduct (paraphrasing here) can’t be used as evidence.
True, but they are also the ones who decide what they can and cannot do without recourse from anyone else (because we need 2/3 of Congress to impeach which is a non-starter.) so they can rule one way and then rule another for whatever reason they want.
Our “justices” (/vomit…) don’t have to have any qualifications, we just pay lip service to norms so we (read: the federalist society) choose vaguely “acceptable” people to be justices, but you or I could be one too which really means that they have almost nothing to do with the actual law. We’re a fucking joke.
We’re a fucking joke.
But nobody is laughing. I’m shivering…
pretty sure the rest of the world is having a good laugh
You’re not missing anything. Based on the ruling, the president may now murder anyone they want - just so long as they claim it’s an official act.
They can also pardon themselves if it isn’t an official act, since their pardon power is an official act.
It’s not that simple; A court must rule that the action in question is an “official act”. As the SCOTUS intentionally declined to elaborate further on how this is defined, it will be up for the courts to decide what is and what is not covered by immunity.
Not that this couldn’t become subject to abuse and partisan rulings, but it’s more than just the presidental equivalent of
Misinformation. This does not allow the president to commit a crime and then say it was all in an official capacity. The very act of doing something criminal immediately puts it out of the realm of any official capacity. Obviously.
You’ve clearly been living under a rock the past 8 years if you think this is true.
They will definitely use this ruling to allow a president to do criminal things. Obviously.
Why would immunity be necessary if the act is not otherwise a crime?
You truly believe the court gave full immunity for all things don’t you? You must have missed the part where it’s only for actions carrying out functions of the constitution. Everything else enjoys no such privilege. If a president commits a crime it is not protected. Further, a court (not the supreme court) can determine if the act was official or not.
I did not assert that the court gave full immunity for all things, but will now suggest that not every crime is a violation of the constitution, or could not be committed while carrying out a function of the constitution.
Bring his own gun? Unofficial act. Have the DOJ black bag his opponent and rendition him to a CIA camp in Saudi Arabia? Official act and immune.
You just need to pull the “it was in the best interest of the United States” card and it’s an official act.
Well then why hasn’t he done it… I can’t think of something of a more positive interest than to dump trump down a hole.
because biden (and the democratic party in general) are a bunch of cowards who think that they will prevail simply by taking the high road. Fascism was never defeated by strongly worded speeches or political actions, it always took blood.
You are right. They really live in a fantasy land.
It’s not currently in the best interest.
IF Trump wins the election then it would be in the best interests of the US. It would be akin to a judge throwing out a juries verdict because the jury clearly made the wrong decision.
I think the Secret Service detail assigned to Trump might have a problem with that. I think Biden killing Trump or canceling the election would be a gift to the Republicans that they don’t need. One can dream though.
It has to be an official act within the scope of the executive branch. So he couldn’t just bring a gun and shot him, however he could direct the justice department to focus on domestic terrorism and cite Trump’s threats for political retribution as a terroristic threat and have him and every other Republican who publicly agreed with him disappeared.
Can we book this in for 10:30 tomorrow?
Trump is arguing that his twitter was “official communications”, and thus can’t be used in court. This means that the 34 felony convictions might go away now.
But the truth is that the Supreme Court didn’t say that every “official act” was immune from consequences. The more nuanced reading is that any act that the Court declares official is immune from consequences.
The Conservatives on the Court declared the president King, but only when they feel like it.
His own devotion to ineffectiveness.
He must say: “This debate is officially over” before pulling the trigger.
I. DECLARE. ASSASSINATION!
“Allow me to retort!”
Hammer falls “Overruled.”
deleted by creator
Acts done in an official manner are immune. So for example if the president orders assassination of political leader of another country (what Trump did with Iran’s Suleinami (I’m probably butchering name)). Protects president from prosecution for murder or whatever if there is evidence it was done in the interest of the state.
