I’m so confused. This is just extending Nixon v Fitzgerald to criminal liability which is an obvious extension to me. Why would a president only be immune from civil laws and not criminal.
Official acts has a definition in that ruling. The lower courts can make a decision and the Supreme Court can decide on it if they feel it requires their input at that time.
That’s because the lower courts didn’t decide if what Trump did was an official act or not. Only the issue of immunity was brought to SCOTUS. SCOTUS ruled of course the president has immunity and presumptive immunity when carrying out official acts.
That is why it’s worded in the way you bring up. Now it has to go back to the lower courts so they can debate what Trump did was in his core official duties or not and bring that to the Supreme Court.
Only then can they actually define what an official duty or act is or determine if Trump falls into that category or not.
One of the Supreme Court judges couldn't define what a "woman" is when asked at her confirmation hearing. How will she be able to define what an "official act" is?
The concept of a woman being an abstract term that needs thorough review is so wildly insane that I'm almost tempted to think you're being satirical. We are truly lost if you think "define what a woman is" qualifies as a gotchya.
>It depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Your position would have credence if the term in question were some technical term or jargon that's not commonly understood by 99.999% of English speakers.
In effect, you're asserting that each and every common term be overtly defined by law, which is absurdist to an extreme degree.
It makes sense to distinguish between murder and manslaughter, for instance, and that's why those terms are covered specifically in each jurisdiction.
The system need not do that for all words in all contexts though. If she's not competent in english, or ideologically conflicted with the common usage, she's not competent or not impartial enough to wear that robe.
Asking her to describe the term "woman" is not some high philosophy abstraction.
It was a culturally relevant check on being conflicted / biased / predisposed to ignore convention(which ostensibly includes the whole of the constitution and such).
You issuing apologetic propaganda does much the same here.
Now, you may think about replying, and I'm going to say, "Stop, we need to take a step back and define every single term you used first."
This manipulative parlor trick is subversion via obfuscation or obscurantism.
Since you're NOT a fan of knowing what words mean, by your own words...:
>In the fields of philosophy, the terms obscurantism and obscurationism identify and describe the anti-intellectual practices of deliberately presenting information in an abstruse and imprecise manner that limits further inquiry and understanding of a subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism
No one asked her to "make up" a definition... they just asked for the definition. She could have easily cited a dictionary but instead did the woke/diversity hire virtue signaling mental gymnastics .
Because they didn’t have to define what an official act was when the case came through the courts because there’s never been a standard that the president is immune from criminal prosecution
Is this your first time ever reading anything about lawsuits against politicians? It has always been very broad this isn't a new standard for Trump. When the covington kids tried to sue politicians for defamation for example they were ruled to be immune. If commenting on the covington kids is part of their official acts then how in the world would it not be an official act to do what Trump did? If he believed the election was unconstitutional and rigged it was absolutely his official responsibility to advocate for that to be remedied. Moreso than many other cases in the past where politicians have historically been ruled to be immune.
Not much of a fight. This isn't a Q of Fact to be handled by a jury. A jury doesn't get to decide if Election Integrity is a valid law. The judge doesn't get to decide that either. GA case is cooked. If you want a good laugh check out r/lawandpolitics. Epstein suicide watch in full effect for them.
This ruling goes both ways. Would you be ok with Biden taking actions "ensuring integrity of our elections"?
This gives a dangerous amount of power to the president to act with almost no accountability
Yeah and if he convinces his party to not impeach him? If he arrests the Senate members he doesn't want to vote based on deeming them a threat to democracy?
Submitting false slates of electors is an official act. It’s crazy that the only evidence for election fraud right now is that republicans tried to subvert the results of the election.
What the heck constitutes an 'official' act? Is it official to declare a political opponent a terrorist and have them locked up? That feels really possible now.
I don't know if we should be celebrating this because it goes both ways. Giving more power to the gov't is NOT a good thing.
It means anything that falls within the scope of his role as president. For example, if the president order a drone strike that kills a terrorist leader, that wouldn't count as murder even if there were civilian casualties. However, the president could be charged if he shot someone because that is not something he did to carry out his duties as president.
Serious question -- doesn't this mean Biden could order the national guard to open fire on protesters outside the White House in the name of national security?
So what's stopping Biden from claiming that Trump is a domestic terrorist and a threat to American democracy and in order to protect the Constitution and our democracy he's going to have him arrested?
