The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still required to be appointed by an act of Congress to investigate and then bring forward charges.
Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring charges against a president, for official or unofficial acts that are crimes.
The reality with this ruling is it will embolden future presidents to do things that are to their advantage even if they think those actions may be illegal. Presidents don't need more protection from people. We the people need more protection from them.
I'm dismayed by this ruling but I'm curious: can someone defend it? I'm able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I'm just not seeing the counterpoint?
Can anyone pencil out the real danger of this position? Sotomayors opinion seems to posit that a president can receive a bribe and pardon someone for that and this is an official, immune act. However, I don't think soliciting a bribe would be considered an official act of the POTUS, and by what I have been able to understand from this opinion would still be subject to prosecution. I also think that this opinion seems to be exactly in line with existing legal precedent. Truman was never prosecuted for the massacres he presided on. Nixon was never prosecuted. Reagen was never prosecuted. We just don't seem to ever prosecute ex presidents at all whether we had this opinion to spell it out for us or not.
> (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32
For example, from my understanding this means that Nixon's tapes could never have been used in any form in a criminal trial regarding Nixon's actions.
In today's political environment I don't see an impeachment ever succeeding unless the opposing party has a super-majority in the US Senate.
I understand why during their presidency the president needs to be immune (so that they can focus on their executive duties instead of spending their day in the court).
But AFTER the end of their (last) term why not be held accountable for their actions?
Immunity for things they do as part of their official duties. I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty.
The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much.
I don’t know if they struck the right balance here (and we not know until the next time it comes up), but at least we have slightly more clarity.
It's really impossible to understand and determine before hand how the court would rule on any of these theoretical cases that may result as a consequence of this decision. It is up to further cases to actually establish was constitutes "official" versus "unofficial" capacities as President and we can absolutely not guess before hand what that entails. From the decision, it seems that only those duties constitutionally mandated would fall under the "official" capacity, with quite a lot of leeway for determining how to evaluate individual actions.
Also I think we should all be reminded that there is separation of powers for a reason. The President is ultimately largely beholden to Congress. The government cannot sink into a dictatorship without the explicit approval of the majority of Congress. It is Congress' duty to remove Presidents from office that it feels are a danger to the country.
All these checks and balances still exist and will still be enforced. The President can not unilaterally go off the rails as many of these extreme hypotheticals seem to be implying.
It's interesting that even in the Roman Republic the immunity ended after the end of your term, and you could be prosecuted for official acts taken during it. And even let to Caesar fighting to keep himself in office at all times to avoid inevitable prosecution. https://theconversation.com/from-caesar-to-trump-immunity-is...
Barret mentioned that:
If one bribes the president in appointment of an official - like an embassador - since the appointment of the embassador is an official act, under this ruling, one cannot bring this as evidence to the jury in a criminal trial because it was part of an official act.
This is certainly the sort of decision I'll have to read for myself. While I certainly share the concerns, the hyperbole is peak right now and everything is emotional and overly editorialized.
"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity, If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
and
“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. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
“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.”
Well, I guess this ruling makes me eat my words, almost exactly a month ago, that Trump's 34 felony counts was "a good day" for the spirit of Montesquieu checks and balances in this country:
Sotomayor has channeled her inner-Scalia in her dissent, and she hit the nail on the head. This is now kingship, this is de-facto sovereign immunity.
This ruling was not constitutionally purposivist, it was not textualist, it was not originalist. It goes against the very founding of America in the contexts of its original conception and revolution. This is BAD.
If there's one thing the constitution seemed to try to prevent it's kings, and here the court is saying the president can do anything, to as maximally permissible as possible an "outer limit" of what might be at all considered official. (No matter what their motive; we are explicitly forbidden from even beginning an inquiry into motive.) It's hard to see even the remotest claims of their so called originalism (which is a stupid shit dumb practice anyhow) written into this very longwinded extensive permission-to-tyrant, permission to sedition.
