Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity

SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
141 Posts 12 Posters 2.0k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • L LuFins Dad
    3 Jul 2024, 00:47

    @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.

    8 Offline
    8 Offline
    89th
    wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 03:20 last edited by
    #29

    @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.

    1 Reply Last reply
    • J Offline
      J Offline
      Jolly
      wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 12:06 last edited by
      #30

      Saw a clip of Rachel Maddow last night...Surely that woman doesn't believe all the crap she's spouting on this issue.

      “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

      Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

      1 Reply Last reply
      • H Offline
        H Offline
        Horace
        wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 12:12 last edited by
        #31

        @jon-nyc how do you feel about this ruling?

        Education is extremely important.

        J 1 Reply Last reply 3 Jul 2024, 21:57
        • T Offline
          T Offline
          taiwan_girl
          wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 17:38 last edited by
          #32

          I can see it becoming the "norm" for Presidents on their last day in office pardoning themself for all crimes past and present.

          1 Reply Last reply
          • H Horace
            3 Jul 2024, 12:12

            @jon-nyc how do you feel about this ruling?

            J Offline
            J Offline
            jon-nyc
            wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 21:57 last edited by jon-nyc 7 Mar 2024, 21:57
            #33

            @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.

            You were warned.

            J H 2 Replies Last reply 3 Jul 2024, 22:00
            • J jon-nyc
              3 Jul 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.

              J Offline
              J Offline
              jon-nyc
              wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 22:00 last edited by
              #34

              @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.

              You were warned.

              1 Reply Last reply
              • J jon-nyc
                3 Jul 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.

                H Offline
                H Offline
                Horace
                wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 23:09 last edited by
                #35

                @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.

                Education is extremely important.

                J 1 Reply Last reply 3 Jul 2024, 23:14
                • J Offline
                  J Offline
                  jon-nyc
                  wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 23:12 last edited by
                  #36

                  They specifically said motive can’t be taken into account with core functions. Pardoning is a core function.

                  You were warned.

                  H 1 Reply Last reply 3 Jul 2024, 23:18
                  • H Horace
                    3 Jul 2024, 23:09

                    @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.

                    J Offline
                    J Offline
                    jon-nyc
                    wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 23:14 last edited by jon-nyc 7 Mar 2024, 23:15
                    #37

                    @Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

                    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.

                    Criminal prosecutions are a lot more difficult if you can’t introduce evidence.

                    You have a lot more confidence in impeachment ever properly working again than I do.

                    You were warned.

                    H 1 Reply Last reply 3 Jul 2024, 23:22
                    • J jon-nyc
                      3 Jul 2024, 23:12

                      They specifically said motive can’t be taken into account with core functions. Pardoning is a core function.

                      H Offline
                      H Offline
                      Horace
                      wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 23:18 last edited by
                      #38

                      @jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

                      They specifically said motive can’t be taken into account with core functions. Pardoning is a core function.

                      I know they said that. Sectioning off the auction as the criminal act question is not criminalizing the pardon per se. An auction where the sale price is funneled to the president's personal accounts could be framed as a private act. One would be hard pressed to view it as an official function, in fact.

                      Education is extremely important.

                      J 1 Reply Last reply 3 Jul 2024, 23:25
                      • J jon-nyc
                        3 Jul 2024, 23:14

                        @Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

                        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.

                        Criminal prosecutions are a lot more difficult if you can’t introduce evidence.

                        You have a lot more confidence in impeachment ever properly working again than I do.

                        H Offline
                        H Offline
                        Horace
                        wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 23:22 last edited by
                        #39

                        @jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

                        You have a lot more confidence in impeachment ever properly working again than I do.

                        Well these thought experiments about the dangers of this immunity are cartoonish to the extent that I do trust that impeachment would happen. Of course we will never find out, because these cartoons will never happen. As Roberts wrote in his rebuttal to Sotomayor. Far fetched and implausible, words to that effect. Much more plausible is the threat of petty lawfare, which is imminent and obvious.

                        Education is extremely important.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • H Horace
                          3 Jul 2024, 23:18

                          @jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

                          They specifically said motive can’t be taken into account with core functions. Pardoning is a core function.

                          I know they said that. Sectioning off the auction as the criminal act question is not criminalizing the pardon per se. An auction where the sale price is funneled to the president's personal accounts could be framed as a private act. One would be hard pressed to view it as an official function, in fact.

