SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 20:48 last edited by
Hyper-hyperbole.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 20:48 last edited by
That will be a very common reaction to this ruling amongst the TDS rabble. But they don't actually understand the ruling.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 20:57 last edited by
There's no real immunity IF there is consensus in Congress. As it was intended.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 21:05 last edited by
The way I read it, the first threshold to prosecute a president will be to establish that the act was outside his core responsibilities as president. I don't think a president's core responsibilities include assassination of political opponents, but I know the TDS rabble can easily frame it like the protection of the US, and therefore within those responsibilities. Luckily, SCOTUS decisions are not internet arguments. I'm comfortable with how SCOTUS would rule on the issue.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 21:12 last edited by
Yes, I'd agree on that. They have demonstrated remarkable good sense thus far.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 23:07 last edited by
-
wrote on 2 Jul 2024, 00:05 last edited by
The ridiculous thing is that today’s ruling only reaffirms decisions given by prior courts, including “liberal” courts.
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 00:18 last edited by
Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.
I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.
-
Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.
I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 00:44 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.
I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.
He was going to be impeached in a slam dunk. Impeachments are still a thing, even with criminal immunity. That’s yet another reason why this is much ado about nothing.
-
Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.
I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 00:47 last edited by LuFins Dad 7 Mar 2024, 00:48@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.
I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.
Then you don’t understand the ruling or are just reading what lies the useful idiots are spreading based on Sotomayor’s dissent.
The ruling DOES NOT give the President anything like blanket immunity. Only immunity on those actions that are strictly taken under the powers of the office and are official acts. Obama ordering a drone strike on an American citizen terrorist? Technically illegal but he’s granted immunity. Biden ordering a drone strike on Trump? Illegal.
In cases where it is clear that the actions weren’t under the powers or authority of the President, there is no immunity. So if it finally came out about Bill killing those trans hookers, he’s SOL.
On the gray area in between it is up to the lower courts to make the call about whether it was in the line of duty.
Trump ordering the Justice Department to investigate all the wacky claims of fraud? Perfectly in his capacity as President. Immune. Trying to convince Pence to not certify? Highly questionable, but not necessarily illegal. Trying to mastermind a fake elector scheme? Totally illegal and not ubder the auspices or powers given the presidency. He will face those charges. Moving documents to Mar A Lago while President? Totally in his capacity. Maintaining those documents afterward? Not legal.
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 01:00 last edited by
I am very confident that the more extreme scenarios being conjured by panicked lefties would be found outside the responsibilities of the presidency. One scenario I heard on a legal podcast was a bribe for a pardon. They thought the president would be immune from prosecution for that. But the pardon itself would not be the illegal act. Taking the bribe would be both illegal and not within presidential responsibility.
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 01:00 last edited by
-
I am very confident that the more extreme scenarios being conjured by panicked lefties would be found outside the responsibilities of the presidency. One scenario I heard on a legal podcast was a bribe for a pardon. They thought the president would be immune from prosecution for that. But the pardon itself would not be the illegal act. Taking the bribe would be both illegal and not within presidential responsibility.
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 02:35 last edited by@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
I am very confident that the more extreme scenarios being conjured by panicked lefties would be found outside the responsibilities of the presidency. One scenario I heard on a legal podcast was a bribe for a pardon. They thought the president would be immune from prosecution for that. But the pardon itself would not be the illegal act. Taking the bribe would be both illegal and not within presidential responsibility.
Exactly.
-
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.
I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.
Then you don’t understand the ruling or are just reading what lies the useful idiots are spreading based on Sotomayor’s dissent.
The ruling DOES NOT give the President anything like blanket immunity. Only immunity on those actions that are strictly taken under the powers of the office and are official acts. Obama ordering a drone strike on an American citizen terrorist? Technically illegal but he’s granted immunity. Biden ordering a drone strike on Trump? Illegal.
In cases where it is clear that the actions weren’t under the powers or authority of the President, there is no immunity. So if it finally came out about Bill killing those trans hookers, he’s SOL.
On the gray area in between it is up to the lower courts to make the call about whether it was in the line of duty.
Trump ordering the Justice Department to investigate all the wacky claims of fraud? Perfectly in his capacity as President. Immune. Trying to convince Pence to not certify? Highly questionable, but not necessarily illegal. Trying to mastermind a fake elector scheme? Totally illegal and not ubder the auspices or powers given the presidency. He will face those charges. Moving documents to Mar A Lago while President? Totally in his capacity. Maintaining those documents afterward? Not legal.
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 03:20 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.
I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.
Then you don’t understand the ruling or are just reading what lies the useful idiots are spreading based on Sotomayor’s dissent.