What a sad shameless age. It's embarrassing as hell having these useless Federalist Society shills tearing down the respectability of this nation. Utterly brazen. How 40%-50% of the population can be so on board with this, be so excited & happy to see such endless Calvinball for their team is beyond imagining. It feels like liberals always are hungry for more or different from our own, will criticize our representatives endlessly, but there's an unmatched purity of boosterism for any win any win at all no matter what that's totally taken half the country, that there's no system of moderation or self assessment left.
> 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 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.
Sotomayor's scathing dissent sums up my concerns on the matter. Even for Barrett, a conservative, the majority opinion was a bridge too far: even bribery now enjoys absolute immunity.
This shifts the whole debate to what constitutes "official" versus "unofficial" acts. Presumably the president can't order his subordinates to commit crimes, or unlawful orders.
Rep. Adam Schiff gave the following interpretation: "Effectively giving a president immunity for any crimes committed while in office as long as that president can plausibly claim the action was taken in some form of official capacity. It must now be presumed that the president, as king, is immune from accountability."
How have presidents not been paralyzed by fear of prosecution until now?
Strange that only now, with a super majority of conservatives and a 'conservative' former president facing insurrection charges, that such a ruling should come down.
And all this after McConnell assured us that impeachment wasn't appropriate for a 'criminal' matter like January 6.
Hmm. Here in the Czech Republic, the president is immune to prosecution during his tenure, but can be prosecuted afterwards for illegal acts that weren't committed during performance of his duties.
During tenure, he can only be impeached for anti-constitutional acts, and the only punishment if found guilty is removal from office.
All in all, it sounds quite similar to this SCOTUS ruling, but of course, the consequences for the world are mitigated by the fact that globally, our president is a very, very small player.
People mistake the Constitution as the fabric that holds our Republic together. Sure the articles stipulations set a framework, but it's built primarily around a common set of mores and walls beyond which is the pale. When a sizable proportion of Representatives, voters, etc, conduct themselves in a way that always maximizes short-term wins and power and and aimed at disempowering the opposition, that framework that is the Constitution is powerless to keep the Republic together. Is only the will of the people to stay together they'll keep them together.
In all our legislative executive and judicial war, there seems to be less and less reason for restraint, for avoiding constitutional crisis, and to grab power by whatever means so that the other side does not. This ruling by the Supreme Court, as many people are commenting on social media, creating Powers Biden too, and there seems little reason not for Biden to pack the court, for the Senate to go to majority rule and rid themselves of the filibuster.
If we keep pushing the boundaries we will fall, or we will reconfigure.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
[...]
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
How does the comma matter in contracts?
This:
"Impeachment for, and Conviction of"
Is distinct in meaning from this:
"Impeachment for and Conviction of"
Furthermore:
"Judgement in cases of Impeachment"
Is not:
"Conviction in cases of Impeachment"
Doesn't this then imply that "Judgement in cases of Impeachment" (i.e. by the Senate) is distinct from "Conviction"?
Such would imply that presidents can be Impeached and Judged, and Convicted.
(Furthermore, it clear that the founders' intent was not to create an immune King.)
Surely the "impeachment exists" arguments are in bad faith. Otherwise, I'm convinced they've abandoned reason.
Impeachment process takes time, and in that window, the president can do whatever. POTUS can even mobilize the army (an official power) to block congress from meeting, since apparently the motive behind the use of official power doesn't matter. If they can't meet, how are they going to impeach.
This is all because very wealthy and powerful people see a future American demographic that doesn’t support their interests and they want an alternate government that can’t stop them.
The problem is what will democratic presidents do with this fundamental alteration of the three “equal” branches that now leaves Congress as the weakest link.
What will republican presidents do?
And of course, what would Trump do?
I think front and center is Stephen Miller’s desire to reverse that future demographic by either incarcerating or deporting anyone that isn’t white or even sympathetic to a white nationalist movement.
