• Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.

    The whole “official” vs “non official” acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.

    Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      4 months ago

      Quoting from Sotomayer’s dissent (pp 29-30, paragraphing my own):

      This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Kore- matsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

      The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world.

      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 as- sassinate a political rival? Immune.

      Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.

      Takes a bribe in ex- change for a pardon?

      Immune. Immune, immune, immune.


      They go on with an incisive critique of the majority’s reasoning:

      Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trap- pings 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.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        Sotomayor is behind the times.

        They’re not “bribes” anymore, they’re “donations” now.

    • Akuden@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s not true. Criminal acts are not protected, nor can they be made in an official capacity. Furthermore, the ruling says the court that determines official acts is the trails court. Not the supreme Court. Stop spreading misinformation.

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        4 months ago

        The ruling doesn’t even allow unrelated trials to use evidence that might be from official presidential business. Trump just requested his conviction in NY to be overburdened based on this ruling. So how it would not protect criminal acts when you can see in your own eyes this being used to get away from criminal acts. The other trials are also in jeopardy.

        As for the “decision made by trials court” that is insignificant as SCOTUS can override them.

        • Akuden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.

          • gramathy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            4 months ago

            “When the president does it, it is not illegal”

            This has been a long time coming and the presumption is that he is allowed to until that is somehow challenged.

            • Akuden@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Again, incorrect. Stop reading headlines and making decisions. Read the ruling. You are spreading misinformation.

              • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                20
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Oo, nice try turning this around on them. But nah, man, you’re refusing to acknowledge the ruling itself explicitly telling you you’re wrong. You’re not arguing in good faith. Go away.

              • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                Direct from the decision (page 31):

                If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated.

      • TaterTurnipTulip@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Please tell me what capacity any court has to enforce a ruling against a sitting President. I’ll wait.

        As that bastard Andrew Jackson once (allegedly) said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”