The ruling DOES NOT give the President anything like blanket immunity. Only immunity on those actions that are strictly taken under the powers of the office and are official acts. Obama ordering a drone strike on an American citizen terrorist? Technically illegal but he’s granted immunity. Biden ordering a drone strike on Trump? Illegal.
In cases where it is clear that the actions weren’t under the powers or authority of the President, there is no immunity. So if it finally came out about Bill killing those trans hookers, he’s SOL.
On the gray area in between it is up to the lower courts to make the call about whether it was in the line of duty.
Trump ordering the Justice Department to investigate all the wacky claims of fraud? Perfectly in his capacity as President. Immune. Trying to convince Pence to not certify? Highly questionable, but not necessarily illegal. Trying to mastermind a fake elector scheme? Totally illegal and not ubder the auspices or powers given the presidency. He will face those charges. Moving documents to Mar A Lago while President? Totally in his capacity. Maintaining those documents afterward? Not legal.
Excellent summary, sir!
I've read a few too many Reddit threads where people are saying this is the end of democracy for EVAH. Our country is totally in shambles, etc. I'm not old enough to know, but I'd imagine the chaos in the late 60s or the myriad scandals in the early 1900s and 1800s far outweigh the current political climate. Yes most politicians suck. Yes most news is really just corporate media looking for clicks and views. Yes the news and social media is all about alarmism and tribalism to make money.
If people stop sucking in the news 24/7 and getting all worked up... things really aren't that bad at all. Life carries on like normal on a day to day basis regardless of a foreign war here, a school shooting there, a raping priest here, a SCOTUS decision there.... sure, newsworthy, but holy crap I don't think our brains are wired to ingest worldwide (usually bad) news all the time.
In terms of the president and congress, I'm much more concerned about our national debt and solvency of social security, among other issues such as healthcare and modernized warfare against eventual enemies like China.
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 12:06 last edited by
Saw a clip of Rachel Maddow last night...Surely that woman doesn't believe all the crap she's spouting on this issue.
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 17:38 last edited by
I can see it becoming the "norm" for Presidents on their last day in office pardoning themself for all crimes past and present.
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 21:57 last edited by jon-nyc 7 Mar 2024, 21:57
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc how do you feel about this ruling?
It went too far, though there were obvious tradeoffs. The 'core functions' provision is too broad, future prosecutors can't even question motive. I think a president could openly auction off pardons under this, for example.
The second bucket, where there is the presumption of immunity, is also pretty broad. It would make it far more difficult to prosecute an obvious bribery case, in the same way the speech and debate clause is making it harder to prosecute Menedez.
-
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc how do you feel about this ruling?
It went too far, though there were obvious tradeoffs. The 'core functions' provision is too broad, future prosecutors can't even question motive. I think a president could openly auction off pardons under this, for example.
The second bucket, where there is the presumption of immunity, is also pretty broad. It would make it far more difficult to prosecute an obvious bribery case, in the same way the speech and debate clause is making it harder to prosecute Menedez.
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 22:00 last edited by@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc how do you feel about this ruling?
It went too far, though there were obvious tradeoffs. The 'core functions' provision is too broad, future prosecutors can't even question motive.
Presidents are now immune from any whistleblower laws, for example.
-
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc how do you feel about this ruling?
It went too far, though there were obvious tradeoffs. The 'core functions' provision is too broad, future prosecutors can't even question motive. I think a president could openly auction off pardons under this, for example.
The second bucket, where there is the presumption of immunity, is also pretty broad. It would make it far more difficult to prosecute an obvious bribery case, in the same way the speech and debate clause is making it harder to prosecute Menedez.
wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 23:09 last edited by@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc how do you feel about this ruling?
It went too far, though there were obvious tradeoffs. The 'core functions' provision is too broad, future prosecutors can't even question motive. I think a president could openly auction off pardons under this, for example.
I know they used this example in Advisory Opinions, but I doubt the courts would allow this. The act of taking money to provide a pardon, could easily be framed as outside the core function. Nothing about giving a pardon requires a president to sell it first. That would be optional, and personal, and private, in the third bucket. I think that that's how this court would view that.
The second bucket, where there is the presumption of immunity, is also pretty broad. It would make it far more difficult to prosecute an obvious bribery case, in the same way the speech and debate clause is making it harder to prosecute Menedez.
Blatant abuses of power would be inhibited by impeachment just as well as they'd be inhibited by criminal prosecution. If a president really wants to do something blatantly illegal and not in the interest of the US (even their own voters), they won't be president for long. It just won't be happening. But what will happen, is less lawfare against the president, which we clearly need.