Frankly, this is terrifying. The decision gives complete criminal immunity from any "official acts" as President. It goes on to define that term so broadly as to include any conversation with Justice department officials. Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible. Soliciting bribes to not prosecute is now fair game.
I find it particularly concerning regarding the military. The President is Commander in Chief, and thus any orders he gives or attempts to give to the military would be undeniably official acts. This was even brought up in oral arguments, where it was asked of Trump's council "if the President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, would that be considered an official act?" I find it absolutely terrifying that this possibility was brought up, and any mention of the military is conspicuously absent from the majority decision, even in passing (though Sotomayor explicitly brings it up in her dissent).
The most concerning part is how this decision is being made entirely on constitutional grounds. At least in the case of Rowe v Wade being overturned, we have the possible remedy of Congress passing a law enshrining the right to an abortion. But here, there is no legislation Congress could pass to create criminal liability for the President, no executive action. The only option would be a constitutional amendment.
I'm imaging an index that measures the semantic similarity between reddit and hn threads on a particular topic. I feel like adding that measure to front page to allow users to sort threads would be beneficial in increasing signal-to-noise and help hn maintain a more distinct brand identity.
There was no way the Supreme Court was going to make a ruling that didn’t provide a backdoor for former, current, and future presidents. Mainly because it might open the door to some of the decisions a president makes that could be perceived as having criminal fallout. For example, ordering a strike (missile or something else) that results in collateral damage to civilians. Official acts is one of the super broad statements that’s open to interpretation and will take years of case law (if that ever happens) to narrow down to what it actually means.
I hope this ruling does enough to cast recent decisions of the Supreme Court into doubt, such as the end of Chevron deference. It should have become clear to anyone sufficiently observant that it no longer serves the interests of the people nor their country, but rather those of a single political party.
Until the system can be reformed to deter and slow such radical acts, there would be no hope of stability of the United States.
So ... a president can now order an executive branch officer to ignore any Supreme Court decision or law passed by Congress with absolute immunity? Seems like the Supreme Court is going to get what they asked for.
Lifetime appointments for Supreme Court Justices is fucking absurd.
My out-of-my-ass fix is that each Justice is on an 18-year term. Every two years one Justice is replaced. Two per Presidential term.
Makes it legitimately fair. Elect a President, get two Justices. None of this "one corrupt game-show host accidentally gets to appoint half the Court" horseshit.
> The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
> A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. ... But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. ...The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.
This right here is talking about why there is the separation of powers. This is the reason judges are supposed to be without party. But we all know that this is a facade. But of course it is, when we see how these judges are appointed. How could it be any other way? The recognition here is that there are no perfect solutions as to optimize towards one thing results in a worse outcome (see the other parts of the writing).
I think not enough people have read the Federalist papers. They are an important context to why the US was founded and what problems it was trying to solve. Littered throughout them are discussions of how power creeps and how functions couple. How government can do great good but at the same time great harm. They reiterate the notion that liberty is hard work and many of the writers fear things like parties as they are not only concentrations of power but umbrellas to remove thinking. You can see them wrestle with ideas and that they know they aren't getting them right, but instead try to set a framework that can course correct to adapt to the unknown unknowns.
But however you read them, I think you can and will read that such a conclusion is precisely the thing they were trying to stop. There is no ambiguity in this. They were fighting against monarchs who have written into the law that they are above the law. At least as it pertains to others. And so that's what that phrase means "no one is above the law" that not so literally (because making a law that makes special cases for you would not technically make you "above" the law, but part of it), but rather that the laws apply equally to all peoples and entities. That there are no special cases because there are no "to big to fail" and "too important to prosecute". Because the belief is that if it is wrong for one man to commit an act, then it is wrong for any man to commit such an act.
This court is a farce. People appointed by Trump grant him immunity for his crimes. That's some circular Kafkian absurdity that shouldn't be happening.
Now I'm wondering what constitutes an "official act". Is is anything at all done while President or is it things that fall under the normal official duties of President? If it's the former then a President is free to murder anyone, if it's the latter then what is official about a random homicide?
So many people reacting irrationally and misunderstanding what the ruling says. The first few pages are very readable, and I encourage all to read [1]
- Actions within the President's conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority: Absolute immunity, in accordance with constitutional separation of powers.
- Other actions done within an official capacity: Presumptive (though not full) immunity, to "to safe-guard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution."
- Unofficial actions: No immunity.
Who is the arbiter of whether an action is official or unofficial? The courts, according to the ruling: "The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial." In this case, a very liberal judge appointed by Obama.
One may disagree with the ruling, but it does not, as Sotomayor (who recently has been making more public and political appearances than is appropriate for someone of her position [2]) states, give the president the ability to drone strike his political opponent.
Honestly I just don't think the conservative Justices are that smart. Here's Roberts arguing that because something never happened (criminal prosecution of a former president) no one could have reasonably assumed it would happen:
> Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence.
Literally on the next page, here's Roberts arguing that though something has never happened (criminal prosecution of a former president) it is very likely to happen:
> The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “ ‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’ ” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid.
Just like, full on embarrassing. These guys need better clerks or something.
Biden need to sign executive order to jail all judges voted for this verdict for high treason of not protecting US constitution.
And he will be immune thanks to them.
This was an obvious outcome, the government always protects its own. The government class gets immunity from the bottom, cops and judges, all the way to the top, legislators, and now, the president.
I think a big problem here is that all existing laws and the system concerning presidents rests on one very important assumption.
That the commander in chief is a decent, rational human being that carefully considers his actions and holds the interest of the United States and the Citizens in high regards.
It all falls apart and gets too complicated to regulate when the assumption is that you can't trust the person in office.
Dont get this twisted, this was not enacted in favor of Trump and his misdemeanor charges if they even were real. This is to protect Biden and Obama and maybe Clinton too, there will be mass dump of the reasons why post Trump taking office. As an outsider, I am excited to see bad people getting what they deserve as a message to the world.
And they do not have immunity for unofficial acts, which do seem to be many of the things that that Donald Trump is being charged for. The fact that many of the top comments here don't mention this tells me that we are grips of a partisan hysteria. Fortunately, the court is not, and one 'conservative' judge was in the dissent, and one 'liberal' judge concurred with the majority.
Now we know that US presidents are above the law. I always assumed that was the case so this is just confirmation for everyone else who had any doubts.
A president's internal planning and discussions with his team are are at least granted "presumed" immunity unless the prosecutor can establish that the act in question fell outside of the office. So for the President pressuring Pence to uncertify the election results, prosecutors would need to make a case that it was outside of his power to do so - the reasoning behind it is largely irrelevant.
When it comes to interactions with external groups - be it local election officials or even the press/media - prosecutors need to establish whether the president was acting on an official basis or an unofficial basis. (And they are clear that the president acting on behalf of his party or his campaign would be unofficial).
> "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts."
My reading of the decision is that of the four counts against Trump, three can proceed so long as prosecutors can make a case the actions were not official acts.
It's time to test this ruling. Joe Biden can have let's say oh, about six supreme court justices detained for suspicion some wishy-washy thing or another.
The Supreme Court took what should be a straightforward and elegant decision — the president is immune from prosecution for acts committed in office unless he has been impeached for those acts — and turned it into angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin litigation about what constitutes official and unofficial acts.
Starting on page 44 of the opinion, Thomas makes some very good points.
I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.
No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.
...
Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause. For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Even if he is an inferior officer, the Attorney General could appoint him without Presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation only if “Congress . . . by law vest[ed] the Appointment” in the Attorney General as a “Hea[d] of Department.” Ibid. So, the Special Counsel’s appointment is invalid unless a statute created the Special Counsel’s office and gave the Attorney General the power to fill it “by Law.”
