SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity
-
@Horace “absolute immunity” provides no wiggle room. Yes they remanded to the district for some specifics from this case but they also set law of the land which would anpply to future scenarios, and that is the subject of the criticisms so far unanswered here.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@Horace “absolute immunity” provides no wiggle room. Yes they remanded to the district for some specifics from this case but they also set law of the land which would anpply to future scenarios, and that is the subject of the criticisms so far unanswered here.
I’ve said many times that official duty vs unofficial as described by the constitution, provides some wiggle room. You don’t accept that answer because you’re choosing an absolutist interpretation to suit the histrionic hypotheticals. But given absolutist interpretations of words in the constitution, we have always been living with the specter of a President doing whatever and pardoning himself. We rely on various people being reasonable to some low bar, to provide a backstop to that.
-
Bunch of lawyers talking about this for about 30 minutes.
Link to video"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
You misunderstood the ruling. SCOTUS did not create two buckets (official acts, unofficial acts), they created three (core constitutional functions, other official acts, unofficial acts).
There is no wiggle room in the first bucket - there, immunity is absolute. That’s where the dragons lie.
-
You misunderstood the ruling. SCOTUS did not create two buckets (official acts, unofficial acts), they created three (core constitutional functions, other official acts, unofficial acts).
There is no wiggle room in the first bucket - there, immunity is absolute. That’s where the dragons lie.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
You misunderstood the ruling. SCOTUS did not create two buckets (official acts, unofficial acts), they created three (core constitutional functions, other official acts, unofficial acts).
There is no wiggle room in the first bucket - there, immunity is absolute. That’s where the dragons lie.
I am aware that there are three buckets. I have mentioned those three buckets previously. I know I can't short-hand anything in a conversation with you, so my mistake for attempting to do so. The wiggle room lies in which of the three buckets an act belongs in. You continue to believe there is a fundamentalist, unambiguous interpretation of which acts fall into the first bucket where absolute immunity lies. You believe that if Seal Team Six is ordered to assassinate a political rival, the president would be immune, unless this ruling is revisited. But this is not as cut and dried as you claim, due to the wiggle room of whether unconstitutional assassination orders (no due process) given to the military are in fact a core duty conclusively and preclusively defined by the constitution.
These arguments might even track back to original intent, relying on the reasonableness of dead people, who can't get any crazier than they ever were. I feel safe that the first bucket won't contain any of these histrionic hypotheticals.
-
You are conceding the first two buckets while seemingly waving away the difference between them.
If you disagree with that assessment then please answer my original question:
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?
-
You are conceding the first two buckets while seemingly waving away the difference between them.
If you disagree with that assessment then please answer my original question:
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?
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
You are conceding the first two buckets while seemingly waving away the difference between them.
If you disagree with that assessment then please answer my original question:
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?
Here is an example of its guidance for the lower courts to establish something that only needs to be established for bucket 2, the one with a "presumption of immunity": (Have you read the whole ruling, or are you just going by what you heard in podcasts?)
It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the
presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the
District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate
input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving
Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s
oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as
President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion
on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. -
I like the video George posted with the guys referencing Diplomatic Immunity.
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
You sidestepped the question completely.
I did my best to answer it. I told you what the lower courts are supposed to do with a bucket 2 case. They need to rebut presumptive immunity, according to this ruling.
Just curious, what is your fantasy answer that you have laid a logical trap for? I am wondering what card you think you have here.
-
The first bucket outlines core functions and gives the president absolute immunity. You and others keep pretending that the courts will have wiggle room there, like they do in the second bucket.
Since you (plural) believe that there is judicial wiggle room in both buckets (which I think is straight up wrong), then I’m wondering what you think the difference, if any, might be between them.
-
The first bucket outlines core functions and gives the president absolute immunity. You and others keep pretending that the courts will have wiggle room there, like they do in the second bucket.
Since you (plural) believe that there is judicial wiggle room in both buckets (which I think is straight up wrong), then I’m wondering what you think the difference, if any, might be between them.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
The first bucket outlines core functions and gives the president absolute immunity. You and others keep pretending that the courts will have wiggle room there, like they do in the second bucket.
Since you (plural) believe that there is judicial wiggle room in both buckets (which I think is straight up wrong), then I’m wondering what you think the difference, if any, might be between them.
I guess you've misunderstood my point from the jump. The wiggle room is in which bucket an act falls in. Not in whether the first bucket has absolute immunity. All the context and details of a given case will allow the judges to exercise their judgment about bucket assignment. That’s how the seal team six scenario would be prosecutable.
-
They don’t really have the wiggle room you imagine, per Roberts. He listed examples of ‘core functions’ outright which neither the courts nor congress can question.
