SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
What would be the point if it has absolute immunity?
Or if it wasn't illegal even without immunity? The cartoon grifting scenarios actually meld into things that have always been legal without immunity. That's why I gave the example of special interest groups, their donations, and their requests for certain pardons, pardons which may even become part of a candidate's platform. Trump has been talking about pardoning the Silk Road guy Ross Ulbricht. Think that might be traceable to some money from some contributing special interests? Maybe. Does anybody care? It seems fair play.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@AndyD said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
So if Joe officially commands a Seal Team to assassinate, say for example, Donald, because he honestly deems him a threat to the Country, does he now have immunity for that assassination?
I was reading a analysis on this opinion and the hypothetic about calling for Seal Team 6 to do an assassination.
The analysis was that if the president commanded Seal Team 6 to carry out an assassination, he would be immune from prosecution. Because one of the "core powers" that is given to the President is authority to command the military, as the Commander in Chief. So, it would be difficult to say he was not immune from prosecution, because this is a core function of being president.
-
As a thought experiment, I'd guess that an unconstitutional order (which the military has already taken an oath not to follow) would not be considered to be within the constitutionally-granted powers of the president. In any case, an expedited impeachment would be forthcoming, and therefore the act would have no purpose. If a president actually wanted to assassinate a rival, they would probably not use the military, or any official power. They would just try to do it secretly and get away with it, like the Clintons.
Something vaguely similar happened when Obama drone striked some US citizens in the middle east, knowingly killing them as collateral damage to get some other targets. Immunity or not, he was not prosecuted.
-
I heard a conversation with Ian Millhiser, dedicated leftist, legal journalist, and author of two books about how evil SCOTUS is. Even he admits that the scenario where a president auctions off pardons is fanciful, in that the auction would be the corrupt act susceptible to prosecution. But not to worry, he's still a catastrophist in many other ways. Not for the first time, I'm disappointed in Sarah and David's ability to think clearly about their area of professional expertise.
-
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@AndyD said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
So if Joe officially commands a Seal Team to assassinate, say for example, Donald, because he honestly deems him a threat to the Country, does he now have immunity for that assassination?
I was reading a analysis on this opinion and the hypothetic about calling for Seal Team 6 to do an assassination.
The analysis was that if the president commanded Seal Team 6 to carry out an assassination, he would be immune from prosecution. Because one of the "core powers" that is given to the President is authority to command the military, as the Commander in Chief. So, it would be difficult to say he was not immune from prosecution, because this is a core function of being president.
Ordering a military action on a civilian target is not a core powers granted by the constitution.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
The idea that you can rope context and motive into ‘core function’ is contrary to the idea of absolute immunity.
That’s how the second category is treated where the immunity is merely presumptive.
An act either is or is not a core function, by some definition. That definition is not that a President thinks it's a core function. I'm comfortable with how the court would decide, if it needed to determine whether an ordered assassination of a US citizen without due process was a core function granted to the Commander in Chief by the constitution.
-
Well, it could always be tested. Have Biden order Trump’s death. I mean, he is the greatest threat to DEMOCRACY, EVER! So it’s a double win. He’s gone and you can test the limits of the immunity in courts. And since it would be Biden giving the decision, it would make it easier for the Dems to replace him with Whitmer.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Well, it could always be tested. Have Biden order Trump’s death. I mean, he is the greatest threat to DEMOCRACY, EVER!
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/07/stark-raving-mad-3.php
You might think the Democrats would be able to keep it together, given that they control the presidency, the Senate, the federal bureaucracy, and the press, and are only a few seats away from controlling the House. But, for whatever reason, they have gone mad. Democrats have reached a fever pitch of hysteria that I doubt we have seen before in our history.
One example among many is their mental breakdown over the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision, Trump v. United States. As I wrote here, that decision was moderate, middle of the road, and entirely predictable. While it addressed a novel issue, it is consistent with past Supreme Court decisions.