Whether the Special Counsel’s office was “established by Law” is not a trifling technicality. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office. Given that the Special Counsel purports to wield the Executive Branch’s power to prosecute, the consequences are weighty. Our Constitution’s separation of powers, including its separation of the powers to create and filled offices, is “the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government” and the liberty that it secures for us all. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 697 (Scalia, J., dissenting). There is no prosecution that can justify imperiling it.
I’m not an expert in this area by any means but it feels like there should be a “motive” angle to this rather just than blanket immunity.
The same actions committed by two different presidents could vary hugely in their motive - one might be legitimately concerned about voter fraud and the other trying to interfere maliciously with election results.
Admittedly the bar would be high to prove malicious intent (eg. acting out of self interest rather than in the interests of the office/country) but that still seems better than just saying that a given action, regardless of motive, is covered by immunity.
Some comments were deferred for faster rendering.
kemotep|1 year ago
The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still required to be appointed by an act of Congress to investigate and then bring forward charges.
Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring charges against a president, for official or unofficial acts that are crimes.
jmward01|1 year ago
afavour|1 year ago
KingOfCoders|1 year ago
This opens a can of worms - no one can today imagine what that means, with a willy nilly fluffy definition of official act.
asdff|1 year ago
ChildOfEru|1 year ago
For example, from my understanding this means that Nixon's tapes could never have been used in any form in a criminal trial regarding Nixon's actions.
In today's political environment I don't see an impeachment ever succeeding unless the opposing party has a super-majority in the US Senate.
whatever1|1 year ago
But AFTER the end of their (last) term why not be held accountable for their actions?
zeroonetwothree|1 year ago
The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much.
I don’t know if they struck the right balance here (and we not know until the next time it comes up), but at least we have slightly more clarity.
qqtt|1 year ago
Also I think we should all be reminded that there is separation of powers for a reason. The President is ultimately largely beholden to Congress. The government cannot sink into a dictatorship without the explicit approval of the majority of Congress. It is Congress' duty to remove Presidents from office that it feels are a danger to the country.
All these checks and balances still exist and will still be enforced. The President can not unilaterally go off the rails as many of these extreme hypotheticals seem to be implying.
mperham|1 year ago
jordanb|1 year ago
grotorea|1 year ago
itissid|1 year ago
cbxyp|1 year ago
Rapzid|1 year ago
riffic|1 year ago
grecy|1 year ago
With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
and
“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. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” “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.”
- Justice Sotomayor
Kalanos|1 year ago
xyst|1 year ago
HaZeust|1 year ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40529062#40529905
Sotomayor has channeled her inner-Scalia in her dissent, and she hit the nail on the head. This is now kingship, this is de-facto sovereign immunity.
This ruling was not constitutionally purposivist, it was not textualist, it was not originalist. It goes against the very founding of America in the contexts of its original conception and revolution. This is BAD.
jauntywundrkind|1 year ago
What a sad shameless age. It's embarrassing as hell having these useless Federalist Society shills tearing down the respectability of this nation. Utterly brazen. How 40%-50% of the population can be so on board with this, be so excited & happy to see such endless Calvinball for their team is beyond imagining. It feels like liberals always are hungry for more or different from our own, will criticize our representatives endlessly, but there's an unmatched purity of boosterism for any win any win at all no matter what that's totally taken half the country, that there's no system of moderation or self assessment left.
sterlind|1 year ago
Sotomayor's scathing dissent sums up my concerns on the matter. Even for Barrett, a conservative, the majority opinion was a bridge too far: even bribery now enjoys absolute immunity.
light_triad|1 year ago
Rep. Adam Schiff gave the following interpretation: "Effectively giving a president immunity for any crimes committed while in office as long as that president can plausibly claim the action was taken in some form of official capacity. It must now be presumed that the president, as king, is immune from accountability."
https://www.militaryjusticecenter.com/blog/2022/03/can-you-r...
heleninboodler|1 year ago
paulryanrogers|1 year ago
Strange that only now, with a super majority of conservatives and a 'conservative' former president facing insurrection charges, that such a ruling should come down.
And all this after McConnell assured us that impeachment wasn't appropriate for a 'criminal' matter like January 6.
dboreham|1 year ago
GreedIsGood|1 year ago
There have been multiple awful titles of for this ruling, yours was exactly correct.
inglor_cz|1 year ago
During tenure, he can only be impeached for anti-constitutional acts, and the only punishment if found guilty is removal from office.
All in all, it sounds quite similar to this SCOTUS ruling, but of course, the consequences for the world are mitigated by the fact that globally, our president is a very, very small player.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
WheatMillington|1 year ago
SubiculumCode|1 year ago
In all our legislative executive and judicial war, there seems to be less and less reason for restraint, for avoiding constitutional crisis, and to grab power by whatever means so that the other side does not. This ruling by the Supreme Court, as many people are commenting on social media, creating Powers Biden too, and there seems little reason not for Biden to pack the court, for the Senate to go to majority rule and rid themselves of the filibuster.
If we keep pushing the boundaries we will fall, or we will reconfigure.
westurner|1 year ago
This:
Is distinct in meaning from this: Furthermore: Is not: Doesn't this then imply that "Judgement in cases of Impeachment" (i.e. by the Senate) is distinct from "Conviction"?Such would imply that presidents can be Impeached and Judged, and Convicted.
(Furthermore, it clear that the founders' intent was not to create an immune King.)
lunarboy|1 year ago
Impeachment process takes time, and in that window, the president can do whatever. POTUS can even mobilize the army (an official power) to block congress from meeting, since apparently the motive behind the use of official power doesn't matter. If they can't meet, how are they going to impeach.
suid|1 year ago
ChicagoDave|1 year ago
The problem is what will democratic presidents do with this fundamental alteration of the three “equal” branches that now leaves Congress as the weakest link.
What will republican presidents do?
And of course, what would Trump do?
I think front and center is Stephen Miller’s desire to reverse that future demographic by either incarcerating or deporting anyone that isn’t white or even sympathetic to a white nationalist movement.
This is real people. And very frightening.
openasocket|1 year ago
I find it particularly concerning regarding the military. The President is Commander in Chief, and thus any orders he gives or attempts to give to the military would be undeniably official acts. This was even brought up in oral arguments, where it was asked of Trump's council "if the President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, would that be considered an official act?" I find it absolutely terrifying that this possibility was brought up, and any mention of the military is conspicuously absent from the majority decision, even in passing (though Sotomayor explicitly brings it up in her dissent).
The most concerning part is how this decision is being made entirely on constitutional grounds. At least in the case of Rowe v Wade being overturned, we have the possible remedy of Congress passing a law enshrining the right to an abortion. But here, there is no legislation Congress could pass to create criminal liability for the President, no executive action. The only option would be a constitutional amendment.
greentxt|1 year ago
KingOfCoders|1 year ago
yongjik|1 year ago
(I'd like to think that there's no way it's an "official act" of a president, but again, IANAL.)
HTG43|1 year ago
pona-a|1 year ago
Until the system can be reformed to deter and slow such radical acts, there would be no hope of stability of the United States.
brendanyounger|1 year ago
amai|1 year ago
chasing|1 year ago
My out-of-my-ass fix is that each Justice is on an 18-year term. Every two years one Justice is replaced. Two per Presidential term.
Makes it legitimately fair. Elect a President, get two Justices. None of this "one corrupt game-show host accidentally gets to appoint half the Court" horseshit.
godelski|1 year ago
I think not enough people have read the Federalist papers. They are an important context to why the US was founded and what problems it was trying to solve. Littered throughout them are discussions of how power creeps and how functions couple. How government can do great good but at the same time great harm. They reiterate the notion that liberty is hard work and many of the writers fear things like parties as they are not only concentrations of power but umbrellas to remove thinking. You can see them wrestle with ideas and that they know they aren't getting them right, but instead try to set a framework that can course correct to adapt to the unknown unknowns.