Another example is something Biden / Trump and even Hilary are guilty of. The misuse or mishandling of classified materials. Since they are acting in an official manner, it isn’t a crime like it would be if a normal citizen mishandled the documents.
Acts done in an “unofficial manner” are not immune. So let’s say a Mr President does some insider trading while president to enrich himself personally. That presumably would still be illegal and he could be charged.
So who decides what is official and what isn’t? The courts. Lower courts make a determination and presumably it would go up to the SC if necessary.
It’s an interesting question. For example- Reagan’s Iran-Contra episode. Where his administration was smuggling cocaine in order to get money to covertly supply weapons to Iran. Would that be official or unofficial?
I think people need to realize the president has had broad powers to do a lot of dubious things for decades. This doesn’t necessarily increase or decrease his power, but creates a potential pathway to either prosecute or acquit him. Whereas before, it always stayed in the legal gray zone (in Reagan’s Iran Contra)
Odd, please cite your qualifications.
You know, the ones that makes your opinion more valid than the opinion expressed by the (dissenting) supreme court justices directly involved in the case?
Pt2: had to split in two because of length. See other comment first
_______continued…
my response to this is: if there is immunity, but not for criminal prosecution, what does the immunity apply to?
moving forward, the dissenter discusses the “framework for prosecution of unofficial acts”
Quick on the heels of announcing this astonishingly broad official-acts immunity, the majority assures us that a former President can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts.” Ante, at 15. Of course he can. No one has questioned the ability to prosecute a former President for unofficial acts Even Trump did not claim immunity for such acts and, as the majority acknowledges, such an immunity would be impossible
essentially saying, yes. unofficial immunity would be absurd.
It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” he is taking official action
they are arguing that the statement is too broad. that it would be effectively impossible to distinguish an item from “official” to “unofficial”
so their problem is not that there doesn’t exist a method to prosecute a president for criminal actions, but that the proposed framework is not going to be effective in doing so
to conclude: i’ve read a couple dissenters and i’ve read a couple of the majority. i personally don’t think this ruling is as important as everyone is making it out to be
why?
-
the president already has these powers, except it has been in a gray legal area up until now. it is essentially writing down active policy. the president had presumed immunity for official acts before this
-
it creates a framework to determine whether or not a president is acting in his official capacity. this power gets thrown to the courts.
what this does is it gives the legislative branch [edit: judicial] a check against the president. i support more checks against the president because i think the executive is too powerful in general
now, i understand the viewpoint that should the courts want to, they could rule everything the president does as “official” and therefore the president is effectively immune should the court politically be aligned with the president.
however, i would repond that is the courts are politically aligned, they would have inevitably ruled in the same manner should this case have come up 10 yearse from now.
this case, while important in the sense that it officially reinforces this precedence, it doesn’t functionally change anything going forward
now that i’ve written out my reasoning, if you disagree with any specific points, feel free. i’m not an expert i’m a layman with a mild interest in constitutional law. i’m more than happy to admit i’m wrong. i’m not a conservative so please believe me i’m not partisanly motivated to see one side or another here. i’m going off of my own independent interpretation
yearse ?
Your argument seems to be, they already had this power - now the Supreme Court can stop them. When will that ever happen?
You’re glossing over the fact that they’ve declared entire sections of communication off limits going forward. This is new. This is not same old, same old. The Supreme Court is currently compromised. No-one is going to prosecute a republican president in this environment.
Everything they could do can be construed as official, immune, business after being elected when viewed through the right lens.
If this the president previously had immunity, why was Nixon pardoned?
The Supreme Court was free to interpret this as they saw fit. They’ve demonstrated that they’re not following precedent and are marching to their own beat.