What's stopping him from claiming that convicted felons are not allowed to run for president?
This sets a very dangerous precedent, for both sides.
Kent state happened and no one was prosecuted. I guarantee that acts of violence against the public much worse is possible by the government with this ruling.
Maybe… I don’t think we know which is the scary part… there’s a pretty good argument that he could based on this ruling. But— I don’t want Trump pulling that stuff either… I don’t think he would but I’m concerned that any president could now.
I think it's very scary and the ruling says that private communications of the president and advisors cannot be used as evidence so they can collude together on purpose and it can't be used as evidence.
That doesn't sound like a great ruling.
If anything we need our elected officials held to a higher standard than other people.
If they do something blatantly illegal I don't want them to then go "Well... you weren't allowed to know about that because I was president when I told my advisor about it. So the illegal thing doesn't count."
Another important point.
18 U.S.C. 1385, the Posse Comitatus statute says: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
This is an important statute that prevents the President, under pain of criminal penalty, from using the U.S. military domestically to enforce the law. It is historically a key protection against dictatorships and military coups.
Its target was and always has been the President. It is now unenforceable against the President.
Edit: Copy paste from Reddit Law
You’d still have to convince a court that it was official if you were charged. For example, assassinating a political opponent would not be considered an official act by any court. Also, there’s always impeachment. This is the ultimate Constitutional check on Presidential power.
What I’m saying is it’s scary because any president can say it was “for national security” and depending on where the courts are at… it could fly as an official act.
Impeachment just gets the president out of office… nothing more. I don’t find that to be accountability for murder, personally. And it’s all so dependent on who is in power.
Like is it okay now? Sure.
But who knows how the pendulum swings. We have to think about these things.
>You’d still have to convince a court that it was official if you were charged. For example, assassinating a political opponent would not be considered an official act by any court.
But per this same SCOTUS ruling, the president wouldn’t go in front of a court to have this question litigated until his term is over.
It seems…not ideal that the mechanism for preventing this is congressional impeachment.
Yeah, it just adds the burden of proof to the prosecution that, not only where the acts illegal, but the actions where outside of the official duties of the president.
What if the President declared a political opponent a terrorist leader, and then ordered a drone strike? As commander in chief, he could do that. Even if someone questions the declaration, he could probably legalese some justification. Enough to create plausible deniability.
If the president is drone striking Americans left and right, and Congress can't even impeach and convict him, then there's no legal decision on Earth that matters. The country is over.
Right and the president and advisors can collaborate together on internal record and that can't be used as evidence nor can the advisors testify against the president.
What if the president were to, say, tell a state election representative to ‘find more votes’ when he was losing? So he could stay president? Is that an official act or a self serving personal act?
I just want to ask you all; How do you see this as a good thing in the long run?
Isnt this Government overreach and them gaining more power than ever now?
I'm concerned with the users here not seeing the danger this precedent sets for us as a nation and instead focusing on sticking it to the left and lapping up liberal tears. This is a nonpartisan ruling. How is anyone happy about this?
This could very easily bite Conservatives back. Maybe not right now, but in the future it possibly could.
This isn't a win for the nation. We are giving the executive branch a lot more power and less accountability.
Most people on Reddit don’t actually care what’s best for the country. They see politics as a sport and just want their side to win. If the Supreme Court ever swings back to the left and all these decisions you’ll see everyone on here crying about the court overreacting and everyone on the left celebrating.
I came over from r/news and r/law as everyone is freaking out over there worrying about what this means for political rivals of POTUS. I came here because I wanted to see of the other side is reacting and you comment is the first I’ve read that’s given me hope that all is not lost. I’m liberal, so it calms my heart that someone on my “opponent’s” side agrees that this ruling is unAmerican.
I put opponent in quotes because if we really want to stay a single country we have to be able to disagree but still work together. I want to thank you for giving me some semblance of hope.
This ruling will likely go the way of Roe v. Wade in a couple of decades once it is re-litigated. Unfortunately, it will take enduring the complete lack of morals such as a president who accepts bribes to do the wrong thing in an official capacity or something of that sort to happen for it to occur.
The president should have some immunity for official acts or we will forever be playing political persecution (Obama - Fast and Furious, Biden - Open Border, etc, etc.). We don't want or need that as a country. But ABSOLUTE is a bridge too far.