But to hear the Democrats tell it, the Court has unleashed anarchy and turned the president into a dictator. This kind of thing is typical:
Other Democrats have suggested that Biden has authority, under the Court’s decision, to assassinate the six members of the Court who comprised the majority. This is, of course, complete insanity. But to be fair, it is insanity that began with the three dissenting Democratic Party justices.
In a disgraceful dissent authored by Sonia Sotomayor and joined in by Democrat loyalists Kagan and Jackson, the minority deliberately fanned the flames of ignorance. Sotomayor wrote:
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.
It takes a special kind of dishonesty to read Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion as authorizing political assassination, military coups and bribery. The “Seal Team 6” reference is to a question that was asked during oral argument. Trump’s lawyer, arguing for the broadest possible immunity, said that a president would have to be impeached first, and then prosecuted criminally for such an act. But the Court’s majority didn’t adopt that theory; on the contrary, they rejected it in favor of a middle of the road rule.
What the majority opinion actually holds is:
[T]he nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
Note that Sotomayor dishonestly fails to characterize the majority’s holding correctly. She claims that immunity attaches when the president “uses his official powers in any way,” such as by ordering a political assassination. But obviously, ordering assassinations, pulling off military coups, and taking bribes are not “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” The president has no constitutional authority to order murders, carry out military coups or take bribes. On the contrary, murders and coups would be high crimes and misdemeanors, and the Constitution specifically calls out taking bribes as a ground for impeachment.
Do these justices seriously think that if a future president were to carry out a political assassination, and the case were to come before this Court’s majority, they would say, “Yes, that is what we had in mind. Political assassination is A-OK!” Of course not. These three are not intellectual giants, but they can’t possibly be that stupid.
The Democrats’ dissent is so dishonest, and so obviously a political rather than a judicial document, that it must sadden anyone who believes in the rule of law, and who has any respect for the Supreme Court as an institution. It was obviously intended to provide fodder to rile up Democratic voters so as to help Joe Biden (or whoever) win the 2024 election. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson should be ashamed of themselves, but it seems that on the Left, shame is an obsolete concept.
-
Some people’s reasoning in this thread, including by some of the pundits quoted, seems to be something like the following:
“The majority is reasonable, ergo the decision would allow reasonable things and disallow unreasonable things.”
Can I ask Horace and LD to answer the following question?
In your reading, what is the difference (in the way the courts should act according to this ruling) between the cases where the president has absolute immunity and the cases where he has only presumptive immunity?
-
Well, obviously it depends on which President is in office and what judges are on the bench.
-
No, I’m working and don’t have time to do more than make snarky comments.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc how does that differ from prosecutorial immunity on the part of a DA or other local official?
In United States law, absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages,[2] and that the common law recognized this immunity.[2] The Court reasons that this immunity is necessary to protect public officials from excessive interference with their responsibilities and from "potentially disabling threats of liability."[2]
Absolute immunity contrasts with qualified immunity, which sometimes applies when certain officials may have violated constitutional rights or federal law.[3]
In Trump v. United States, on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents were entitled to absolute immunity from exercising core powers enumerated by the constitution, presumption of immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial actions. The case was sent back to lower courts to determine which actions in the criminal complaint should be classified as official vs. unofficial.[17] The ruling was the first time the courts granted a president criminal immunity.
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Some people’s reasoning in this thread, including by some of the pundits quoted, seems to be something like the following:
“The majority is reasonable, ergo the decision would allow reasonable things and disallow unreasonable things.”
I think it would take a tortured reading of the constitution to find the authority for a president to carry out assassinations with the military. I don't need to rely on any extra-constitutional "reasonableness" to be confident about their ruling. I need to rely on the constitution, and a lack of "conclusive and preclusive" authority for the president to carry out these fanciful acts the TDS rabble are allegedly concerned about, as they score their political points about how existentially dangerous conservatives are.
Can I ask Horace and LD to answer the following question?
In your reading, what is the difference (in the way the courts should act according to this ruling) between the cases where the president has absolute immunity and the cases where he has only presumptive immunity?
Why is this a question? SCOTUS gave guidance about what the lower courts should do with the remanded parts of Smith's indictment.