Even between the other two buckets - what makes it official vs unofficial- the decisions limits the kind of context they can take into account. For example, the mere fact that it violates a law applicable to everyone else can’t be the determining factor. Nor can congress or the courts take motive into account.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Actually, the courts first get to decide whether the act fits Bucket 1 or Bucket 2. The Seal Team 6 thing, for instance. It is very difficult for the President to order the military into action without Congressional approval and in the cases of emergency, notification and justification within 48 hours. There are still multiple checks and balances.
-
Should the President of the US have less prosecutorial immunity than an Ambassador from Zimbabwe?
The Brad
-
They don’t really have the wiggle room you imagine, per Roberts. He listed examples of ‘core functions’ outright which neither the courts nor congress can question.
Even between the other two buckets - what makes it official vs unofficial- the decisions limits the kind of context they can take into account. For example, the mere fact that it violates a law applicable to everyone else can’t be the determining factor. Nor can congress or the courts take motive into account.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
They don’t really have the wiggle room you imagine, per Roberts. He listed examples of ‘core functions’ outright which neither the courts nor congress can question.
Great, then start there with the histrionic hypotheticals. Got any? None of the ones Sotomayor listed in her dissent would conclusively and preclusively fall under what Roberts listed. Which, from memory, is just the discussions with justice officials, and their removal at the president's discretion. Sotomayor actually acknowledges that the majority opinion gives few examples of what is or is not first bucket.
My sense is that Roberts is content to leave specific judgments regarding bucket assignments to specific cases that have actually happened. Law by histrionic hypotheticals is probably not a great idea in general, especially as there are trade-offs when enacting law to prevent histrionic hypotheticals, and those trade-offs involve actual bad things that are actually happening (frivolous lawfare), and becoming unable to stop them.
Education is extremely important.
-
Should the President of the US have less prosecutorial immunity than an Ambassador from Zimbabwe?
@LuFins-Dad said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Should the President of the US have less prosecutorial immunity than an Ambassador from Zimbabwe?
Actually, the immunity of the Zimbabwean ambassador stems from the government of Zimbabwe. A more accurate question is, "Should the President of the US have less prosecutorial immunity than the Ambassador TO Zimbabwe.?"
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
They don’t really have the wiggle room you imagine, per Roberts. He listed examples of ‘core functions’ outright which neither the courts nor congress can question.
Great, then start there with the histrionic hypotheticals. Got any? None of the ones Sotomayor listed in her dissent would conclusively and preclusively fall under what Roberts listed. Which, from memory, is just the discussions with justice officials, and their removal at the president's discretion. Sotomayor actually acknowledges that the majority opinion gives few examples of what is or is not first bucket.
My sense is that Roberts is content to leave specific judgments regarding bucket assignments to specific cases that have actually happened. Law by histrionic hypotheticals is probably not a great idea in general, especially as there are trade-offs when enacting law to prevent histrionic hypotheticals, and those trade-offs involve actual bad things that are actually happening (frivolous lawfare), and becoming unable to stop them.
@Horace I’m sorry I can’t be a stand in for Sotomayor, whom I respect as much as you do. I’m on record saying she’s tied with Alito as the most ideological justice.
But if you’re asking me for an example, go back to the one I gave in response to your original request that I opine on this ruling. It comes directly from Roberts’ list.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
They don’t really have the wiggle room you imagine, per Roberts. He listed examples of ‘core functions’ outright which neither the courts nor congress can question.
Great, then start there with the histrionic hypotheticals. Got any? None of the ones Sotomayor listed in her dissent would conclusively and preclusively fall under what Roberts listed. Which, from memory, is just the discussions with justice officials, and their removal at the president's discretion. Sotomayor actually acknowledges that the majority opinion gives few examples of what is or is not first bucket.
My sense is that Roberts is content to leave specific judgments regarding bucket assignments to specific cases that have actually happened. Law by histrionic hypotheticals is probably not a great idea in general, especially as there are trade-offs when enacting law to prevent histrionic hypotheticals, and those trade-offs involve actual bad things that are actually happening (frivolous lawfare), and becoming unable to stop them.
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
My sense is that Roberts is content to leave specific judgments regarding bucket assignments to specific cases that have actually happened.
That’s a poor read of the man. He’s very much an institutionalist and knows he’s setting the law of the land. He’s opinion (you read it, right?) is peppered with talk about how this needs to be forward looking and not specific to the case and the man in front of him.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Should the President of the US have less prosecutorial immunity than an Ambassador from Zimbabwe?
@LuFins-Dad said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Should the President of the US have less prosecutorial immunity than an Ambassador from Zimbabwe?
Yes, because:
-
The POTUS has a lot more power than the Ambassador from Zimbabwe, the POTUS should have a lot less prosecutorial immunity as a check against the POTUS' immense power.
-
We also want our ambassadors and diplomatic staff in other nations to have a lot of prosecutorial immunity, so as a matter of reciprocity we also give the ambassadors and diplomatic staff of the other nations a lot of prosecutorial immunity here.
-