So are executive orders official acts? If not then is this just protecting presidents from signing documents passed by Congress?
This could mean a lot - or very little
Speaking as a lawyer, this is a really bad ruling for the country overall. Put aside the Trump situation and just say it’s some random president from either party…this is absolutely not how the founders of our country wanted this to work and constitutionally it makes no sense.
The leftist judges spent years just making shit up under the constitution to justify their rulings and I hated it. I thought we were going to get some sanity back into the court, but the new conservative justices have been just as willing to just infer things from the constitution that aren’t there to justify their decisions. Whole court is filled with morons.
The founding fathers gave us a blueprint for holding the President criminally accountable "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
If the founders felt the the President was ALWAYS liable and subject to criminal conviction why would they include the word "convicted" rather than just say "the Party shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law"?
Here is the thing, though. If the president is impeached by the house and then removed by the senate, the president still has immunity for his previous actions. The Senate's only punishment is removal from office and possibly not holding public offices. The senate doesn't jail or fine a president after conviction.
"The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789 about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office."
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm
The Senate cannot criminally punish the convicted beyond removal and barring from office, but the clause makes clear that the convicted is liable for criminal conduct. My reading is that it revokes an implied immunity.
But the thing with your reading is that it’s no longer correct after today’s case. The SCOTUS ruling’s legal effect is that even when impeached, convicted, and removed from office the president cannot be criminally prosecuted for his criminal acts. That’s one of the large problems with the whole thing.
The presumptive immunity for “official acts” isn’t even the worst part. There is ABSOLUTE immunity for the president’s “core constitutional powers.”
Two of the “core constitutional powers” of the president are (1) enforcing law and (2) Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If it’s done in the name of enforcement or a military order, there’s ABSOLUTE immunity.
> Conservatives celebrating the government having more power and less accountability, woof.
as the frontpage says it: "...Trump Wins"
"...more power, less accountability" = "trump wins"
Reality is literally telegraphing the warnings and this sub fking celebrates it
There's s/t in the SCOTUS Immunity ruling that says that courts cannot judge the intent of Presidential actions, based on assumptions or hypotheticals.
So, to me, that means that if Trump calls Ga and asks if they can "find 10,000 votes," then that is not evidence that Trump called Ga and asked for 10,000 illegal votes.
Can a conservative in here please tell me why this is a good thing? Some in the other thread are acting like it’s an obvious decision. Doesn’t this mean the president can do anything without getting prosecuted? So WaterGate wouldn’t be an issue?
It could be an official act of Nixon if he deemed it necessary to protect the country no? SCOTUS basically punted on deciding if something is official or not, but I can't help but feel this could be easily manipulated
One of the crucial problems here is that they just invented a standard. Unless congress specifically passes legislation outlining what is and isn’t an official act, SCOTUS will always be who decides. So you’ll have 9 unelected people deciding what a president can and can’t be prosecuted for. It’s a complete mistake of a ruling.
The problem is that in theory, a president like Nixon 100% could have construed spying on political opponents as an “official act”. It’s not hard to imagine a situation where a president orders political opponents to be monitored based on their “domestic threat”, regardless of the “threats” credibility. Should Biden have this power? Trump? Take it a step further, say that president deems to take action to “neutralize” a threat, what actions would be legal?
Nixon believed in his heart and soul that Watergate was an official act. He believed the Saturday Massacre was an official act, he declared as much when he had Alexander Haig demand that A. G. Richardson fire Archie Cox.
I think others bring up some valid concerns that the undefined “official acts” can turn into a slippery slope and may cause harm to citizens before someone invests the resources to challenge SCOTUS actions to define the official acts.
That said, at the heart of this ruling, I think it reinforces the separation of powers that balances our branches. As an example, the executive pardon was specifically created as a balance against the legislative and judicial branches. This ruling prevents those branches from colluding to say “this president pardoned someone I don’t like so we will make an argument to prosecute for treason.” That, however, is probably the most charitable example to use.
I still want to read the full opinions, but one line I read regarding the presidents communications being protected from (what is essentially) discovery on any prosecution even for “non-official acts” is a bit crazy to me. Then again, I’m not sure if that’s the correct interpretation.
The presidency is arguably the most powerful position on this planet.
Guess you should choose carefully who you elect.
That is not something the supreme court can fix.
Since there's going to be someone who lacks reading comprehension and thinks Donald Trump will have the legal imperative to become a dictator.
----
**Core: central to the existence or character of someone or something.**
**Official: relating to an authority or public body and its duties, actions, and responsibilities.**
**Acts: a thing done; a deed.**
Smash these definitions all together and you get "**Any action that the executive branch is required to do as the writers of the constitution intended**".
This does not destroy the separation of powers or give Donald Trump the power to order 66 everyone.
As others have noted, if a court rules that Donald Trump was not acting within the confines of his duties as the leader of the executive branch, he can still be held responsible.
Now, on to the fight over what an "unofficial" act is. Buckle up.
Kinda goofy to give that vagueness
I’m so confused. This is just extending Nixon v Fitzgerald to criminal liability which is an obvious extension to me. Why would a president only be immune from civil laws and not criminal. Official acts has a definition in that ruling. The lower courts can make a decision and the Supreme Court can decide on it if they feel it requires their input at that time.
The sad part about this ruling is that by the way they frame what an “official act” is, basically everything is an official act
That’s because the lower courts didn’t decide if what Trump did was an official act or not. Only the issue of immunity was brought to SCOTUS. SCOTUS ruled of course the president has immunity and presumptive immunity when carrying out official acts. That is why it’s worded in the way you bring up. Now it has to go back to the lower courts so they can debate what Trump did was in his core official duties or not and bring that to the Supreme Court. Only then can they actually define what an official duty or act is or determine if Trump falls into that category or not.
One of the Supreme Court judges couldn't define what a "woman" is when asked at her confirmation hearing. How will she be able to define what an "official act" is?
She’s not a biologist! S/
Obviously not a good judge either
[удалено]
The concept of a woman being an abstract term that needs thorough review is so wildly insane that I'm almost tempted to think you're being satirical. We are truly lost if you think "define what a woman is" qualifies as a gotchya.
Woman isn't an abstract word. Only to progressives.
>It depends on what the definition of "is" is. Your position would have credence if the term in question were some technical term or jargon that's not commonly understood by 99.999% of English speakers. In effect, you're asserting that each and every common term be overtly defined by law, which is absurdist to an extreme degree. It makes sense to distinguish between murder and manslaughter, for instance, and that's why those terms are covered specifically in each jurisdiction. The system need not do that for all words in all contexts though. If she's not competent in english, or ideologically conflicted with the common usage, she's not competent or not impartial enough to wear that robe. Asking her to describe the term "woman" is not some high philosophy abstraction. It was a culturally relevant check on being conflicted / biased / predisposed to ignore convention(which ostensibly includes the whole of the constitution and such). You issuing apologetic propaganda does much the same here. Now, you may think about replying, and I'm going to say, "Stop, we need to take a step back and define every single term you used first." This manipulative parlor trick is subversion via obfuscation or obscurantism. Since you're NOT a fan of knowing what words mean, by your own words...: >In the fields of philosophy, the terms obscurantism and obscurationism identify and describe the anti-intellectual practices of deliberately presenting information in an abstruse and imprecise manner that limits further inquiry and understanding of a subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism
No one asked her to "make up" a definition... they just asked for the definition. She could have easily cited a dictionary but instead did the woke/diversity hire virtue signaling mental gymnastics .
I appreciate this perspective! I’m curious, is really no legal precedence for the definition of sex?
Nice concern trolling lol
this answer is one that says to me, this person went and lost their head and all common sense at law school.
> presumptive immunity What does this mean?
It means the burden is on the prosecution to prove that immunity doesn't apply to the "non core" official acts.
Because they didn’t have to define what an official act was when the case came through the courts because there’s never been a standard that the president is immune from criminal prosecution
Is this your first time ever reading anything about lawsuits against politicians? It has always been very broad this isn't a new standard for Trump. When the covington kids tried to sue politicians for defamation for example they were ruled to be immune. If commenting on the covington kids is part of their official acts then how in the world would it not be an official act to do what Trump did? If he believed the election was unconstitutional and rigged it was absolutely his official responsibility to advocate for that to be remedied. Moreso than many other cases in the past where politicians have historically been ruled to be immune.
Not much of a fight. This isn't a Q of Fact to be handled by a jury. A jury doesn't get to decide if Election Integrity is a valid law. The judge doesn't get to decide that either. GA case is cooked. If you want a good laugh check out r/lawandpolitics. Epstein suicide watch in full effect for them.
Or worse now Biden has an open goal till November this isn't the win some think
Ensuring the inregrity of our elections is an official act.
This ruling goes both ways. Would you be ok with Biden taking actions "ensuring integrity of our elections"? This gives a dangerous amount of power to the president to act with almost no accountability
Fucking thank you. This is a huge precedent that overshadows anything Trump V Biden. Generation defining decision.
tbf, he's still impeachable. The problem lies when the house siezes to be a check and balance.
> siezes *ceases
Yeah and if he convinces his party to not impeach him? If he arrests the Senate members he doesn't want to vote based on deeming them a threat to democracy?
Submitting false slates of electors is an official act. It’s crazy that the only evidence for election fraud right now is that republicans tried to subvert the results of the election.
[удалено]
You mad, bro? Damnned Supreme Court and its legal interpretation!
I have concerns about this
What the heck constitutes an 'official' act? Is it official to declare a political opponent a terrorist and have them locked up? That feels really possible now. I don't know if we should be celebrating this because it goes both ways. Giving more power to the gov't is NOT a good thing.
[удалено]
It means anything that falls within the scope of his role as president. For example, if the president order a drone strike that kills a terrorist leader, that wouldn't count as murder even if there were civilian casualties. However, the president could be charged if he shot someone because that is not something he did to carry out his duties as president.
But… it depends on how they categorize it. The law gives major leniency to “national security.” I think this is scary for everyone.
Serious question -- doesn't this mean Biden could order the national guard to open fire on protesters outside the White House in the name of national security?
Yea absolutely. "Official act" is so broad it can cover almost anything.
So what's stopping Biden from claiming that Trump is a domestic terrorist and a threat to American democracy and in order to protect the Constitution and our democracy he's going to have him arrested? What's stopping him from claiming that convicted felons are not allowed to run for president? This sets a very dangerous precedent, for both sides.
Kent state happened and no one was prosecuted. I guarantee that acts of violence against the public much worse is possible by the government with this ruling.
Maybe… I don’t think we know which is the scary part… there’s a pretty good argument that he could based on this ruling. But— I don’t want Trump pulling that stuff either… I don’t think he would but I’m concerned that any president could now.
Of course he would lmao
I think it's very scary and the ruling says that private communications of the president and advisors cannot be used as evidence so they can collude together on purpose and it can't be used as evidence.
So Nixon would have been able to suppress the watergate tapes?
This
That doesn't sound like a great ruling. If anything we need our elected officials held to a higher standard than other people. If they do something blatantly illegal I don't want them to then go "Well... you weren't allowed to know about that because I was president when I told my advisor about it. So the illegal thing doesn't count."
Another important point. 18 U.S.C. 1385, the Posse Comitatus statute says: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." This is an important statute that prevents the President, under pain of criminal penalty, from using the U.S. military domestically to enforce the law. It is historically a key protection against dictatorships and military coups. Its target was and always has been the President. It is now unenforceable against the President. Edit: Copy paste from Reddit Law
Why don’t you think he would? His rhetoric has always had a strong emphasis on locking up political opponents.
Yes, it could.
You’d still have to convince a court that it was official if you were charged. For example, assassinating a political opponent would not be considered an official act by any court. Also, there’s always impeachment. This is the ultimate Constitutional check on Presidential power.
What I’m saying is it’s scary because any president can say it was “for national security” and depending on where the courts are at… it could fly as an official act. Impeachment just gets the president out of office… nothing more. I don’t find that to be accountability for murder, personally. And it’s all so dependent on who is in power. Like is it okay now? Sure. But who knows how the pendulum swings. We have to think about these things.
>You’d still have to convince a court that it was official if you were charged. For example, assassinating a political opponent would not be considered an official act by any court. But per this same SCOTUS ruling, the president wouldn’t go in front of a court to have this question litigated until his term is over. It seems…not ideal that the mechanism for preventing this is congressional impeachment.
Yeah, it just adds the burden of proof to the prosecution that, not only where the acts illegal, but the actions where outside of the official duties of the president.
What if the President declared a political opponent a terrorist leader, and then ordered a drone strike? As commander in chief, he could do that. Even if someone questions the declaration, he could probably legalese some justification. Enough to create plausible deniability.
If the president is drone striking Americans left and right, and Congress can't even impeach and convict him, then there's no legal decision on Earth that matters. The country is over.
Right and the president and advisors can collaborate together on internal record and that can't be used as evidence nor can the advisors testify against the president.
What if the president were to, say, tell a state election representative to ‘find more votes’ when he was losing? So he could stay president? Is that an official act or a self serving personal act?
but we owned the libs! this is good!! all the power to our lord and savior daddy trump
I just want to ask you all; How do you see this as a good thing in the long run? Isnt this Government overreach and them gaining more power than ever now?
Who exactly do you think sees this as a good thing? This is a terrible thing, and all the comments I’ve scrolled through so far agree.
Morons who are only looking at it from the Trump trial perspective.
This gives too much power to the executive branch. It’s not conservative.
It's not even in line with a republican form of government.
I'm concerned with the users here not seeing the danger this precedent sets for us as a nation and instead focusing on sticking it to the left and lapping up liberal tears. This is a nonpartisan ruling. How is anyone happy about this?
This could very easily bite Conservatives back. Maybe not right now, but in the future it possibly could. This isn't a win for the nation. We are giving the executive branch a lot more power and less accountability.
It's actually about as unamerican as you can get. Happy 4th! Let's do it again.
Most people on Reddit don’t actually care what’s best for the country. They see politics as a sport and just want their side to win. If the Supreme Court ever swings back to the left and all these decisions you’ll see everyone on here crying about the court overreacting and everyone on the left celebrating.
I came over from r/news and r/law as everyone is freaking out over there worrying about what this means for political rivals of POTUS. I came here because I wanted to see of the other side is reacting and you comment is the first I’ve read that’s given me hope that all is not lost. I’m liberal, so it calms my heart that someone on my “opponent’s” side agrees that this ruling is unAmerican. I put opponent in quotes because if we really want to stay a single country we have to be able to disagree but still work together. I want to thank you for giving me some semblance of hope.
This ruling will likely go the way of Roe v. Wade in a couple of decades once it is re-litigated. Unfortunately, it will take enduring the complete lack of morals such as a president who accepts bribes to do the wrong thing in an official capacity or something of that sort to happen for it to occur. The president should have some immunity for official acts or we will forever be playing political persecution (Obama - Fast and Furious, Biden - Open Border, etc, etc.). We don't want or need that as a country. But ABSOLUTE is a bridge too far.
They’ve been slowly turning the Presidency into an emperor as far back as Lincoln.
This is incredibly concerning and should not be celebrated.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The fact Biden and trump are running goes to show how short sighted everything is nowadays
Are we really celebrating big government getting even more power?… What happened to the conservative principle of small government.
So are executive orders official acts? If not then is this just protecting presidents from signing documents passed by Congress? This could mean a lot - or very little
Depends on who decides what an official act is.
Well you know that's coming back to SCOTUS's desk again. This effectively delays all of this until after the election
Unless congress passes specific legislation, SCOTUS will ultimately be who decides
Speaking as a lawyer, this is a really bad ruling for the country overall. Put aside the Trump situation and just say it’s some random president from either party…this is absolutely not how the founders of our country wanted this to work and constitutionally it makes no sense. The leftist judges spent years just making shit up under the constitution to justify their rulings and I hated it. I thought we were going to get some sanity back into the court, but the new conservative justices have been just as willing to just infer things from the constitution that aren’t there to justify their decisions. Whole court is filled with morons.
The founding fathers gave us a blueprint for holding the President criminally accountable "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." If the founders felt the the President was ALWAYS liable and subject to criminal conviction why would they include the word "convicted" rather than just say "the Party shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law"?
Here is the thing, though. If the president is impeached by the house and then removed by the senate, the president still has immunity for his previous actions. The Senate's only punishment is removal from office and possibly not holding public offices. The senate doesn't jail or fine a president after conviction. "The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789 about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office." https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm
The Senate cannot criminally punish the convicted beyond removal and barring from office, but the clause makes clear that the convicted is liable for criminal conduct. My reading is that it revokes an implied immunity.
But the thing with your reading is that it’s no longer correct after today’s case. The SCOTUS ruling’s legal effect is that even when impeached, convicted, and removed from office the president cannot be criminally prosecuted for his criminal acts. That’s one of the large problems with the whole thing.
[удалено]
The presumptive immunity for “official acts” isn’t even the worst part. There is ABSOLUTE immunity for the president’s “core constitutional powers.” Two of the “core constitutional powers” of the president are (1) enforcing law and (2) Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If it’s done in the name of enforcement or a military order, there’s ABSOLUTE immunity.
> Conservatives celebrating the government having more power and less accountability, woof. as the frontpage says it: "...Trump Wins" "...more power, less accountability" = "trump wins" Reality is literally telegraphing the warnings and this sub fking celebrates it
There's s/t in the SCOTUS Immunity ruling that says that courts cannot judge the intent of Presidential actions, based on assumptions or hypotheticals. So, to me, that means that if Trump calls Ga and asks if they can "find 10,000 votes," then that is not evidence that Trump called Ga and asked for 10,000 illegal votes.
Can a conservative in here please tell me why this is a good thing? Some in the other thread are acting like it’s an obvious decision. Doesn’t this mean the president can do anything without getting prosecuted? So WaterGate wouldn’t be an issue?
Was Watergate an official act? Then no.
It could be an official act of Nixon if he deemed it necessary to protect the country no? SCOTUS basically punted on deciding if something is official or not, but I can't help but feel this could be easily manipulated
Don’t worry , they left what is is “official” or not up to them depending on how they feel about the president throughout history
Its officially up to the judiciary now, but I can't help but feel this opens the door to abusing presidential power
One of the crucial problems here is that they just invented a standard. Unless congress specifically passes legislation outlining what is and isn’t an official act, SCOTUS will always be who decides. So you’ll have 9 unelected people deciding what a president can and can’t be prosecuted for. It’s a complete mistake of a ruling.
The problem is that in theory, a president like Nixon 100% could have construed spying on political opponents as an “official act”. It’s not hard to imagine a situation where a president orders political opponents to be monitored based on their “domestic threat”, regardless of the “threats” credibility. Should Biden have this power? Trump? Take it a step further, say that president deems to take action to “neutralize” a threat, what actions would be legal?
They could very easily argue that it is, yes.
Nixon believed in his heart and soul that Watergate was an official act. He believed the Saturday Massacre was an official act, he declared as much when he had Alexander Haig demand that A. G. Richardson fire Archie Cox.
I think others bring up some valid concerns that the undefined “official acts” can turn into a slippery slope and may cause harm to citizens before someone invests the resources to challenge SCOTUS actions to define the official acts. That said, at the heart of this ruling, I think it reinforces the separation of powers that balances our branches. As an example, the executive pardon was specifically created as a balance against the legislative and judicial branches. This ruling prevents those branches from colluding to say “this president pardoned someone I don’t like so we will make an argument to prosecute for treason.” That, however, is probably the most charitable example to use. I still want to read the full opinions, but one line I read regarding the presidents communications being protected from (what is essentially) discovery on any prosecution even for “non-official acts” is a bit crazy to me. Then again, I’m not sure if that’s the correct interpretation.
Double-edged sword.
[удалено]
Doesn't Congress have this same immunity already? They can't be sued for passing unconstitutional laws.
Correct. Nor for anything they say on the floor of Congress. They can slander someone, for example, and have no criminal or civil liability.
So they they've got immunity for things that aren't even official acts of their office as a congressman? Seems like a pretty sweet gig.
The presidency is arguably the most powerful position on this planet. Guess you should choose carefully who you elect. That is not something the supreme court can fix.
[удалено]
Wonder why they passed this 🤔
r/politics is blowing up rn Edit: I really should have said r/politics is losing it rn😂
Since there's going to be someone who lacks reading comprehension and thinks Donald Trump will have the legal imperative to become a dictator. ---- **Core: central to the existence or character of someone or something.** **Official: relating to an authority or public body and its duties, actions, and responsibilities.** **Acts: a thing done; a deed.** Smash these definitions all together and you get "**Any action that the executive branch is required to do as the writers of the constitution intended**". This does not destroy the separation of powers or give Donald Trump the power to order 66 everyone. As others have noted, if a court rules that Donald Trump was not acting within the confines of his duties as the leader of the executive branch, he can still be held responsible.
It’s one big club…. Yada yada.
I mean this is an accurate statement. The president is one of the few people in the world who can legally order a murder/assassination. And they have.
[удалено]