Regarding the clear power grab, Denying the facts that the other changes the court has made will have untold effects on the ability of states that are gerrymandering based on race:
It’s ok to insurrection, if you do it right, also while president:
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/14/nx-s1-5005999/supreme-court-jan-6-prosecutions
It’s also ok to use your official employees as president to carry out illegal acts and prevent them from testifying:
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/1198912764/consider-this-from-npr-draft-07-01-2024
Denying that folks who actually understand the law, like law professors, and Supreme Court Justices. There’s a difference between laypersons and experts in some fields. I’m not claiming to be an expert in neurology, law, or other fields. I’m deferring to people who have studied these field(s) and asking for their logic and expertise. You’re responding and relying on your logic.
The court is currently controlled by one party. One person openly claims credit for this, and definitely pushed the balance towards one direction.
Our congress is deadlocked by republicans when it comes to anything related to the former president.
They will not pass anything or see cases against their preferred president making them literally immune in practice.
If your argument is: the Supreme Court is compromised and will intentionally ignore the constitution and the laws to protect Trump- then what difference does this ruling make?
Why did the courts not hand the election to him? He sued in many courts over the 2020 election drama. Fake votes, rigged election, etc. He lost every court case.
I think people assume the 9 justices are politically motivated but they in general hold a deep respect for the laws and the constitution. Every single decision is documented and you can read their opinions. Everything has legal reasoning, nothing happens just because
For example the Roe v Wade one. I don’t think they should have repealed it for practical purposes- but the ruling legally makes sense. The courts are not legislators. Congress should be the one passing legislation to give right to abortion, not the courts.
Why did Congress not pass anything since 1974? There were many Democratic majorities since 1974.
I wouldn’t have repealed just because of the damage it caused, but I understand the legal argument.
So to summarize: they follow the law. Not necessarily what is best for the country
everything could be viewed as official in the right lens
No, isn’t true. Insider trading? Not official. Is a crime and can be prosecuted.
And note that it is “presumptive immunity” not absolute immunity. Therefore even official actions can be criminally prosecuted on a case by case basis. It’s just that because it’s presumptive, there’s a higher threshold of evidence the state would need to prosecute.
If president had immunity, why Nixon
Nixon did not act in an official capacity. He was guilty of obstruction of justice, breaking into office, etc. These things he did not do in an official capacity.
I think a better example would be the Iran Contra affair. I think that’s a very legitimate concern. If I order the CIA to do something - is it official? What if it’s something clearly against the laws and/or against interests of the USA? Here I think there is a valid concern although that doesn’t mean the ruling is the end of democracy like people are making it out to be
It’s OK to do insurrection
He can still be held criminally liable for the insurrection. He will argue he was acting officially, it will go to a lower court, then bubble up to the USSC and they will rule.
I think it’s fairly obvious it was not official
OK to use official employee
Yeah I think this is wrong and a valid concern. Although keep in mind: they already had this presumptive immunity. The difference is now the law is clearer and there’s a process to remove this immunity whereas before it wasn’t there
denying people who actually understand the law, like professors, etc
You can find just as many legal experts who agree with the majority opinion. It was 6-3 in the Supreme Court.
But again- appeal to authority doesn’t work. You make arguments, like you did in this comment. I respect you more than almost anyone else because you took the time to read and give reasoning
I don’t believe what someone says just because they’re an expert. I listen, but I look at the reasoning. Look up “Nobel disease” . Experts sometimes say some wild things
our Congress is deadlocked
Yes they are a mess and we’re headed towards fascism. Not because of this ruling though
All of this ignores this is not happening in a vacuum. Project 2025, trump, the supreme court selection of limited precedent and ignorance of other precedent…
This is a brick in the pavement of our descent into fascism. Hand waving it away as a wonderful clarification that enabled prosecution of the office is unreasonable.
They already ruled the Constitution and clear discussion in Congress during the original Amendment, invalid when the insurrection clause and States rights were revoked… Colorado ballot decision ftr.
They’ve shown their hand. They’re willing to select evidence, much like your review, that fits the narrative - ignoring any other facts.
It’s already being used to delay adjudication in clear abuses of power.
Law requires a certification from a board to practice. You’re of the opinion that examination that proves ones understanding of the law(bar exam, exhaustive study followed by proving that knowledge)— puts you on equal footing with that majority?
I continue to firmly dissent your assertion regarding the validity of your opinion, you have firmly claimed not to be a bar certified individual.
Being an expert in law here has weight. A majority of them feel this is a power grab. You’re welcome to hold opinions. Spouting endless review to make responses difficult isn’t helping you.
This is akin to you saying you know better how to file legal paperwork or act as a defense attorney because you read about it.
Do you also dospense medical advice?
-
Pt1:appeal to authority means nothing to me, and it shouldn’t to you, because experts and authorities can be wrong just like anyone else. i care about the merits of the argument, as everyone should
and for that, we need to critically think and analyze reasoning on its own merits.
so let’s actually read the court opinion, which you can easily find on the supreme court website if you’re actually curious.
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts
so essentially - that’s exactly what i said. president has immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. what is the court’s reasoning?
Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”
It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power.
So, the court’s opinion is that when a President is within his constitutionally defined powers he cannot be held criminally liable. Otherwise, for example, virtually every president for the last few decades could be held criminally liable for some crime. I brought up the examples of the classified document mishandling previously, but there are many more should you go looking.
Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers
So, not everything a president does falls within this immunity bubble. How do we decide what is official and what isn’t? Well, first we look at the seperation of powers outlined in the constitution. You know, the stuff you were taught in elementary school. 3 branches of government. What is within the scope of the executive branch, president has authority over.
The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.”
Essentially, the argument is: the President should not be afraid to act because of fear of criminal prosecution. For example, if something like killing a political leader of an enemy state is deemed critical to national security - he has the ability to choose this course of action without fear of being charged for murder. If we did not allow for this, the president’s office would be weaker. The opinion shares many court cases and items of the constitution that reinforces this authority the president is granted.
At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
So he can actually be prosecuted for specific acts if the proseuction can show that it doesn’t impede on the use of his constitutionally appointed powers.
As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct.
Again, like my previous comment - unofficial acts do not hold immunity. Items outside of his legal presidential powers are not protected.
The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.”
So, how do we determine what is “official” versus “unofficial”? Well, the courts decide. However, as the Supreme Court is intended by the constitution to be a “final destination” the process must start at the lower courts and work its way up to the Supreme Court.
So essentially, the decision states a) president has immunity for official acts, b) does not have immunity for unofficial acts, and c) it presents a framework and process for determining the difference between the two
the decision was ruled 6-3
so what did the dissenters say? well here’s justice Sotomayor
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President
They are saying that the argument that the president neesd to act “bold and unhestitatingly” as specified by the constitution is not enough reason to warrant immunity.
the next couple pages, which i won’t quote here for brevity, outlines the crimes that Trump committed circa Jan 6th. None of this has anything to do with the argument above, but has more to do with how Trump blatantly broke the law during this event and lists several examples
The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution.
self explanatory, we’re going back to the topic at hand
The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.”
i disagree with the statement “completely insulate presidents from criminal liability”. as we showed before, there is a framework for prosecuting presidents should they act in a manner outside of their constitutionally protected powers. the next statement, of course, is just a rehashing of the decision. president has immunity for his “core presidential powers”
a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.
this is patently false. if they act in an unofficial manner, they do not get immunity. the courts have the power to determine acts “unofficial” and prosecute him
The Constitution’s text contains no provision for immunity from criminal prosecution for former Presidents
well, this is up for debate and interpretation. it’s been widely recognized that presidents have immunity for official acts. this has been the accepted situation for very long time. if you want to read about the history of this precedence: https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/article-ii--presidential-immunity-to-criminal-and-civil-suits.html
that article from way before this court case, goes over both the constitutional basis for the precedence as well as supreme court cases that reinforced the precedence
so while the constitution does not explicitly state that the president has immunity, it can be implied that these powers arise from both the powers and responsibilities vested to the office of president
the dissenting judge says as much in the next statement
Of course, “the silence of the Constitution on this score is not dispositive.”
essentially saying - the lack of explicit mention does not by itself necessarily mean the opinion of the court is incorrect.
they then make the argument, which i will summarize for brevity, that a) the framers of the constitution provided for limited immunity for legislators and b) state constitutions at this time period had immunitities
therefore, the framers would have been aware of this and would have explicitly mentioned this if they intended this. therefore, they argue it was not intended by the framers of the constitution
my statement is - this is a valid argument. perhaps the framers not only did not intend for immunity, they left it explicitly unmentioned because they did intend for the president to have immunity.
however i believe this statement alone is not enough to justify a dissent with the opinion. mainly because there’s a lot of things that framers intended or didn’t intend that we have modified since. i don’t think i have to elaborate here.
then the dissenter goes on
Aware of its lack of textual support, the majority points out that this Court has “recognized Presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.’” Ante, at 10 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749). That is true, as far as it goes.
essentially saying - yes, the majority points out the established precedence that the Supreme Court has on this topic, and they are correct in using that as an argument
Nothing in our history, however, supports the majority’s entirely novel immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
however, nothing in the precedence applies explicitly to criminal prosecution. essentially saying - the precedence holds for presidential immunities but not from criminal prosecution.
The Sotomayor dissent was awful. It’s an absurd argument with no real basis in reality. Whether the president is immune from ordering the assassination of a rival is largely irrelevant, because it wouldn’t get to a criminal trial anyway. It’s already illegal for the seals to carry out that order as well.
The president told me to do it isn’t a valid defense
So your answer to why your opinion is more valid than everyone else is; Because I say so?
Thanks for providing clear sources as to why your opinion is more valid than the dissenters with credentials.
Calmly, friend. That isn’t the person you replied to.
Fair. Thanks. Was mobile and trying to wade through and reply.
Except in the future - If you’re part of the official staff for the president - A defense wouldn’t be needed. The fact that the president told them to do it wouldn’t even be able to come up. It’s privileged communication now.
I can answer for him/her. He/she isn’t a polotician, nor appointed by them. So he/she is more qualified to not exaggerate the truth to make newspaper headlines. And clearly he/she can read.
The word soup from kava seems to indicate they feel, that because the president had so much power already, what’s the big deal if a little bit more gets added?
Folks who are scholars on the topic seem to think accumulating more power to the Executive and Judicial branches to be a bad thing.
As noted in Supreme Court rulings: The only parties who get to decide if a president is acting incorrectly would be if A. Congress successfully impeaches the president, B. They passed the supreme court’s review of what constitutes (non)presidential acts.
In reality both of these branches have been corrupted and owned by ‘conservative’ interests.
Rulings on SuperPACs, Citizens United, gerrymandering, presidential immunity, insurrection and more are laying the groundwork to remove additional freedoms or protections.
So this has the result of essentially making it possible for the controlling party of these to have a literal dictator whose communications with officials can’t be reviewed or considered in prosecution.
Folks who have a lot of experience working with legal matters are voicing concerns on this. This isn’t an appeal to authority, rather a matter of consulting folks who are experts and considering their opinions.
The supreme cunts can just change their ruling whenever they feel like it, so as long as it’s their boss tRump it’s fine but anyone
theytRump doesn’t like they’ll just make another decision saying you can’t do that anymore.The immunity only applies to Republican presidents.
What is stopping BIDEN??? I’d say empathy and a good set of morals. Regardless of if you think he’s fit to be president, I think nobody sane would argue that he’s a good man. He’s a good person. Even if he could do so consequence free, HE wouldn’t.
The question is, what’s stopping the next president with no morals? And that’s a far more chilling scenario.
Empathy and morals would mean putting the country above his personal convictions…
Answer: they would react differently if it were Biden versus Trump who did it. The SCOTUS would find a way to let Trump off while making Biden pay.