But however you read them, I think you can and will read that such a conclusion is precisely the thing they were trying to stop. There is no ambiguity in this. They were fighting against monarchs who have written into the law that they are above the law. At least as it pertains to others. And so that's what that phrase means "no one is above the law" that not so literally (because making a law that makes special cases for you would not technically make you "above" the law, but part of it), but rather that the laws apply equally to all peoples and entities. That there are no special cases because there are no "to big to fail" and "too important to prosecute". Because the belief is that if it is wrong for one man to commit an act, then it is wrong for any man to commit such an act.
[0] Federalist 51: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp
shmerl|1 year ago
gaoshan|1 year ago
paulvnickerson|1 year ago
- Actions within the President's conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority: Absolute immunity, in accordance with constitutional separation of powers.
- Other actions done within an official capacity: Presumptive (though not full) immunity, to "to safe-guard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution."
- Unofficial actions: No immunity.
Who is the arbiter of whether an action is official or unofficial? The courts, according to the ruling: "The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial." In this case, a very liberal judge appointed by Obama.
One may disagree with the ruling, but it does not, as Sotomayor (who recently has been making more public and political appearances than is appropriate for someone of her position [2]) states, give the president the ability to drone strike his political opponent.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/24/politics/sotomayor-crying-sup...
camgunz|1 year ago
> Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence.
Literally on the next page, here's Roberts arguing that though something has never happened (criminal prosecution of a former president) it is very likely to happen:
> The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “ ‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’ ” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid.
Just like, full on embarrassing. These guys need better clerks or something.
geekraver|1 year ago
In the worst case they might have to resign before being impeached but at that point they are permanently immune.
Germany 1933.
alberth|1 year ago
The movie “Vice” explains well what this is about.
It’s was originally imploded by President George W Bush.
https://youtu.be/_UPvTdDB-h0
—-
SCOTUS essentially ruled in favor of this theory.
vadiml|1 year ago
autoexecbat|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
muaytimbo|1 year ago
creer|1 year ago
Well yes. And since the Supreme Court just clarified the law... Isn't THIS White House the first that might use what was until now a misunderstanding?
wolfi1|1 year ago
locococo|1 year ago
It all falls apart and gets too complicated to regulate when the assumption is that you can't trust the person in office.
romellem|1 year ago
- https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-43-well-so-much-for-the-...
- (non-paywall link) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-43-well-so-much-for...
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
Rakshith|1 year ago
6510|1 year ago
mjfl|1 year ago
soloist11|1 year ago
NicoJuicy|1 year ago
Hoboy, I hope there's not another round of Trump...
emrah|1 year ago
No one and nothing should be above the law, even temporarily, period. That just opens up so many cans of worms.
Buttons840|1 year ago
Is it even possible for the President to break the law? What would that look like?
legitster|1 year ago
A president's internal planning and discussions with his team are are at least granted "presumed" immunity unless the prosecutor can establish that the act in question fell outside of the office. So for the President pressuring Pence to uncertify the election results, prosecutors would need to make a case that it was outside of his power to do so - the reasoning behind it is largely irrelevant.
When it comes to interactions with external groups - be it local election officials or even the press/media - prosecutors need to establish whether the president was acting on an official basis or an unofficial basis. (And they are clear that the president acting on behalf of his party or his campaign would be unofficial).
> "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts."
My reading of the decision is that of the four counts against Trump, three can proceed so long as prosecutors can make a case the actions were not official acts.
dakial1|1 year ago
stevefeinstein|1 year ago
tomohawk|1 year ago
Starting on page 44 of the opinion, Thomas makes some very good points.
tailspin2019|1 year ago
The same actions committed by two different presidents could vary hugely in their motive - one might be legitimately concerned about voter fraud and the other trying to interfere maliciously with election results.
Admittedly the bar would be high to prove malicious intent (eg. acting out of self interest rather than in the interests of the office/country) but that still seems better than just saying that a given action, regardless of motive, is covered by immunity.