                          J Offline
                          J Offline
                          jon-nyc
                          wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 23:25 last edited by
                          #40

                          @Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

                          @jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

                          They specifically said motive can’t be taken into account with core functions. Pardoning is a core function.

                          I know they said that. Sectioning off the auction as the criminal act question is not criminalizing the pardon per se. An auction where the sale price is funneled to the president's personal accounts could be framed as a private act. One would be hard pressed to view it as an official function, in fact.

                          It’s not illegal to give former presidents money. Motives for core presidential functions have absolute immunity- indeed they can’t even be entered as evidence supporting a private-act crime. (That part was only 5-4, Barrett joining the liberals).

                          You were warned.

                          H 1 Reply Last reply 3 Jul 2024, 23:32
                          • J jon-nyc
                            3 Jul 2024, 23:25

                            @Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

                            @jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

                            They specifically said motive can’t be taken into account with core functions. Pardoning is a core function.

                            I know they said that. Sectioning off the auction as the criminal act question is not criminalizing the pardon per se. An auction where the sale price is funneled to the president's personal accounts could be framed as a private act. One would be hard pressed to view it as an official function, in fact.

                            It’s not illegal to give former presidents money. Motives for core presidential functions have absolute immunity- indeed they can’t even be entered as evidence supporting a private-act crime. (That part was only 5-4, Barrett joining the liberals).

                            H Offline
                            H Offline
                            Horace
                            wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 23:32 last edited by
                            #41

                            @jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

                            It’s not illegal to give former presidents money.

                            One can certainly imagine a candidate taking money for their war chest from a special interest that wants some political prisoner released, and I don't think that's ever been illegal. How hard would it be to trace political pardons back to some money somewhere?

                            Education is extremely important.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            • J Offline
                              J Offline
                              jon-nyc
                              wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 23:43 last edited by
                              #42

                              What would be the point if it has absolute immunity?

                              You were warned.

                              H 1 Reply Last reply 3 Jul 2024, 23:54
                              • J jon-nyc
                                3 Jul 2024, 23:43

                                What would be the point if it has absolute immunity?

                                H Offline
                                H Offline
                                Horace
                                wrote on 3 Jul 2024, 23:54 last edited by Horace 7 Mar 2024, 23:54
                                #43

                                @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.

                                Education is extremely important.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                • H Horace
                                  1 Jul 2024, 16:31

                                  @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?

                                  The question of whether an act is or is not within the core responsibilities of a president would be left to the courts.

                                  If Trump was leading a violent military style insurrection, I guess it would be within the responsibilities of a president to end that insurrection with violence. That would be one end of a continuum. The opposite end would be to assassinate a peaceful political rival. We will leave it to the courts to determine where on that continuum an act lies.

                                  I do understand that the TDS contingent will allow their imaginations to run wild about this ruling, but infants gonna infant.

                                  T Offline
                                  T Offline
                                  taiwan_girl
                                  wrote on 4 Jul 2024, 02:39 last edited by
                                  #44
                                  This post is deleted!
                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  • A AndyD
                                    1 Jul 2024, 16:18

                                    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?

                                    T Offline
                                    T Offline
                                    taiwan_girl
                                    wrote on 4 Jul 2024, 02:41 last edited by
                                    #45

                                    @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.

                                    L 1 Reply Last reply 4 Jul 2024, 14:11
                                    • H Offline
                                      H Offline
                                      Horace
                                      wrote on 4 Jul 2024, 03:12 last edited by Horace 7 Apr 2024, 03:12
                                      #46

                                      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.

                                      Education is extremely important.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      • H Offline
                                        H Offline
                                        Horace
                                        wrote on 4 Jul 2024, 14:06 last edited by
                                        #47

                                        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.

                                        Education is extremely important.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        • T taiwan_girl
                                          4 Jul 2024, 02:41

                                          @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.

                                          L Offline
                                          L Offline
                                          LuFins Dad
                                          wrote on 4 Jul 2024, 14:11 last edited by
                                          #48

                                          @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.

                                          The Brad

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes

                                          38/141

                                          3 Jul 2024, 23:18

                                          103 unread

                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          38 out of 141
                                          • First post
                                            38/141
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups