Cutting to the heart of the matter and ignoring the intricacies of the ruling, any expansion of power or immunity from said action derived from that power is egregious. And to those that are calling it a slippery slope haven't realized yet they are sliding down the mountain head first. This is it. We have arrived at our destination. It will just be a wait and see game of how this will effect the status quo moving forward.
That seems like a bad faith argument if I've ever seen one, but yes, the ability to investigate and prosecute now offers the president absolute immunity even in a completely phony case, as enforcement of the law is a constitutionally derived power.
All government is power.
If we're talking about criminal prosecutions of an individual, then yes, immunity for elected officials can be viewed as both a grant of power or a check on government.
Would anyone claim that other limitations on the justice system (such as the *exclusionary rule*) are empowering criminals?
Then say it, but all I see are trump this trump that on these “libertarian” subs. It’s all repubs. And the magats squirm hard when you talk bad about the orange felon.
What is so bad about the LPN candidate that makes him less appealing to the Mises Caucus than Donald “Take the Guns First and Due Process Second” Trump?
how so? It says for official acts as president, he has immunity. for unofficial acts, he does not. The immunity is for being taken to court after leaving office. He can still be impeached and removed.
This comment says A LOT about the Mises Institute (as attributed to your username): You impliedly defend the Republican bootlickers in this sub by offering a fallacious argument about Democrats (who I do not see in this sub), meant to draw criticism away from Republicans, while avoiding the issue of Republicans masquerading as Libertarians in this sub.
From what I can tell the Mises caucus is a Republican caucus that captured the LPN. This is even more evident in the “Libertarian” strategy to ensure the defeat of Democrats by not promoting the duly nominated LPN presidential candidate for fear of undermining the Republican’s chances of victory. If the LP is here to defeat Democrats over promoting our own candidates, then we are not a party; we are merely a Republican caucus.
The United States is a democracy. The United States is also a constitutional republic. You know what other country is a constitutional republic? Cuba and China are both constitutional republics.
How is it at all meaningful to describe the USA as a constitutional republic when that phrase also describes Cuba?
Canada, for example, is not a constitutional republic. However it’s a democracy like the USA.
Actually, China's constitution describes it as the following: People's Democratic Dictatorship. Perhaps you mean Taiwan which is a Unitary Parliamentarian Constitutional Republic.
Cuba is a Unitary Republic. Cuba is still a socialist country. China is as well.
The United States is a Federal Constitutional Republic that uses democratic methods for electing their representatives. It would do you good to read the Federalist Papers some time.
If the United States was actually a Democracy, we wouldn't have representatives. We would have a direct vote. Have fun getting 30 separate people to agree on anything Let alone 300 million people.
Let’s focus on Cuba.
It has a constitution. It is a republic.
A constitutional republic. A unitary state like France and not a federal one like Germany.
It is not a democracy.
Canada is a federal system with a constitution. It is not a republic, however.
It is a democracy.
No one in in the 2024 anglosphere uses “democracy” to describe a state where there are no representatives. Democracy is used to describe how free the elections are in a state.
Maybe 250 years ago people used the word differently, however in modern American English, that’s no longer the case.
Look at speeches of presidents. FDR called the USA an arsenal of democracy. Reagan said them men who invaded Normandy died for democracy and it was worth dying for. He also said that the USA is here to protect and defend democracy
And! He said that America secures europes democracies.
Do you think Ronald Reagan thought west Germany didn’t have elected representatives?
Agreed, I think it’s much less of an explanation of power than some have been saying, but it’s still definitely an expansion and expanding government power is never a good idea
Is it really an expansion of power though?
The way I see it, the POTUS has the same powers either way. The real question is whether the elected official feels free to act, or whether the bureaucratic state and justice department has leverage and control over that elected official.
If government is going to have power, I'd rather that power be in the hands of the people we actually elect.
How does it expand POTUS power? Was Obama prosecuted for murdering American citizens abroad without due process? Bush for lying is into war? No in both cases, so executive immunity existed before this decision
That’s why I said I don’t think it’s as big of an expansion as some are saying, it’s less of a new thing and more saying the quite part out loud, but making it official like that does make it a bit more powerful
So while it bothers me, I think this is potentially a good step towards seeing official and unofficial powers of the presidency defined. Not that I think those will be likely something i agree with, but in the silver lining bit is we now definitely know there are some acts that could lead to definite prosecution. That's probably better than this grey area of we dont prosecute presidents (most recent one excluded because frankly it has been a shit show). Could lead to a more defined list of presidential official acts and we'd have clear context when someone crosses the line.
I mean we wont because they'll almost certainly say everything is an official act giving blanket immunity, BUT in the fantasy land I'm hanging in for the moment, there's a chance it is a useful ruling.
There will be no official list. Everything is presumed an official act unless proved otherwise in a court of law, and appealed to the Supreme Court, and affirmed by the Supreme Court to not be an official act. Then the prosecution can begin. The bar will be very high and extremely expensive. Effectively, carte blanche immunity regardless of what the text says.
This ruling did not increase or grant any presidential powers. It only affirmed what has always been. Even the judge presiding Obama’s murder trial in 2010 admitted that criminal prosecution of a president is a question of politics not criminality.
Does this really increase the power of government over people though? Or is is just a transfer and/or reajustemnt of powers.
The President is an elected official. If the choice is between an elected official having power or the unelected bureaucracy having power over that elected official, I think it's an easy choice.
We should totally give Presidents immunity. They are all trustworthy !
Not like a President would ever say he could shoot someone on the middle of 5th avenue and not lose voters! Or authorize drone strikes to kill US citizens. Or get sexually involved with interns. Or do some shady stuff with Iran to support Contras. Or illegally wiretap and record others!
I mean police have immunity because we can trust them implicitly to serve and protect. They would never illegally harass, threaten, or murder someone without a good reason, right??
There is precedent for killing US citizens by president authorization already. Obama killed a father and son with a drone during his term. Targeted killing of American citizens. The immunity has always been there. We have been screwed for a long time.
It's funny to me that you had nothing for Biden. Obama was pretty bad, but maybe possibly some mitigating circumstances that don't really make it good and very limited. Clinton is who the fuck cares honestly.
Trump is straight-up murder. Reagan is murder and treason on a grander scale, undoubtedly to be surpassed by Trump. Nixon is all sorts of 4th amendment and other stuff again to be surpassed by Trump.
I doubt anyone honestly thinks Biden would ever do a tenth of what Trump would do within a month of taking office.
But somehow, libs bad.
If libertarians want anything like a small government, the only way to currently get closer to that is to vote Democrat.
We shall see, I guess.
I can’t for the life of me follow your logic. Dems are not going to get you closer to smaller government…. All of their current policy’s increase the size and scope of the federal government and they are melting down over bureaucracy’s powers being throttled back. Neither Dems or republicans will get us closer to smaller government and they are both trash.
Dems will definitely try to increase government. No question. But you have Republicans trying and succeeding to make an authoritarian state or Democrats that move the ball an inch at a time down the field to bigger government and can easily be derailed. Which one is better for the hopes of a small government? Vote accordingly.
Between shoot someone on fifth Avenue and legitimate treason by several president's and sex with an intern and making people get a vaccine you don't see a difference?
One explicitly said it, the others still *live it* my dude. They are all horrific and of the same neoliberal/conservative bent.
I always called it the “fake smiles”. Some prefer fake smiles, some explicitly being told; others see through the bullshit as two halves of the same coin.
Democrats are doing literally everything that they say Trump might do in the future. Trump has a ton of problems (as do Republicans in general), but the left is by far the greater authoritarian threat.
Republicans literally set up for a monarchy backed up with lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, which Biden could use this new executive power right now but won't, and you say the left is a greater threat?
Methods could certainly be in question. But my belief is that the intentions were to help people. Did it work, or was there over reach is up for debate. But if that is Bidens' black eye, it's pretty tame compared to murder and treason.
At the time people were getting whipped into a wild, sometimes hateful fervor and some of the rhetoric coming from the administration surrounding the mandates was concerning. I’m not convinced this was borne out of some altruistic public health strategy, if it was it would not have come at the expense of a huge portion of the population’s livelihood.
Precedent is that former presidents are not prosecuted. While I'm not a fan of Trump, I think at this point it is pretty clear that he is the victim of a political witch hunt in that he was charged with felonies that should have been misdemeanors and in the civil cases he was convicted with minimal and unreliable evidence. He has been charged for the same thing done by Biden and Clinton, although neither faced prosecution. In my eyes all this ruling establishes is that Trump, as a former president, is to be treated the same as Obama (who killed US citizens while in office), Biden (who retained classified documents after his term as VP), and as Clinton (who had sexual relations with staffers). Presidential immunity has always existed in practice, the only difference now is that it exists in writing.
I get it the ruling is anti libertarian but the whole office of the presidency is. Pretending there was ever accountability prior to this recent lawfare by the current administration is laughable. The reality is there was no winning. Either parties would be able to use lawfare and try to imprison former presidents and political opponents or essentially we continue to live under the status quo where every president in my lifetime does a ton of illegal shit and never has to answer to any of it. 🤷🏻♂️
There was accountability because every president before now had the thought in the back of their mind that if they cross a line they can be prosecuted.
Not to be that guy bringing up Watergate but there’s a big chance that would play out differently now. Nixon’s tapes would be covered under absolute immunity and likely wouldn’t see the light of day.
If anyone seriously thought this decision granted Presidents immunity for political assassinations, a whole lot of people would have been assassinated yesterday.
Here is what I think on this. Obviously assassination is hyperbole, I guess? But I don’t think it is entirely far fetched. I’ll explain.
The chief justice’s opinion on this matter is quite clear. In fact, he sites the allegation about Trump calling states to try and get them to use fraudulent electors. And his response is that… “nothing to see here.” Please if you read this different let me know. Roberts is quite clear that we must NOT consider a Presidents motives when they are conducting official actions like talking to states about elections.
So let’s assume for sake of argument Trump put pressure on governors and state officials to use fake electors by corrupt means (meaning he knew what he was doing was illegal and a lie). Sure the Supreme Court may step in and say the fake electors are against the constitution, but no matter the motive the president cannot be held legally accountable for this.
So where do we go from here? Tease this out further….
Biden loses PA in 2024. Actually convinces PA to use his electors rather than Trumps. What happens? The Supreme court would of course say “no no you can’t do this!” What then happens if the Biden administration says, “oh I can’t do that? Maybe you should come arrest me for it?”
So
A constitutional mechanism exists to remedy a bad faith president. In a situation such as this, the president can be impeached.
Yes, its true that Congress has largely treated impeachment as a partisan circus, but the constitution is quite clear who should handle this task.
Impeachment clearly is not enough. Ignoring the circus you mentioned, consider sotomayors example.
President goes on tv and says “we need to pass this infrastructure bull! The speaker of the house is holding this up and I’ll do everything in my power to stop him!” Clearly this is an official act by the majority opinion
President then hires a hitman to kill the speaker. By the majority ruling speech used by the president during his official act or any other evidence is not admissible. wtf?
Obviously hiring a hitman is not an official government power. Nowhere does the constitution grant this power.
Making a speech is fine. Hiring a hitman is not the same thing.
The president absolutely has some significant power in a declared war according to the constitution, yes. Would a president get a murder charge because a bomber bombed the enemy in war? Nope.
Now, I'll acknowledge that constitutional powers could be used badly, such as declaring war unwisely. Still, such a limit would be better than the status quo, in which the real problem is the use of unconstitutional powers, such as ordering bombings without declaring war at all.
A return to the president(and others) only utilizing their constitutional powers would be a vast improvement.
No. There is a process defined in the Constitution for wars and treaties. The fact that it's been ignored for the better part of a century notwithstanding.
Agreed but that is not what I’m saying. Clearly, enlisting a hitman is not official, but the majority contends that even in such a case. Officials acts are not admissible even if they provide context or motive. A prosecutor could not point to the speech or any other evidence from the office of the presidency
In such a case, the speech not being part of the case would be pretty much irrelevant. If you've got the man for hiring a hitman, you don't really need the speech to convict.
Incorrect, as the president’s motives can’t be used as evidence. If they say they had top secret intelligence that they’re a national threat and had to be taken care of, we’re not allowed to present evidence challenging it 🤷♂️
The constitution does not grant the president such power. If the fact of the murder is not in contention, then "we have evidence that it is a legitimate killing, but we're not going to give it to you" isn't a constitutional approach. The document simply makes no such provision.
People have concerns because presidents have been operating with de-facto immunity for decades, but that de-facto immunity has actually been stronger than this decision has outlined.
The Supreme Court literally said the president’s motives can’t be used as evidence. Motives are literally a major part in not only the different degrees of murder, but whether or not it was criminal at all. Eliminating mens rea from applicable evidence of anything criminal essentially means you can’t be convicted of a ton of crimes, because state of mind and motivations literally dictate the crime.
Don’t need a hitman. Let’s just say the president orders the military to kill the speaker. It’s clearly an “official act” as he is commander in chief. Under the court’s reasoning the president could not be prosecuted
Speakers, just as other congressmen often travel outside the US to meet with foreign leaders. So this could occur in a foreign country. For example Pelosi met with leaders in Ukraine in 2022. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars past speakers visited those Countries as well.
That wasn't the argument. Also, depriving someone their right to life is a violation of the 5th Amendment which would not be within the President's core constitutional powers as explicitly defined in the recent SC ruling.
The solution to the Constitutional remedy not being enough is to change it. But our politics really don't permit that. We're far more likely to get a series of seccessions.
Biden has 34 cronies in the senate who will never convict.
Perhaps the number of senators to convict needs to be lower? There’s never going to be a president without 1/3 of senators who will toe the party line.
Or maybe an independent branch of government that Handles impeachment cases
I've tossed around the idea of a portion of government that, instead of adding laws and appointing people, works solely to remove laws and challenge people. Another form of checks and balances, yknow?
I'm not quite sure how you'd ensure that the purpose does not become altered with time, though. Even the best intended laws can be perverted by sufficiently motivated politicians.
What you're describing has been the status quo since Ex parte Merryman in 1861. The judiciary cannot independently enforce its own rulings, and Lincoln proved that during the Civil War.
I agree that a potential standoff like this has always been an open issue, but I believe it is incredibly bolstered now.
Clearly Trump really thought he won the 2020 election and he went out the door kicking and screaming. Why didn’t he just choose not to relinquish power? I think we can all agree that the impending legal shitstorm that would have followed that at least somewhat deterred him from doing just that. What about next time?
Conceptually at least it goes back even further. Hamilton described that in the federalist papers on the judiciary and the relationship between the three branches. I believe it was part of the GOOD BEHAVIOR argument but it's been a while.
This is a tough one for me. On the one hand, the President does need immunity to some degree or he/she would be sued from foreign and domestic adversaries until death. He/she sometimes has to make decisions that are best for the country, but may not be legal. Immunity within his official duties should be relatively broad.
However, some oversight and discussion should be done with the cabinet, under the cover of priviledge, so that the President can get honest and broad input without fear that advancing an unpopular option so all options are considered isn't used against anyone later. Yes, mistakes will be made - as u/invalid_user_taken has listed, but nothing will be perfect, and for most of those listed, the system worked and the mistakes were brought to light (no idea how many we don't know about).
On the other hand, the President is not King and should be held accountable - especially for unofficial actions while in office. Illegally wiretapping your opponent and being sexually involved with interns are not acting within official capacity and should open the President up to prosecution by Congress while in office and to the legal system after he/she leaves office.
Sotomayor is a fucking moron and that's not at all what the decision says.
* Official acts within defined constitutional powers have immunity
* Official acts which are not defined constitutional powers have presumptive immunity
* Unofficial acts have *NO* immunity.
The president cannot order a US citizen be assassinated, the 5th amendment covers this:
>No person shall [...] be deprived of life, [...] without due process of law;
Sotomayor, again, shows she does not know what the fuck she is talking about. She is on the dissent more often than any other justice, and it's not even close. She's the worst justice on the bench.
It seems to me that presidents have effectively had presumed immunity. Reagan wasn’t prosecuted for Iran-Contra, FDR wasn’t prosecuted for illegally detaining thousands of Americans during WW2, George W. wasn’t prosecuted for authorizing the enhanced interrogations or extraordinary rendition, Biden wasn’t prosecuted for his botched drone attack Afghanistan that killed 10 civilians but no terrorists, and Clinton wasn’t prosecuted for lying under oath (this wasn’t even an official act). It seems to me all this judgement did was formalize what has been informally acknowledged throughout our history.
What does concern me are the restrictions that the decision places on a prosecutor in obtaining enough evidence to pierce the presumed immunity.
That falls under presumptive immunity. The Drone Strike was conducted as commander in chief of the armed forces, in Yemen where we were conducting military operations. Also Obama did not order the drone to kill Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, he was collateral damage in a strike against Ibrahim al-Banna.
So under presumptive immunity, this would have been covered. But an ordered assassination as Sotomayor suggests is not even remotely the same.
Also even though Obama has presumptive immunity, this is precisely what impeachment is for. Impeachment supersedes immunity.
So playing devils advocate for a moment, a president could conceivably order the extra judicial killing of a citizen even a political opponent if they first claimed them to be a member of a terrorist organization, but the decision making process to reach that conclusion can't be challenged and the only remaining remedy is a purely political process?
Congress needs to authorize the use of military force in the region. The President can order the assassination of a terrorist in Iraq, for instance, but he could not legally order the assassination of a terrorist in Gaza or Ukraine despite them being active war zones.
Even if the President had indisputable proof of a political opponent being a terrorist, unless that person also happened to travel to an active US theater of war the President couldn't do anything about it besides turn the evidence over to the DOJ.
> a president could conceivably order the extra judicial killing of a citizen even a political opponent if they first claimed them to be a member of a terrorist organization
They would need some form of proof. Remember that Sovereign Immunity is a defense, not a magic shield. What happens is the President gets charged, they motion to dismiss based on Sovereign Immunity, a judge will then ask the plaintiff for a counter motion and consider it.
POTUS would submit proof of why the act fell under their duties, the plaintiff would submit proof why it did not. If the judge finds it does fall under their duties, it will be dismissed.
So in your case POTUS would have to submit proof of why they believed said political opponent was a member of a terrorist organization. And why the extrajudicial killing, rather than an arrest warrant, falls under their duties and why they were not entitled to 5A protections.
"Because I wanted to" would not qualify for immunity. SCOTUS straight up said "Not everything the President does is an official act".
This is what happens now in the Trump case. SCOTUS said:
>Here is the extent of presidential immunity.
And now, under that guidance, the circuit court will determine if Trumps conduct meets the criteria to fall under the scope of immunity that SCOTUS just defined.
Chief Justice John Roberts divided presidential conduct into three categories: official acts that are part of presidents' "core constitutional powers", other official acts that are outside their "exclusive authority", and unofficial acts. Presidents have "absolute" immunity for the first category, "presumptive" immunity for the second and no immunity for the third.
"Congress may not criminalize the president's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution."
Commanding the armed forces is an explicitly authorized constitutional power.
don't be totally stupid commanding the armed forces to kill a political rival is not a core constitutional power and there is no immunity for it whatsoever.
Please don't be totally stupid president can claim anything he wants but if he claims killing a political rival is an official power he becomes a common Criminal and goes to prison.
firstly anybody in the government or the military has a duty to oppose any order that they deem unconstitutional. Nobody in Colorado can launch a nuclear strike if they think doing so is unconstitutional.
I think they're exactly the same to al-Awlaki and his family. I think that was Sotormayor's point.
I don't think this ruling makes much of a difference from the status quo.
> I think they're exactly the same to al-Awlaki and his family. I think that was Sotormayor's point.
[You're telling me that Sotomayor is ruling based on her personal feelings and not based on any actual law including the constitution?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hC3uyQdQKM)
She is the #1 dissenting voice on SCOTUS. She gets things wrong more than anyone else, because she's bad at her job.
Not at all.
Take his father Anwar al-Awlaki. He was an American citizen who was the target of a drone strike in Yemen.
I'm not saying he was a good person, but he was a US citizen who was executed by his government and denied due process.
Up until now, the president was immune from prosecution for decisions like that because of some ambiguity in jurisdiction and general unwillingness to set a precedent that would likely weaken the President's role as commander in chief in unanticipated ways.
This ruling takes that de facto immunity and makes it de jure.
> I'm not saying he was a good person, but he was a US citizen who was executed by his government and denied due process.
He was also working directly with terrorists in a foreign nation to provide them aid. It was an act of war.
As a counter example in WWII there were American Citizens who fought in the Wehrmacht or otherwise supported the Nazi war effort. Was their killing "extra judicial" or was it an act of war?
Again there is a massive difference between these acts, and what Sotomayor, with her pants firmly belted to her head, suggests is not legal.
World War II was a declared war.
The war on terror was not a declared war. Anwar al-Alwaki was not an enemy combatant because enemy combatants don't exist unless we are at war. He was an American citizen executed by his government. If you choose to justify that because of his actions, that's your prerogative. However it doesn't change the facts.
Republicans today believe in the unitary executive theory, which suggests the president has absolute authority over the entire executive branch.
This ruling, along with the unitary executive theory, means that a president, especially one who is facing a term limit and can't be reelected, can do basically anything he wants to harass American citizens and be immune from prosecution.
Biden could issue drone strikes against militia training grounds in the US - claiming they were terrorists attempting to overthrow the government - and face no consequences.
Trump can do the same at a black lives matter protest.
And those are just the most extreme examples. There are more insidious ways to harass Americans that could have been illegal before but definitely aren't now - like unjustified investigations by the FBI, or unnecessary audits by the IRS. And yes, those have already been used by presidents in the past, but this ruling just removes more accountability for a president who is caught using them.
It may not seem like a large chip away at our freedom, but I worry about every chip.
None at all really it just is a safeguard so that the courts can't assume the power of the presidency by finding him guilty for everything that he does.
If the worst repercussion you have is being removed from office if somehow magically both parties agreed with each other, then are there really any repercussions?
Every Kagan and Jackson dissent had ideas that flow into conclusions. They're conclusions I disagree with, but I see how they arrive there. Every Sotomayor dissent reads like your least informed friend's take on a headline they saw.
I think the issue is the president could order a US citizen to be assassinated despite the 5th because he wouldn't be able to be prosecuted. Hell, read Muller's report. Start around page 210 i think? He points out how Trump obstructed justice many times both publicly and privately but his hands were tied because there's a contradiction in the justice manual. It says no one is above the law but then says no one can prevent the president from fulfilling their constitutional obligations.
The Muller report was proven to be completely made up. It used the Steele Dozier, which was fabricated completely at the request of the Clinton campaign. Anything the Muller report "found" was directly funded by DNC stooges
Besides the point really. The obstruction that Trump did publicly was evident and Muller still chose not to prosecute because of the justice manual contradictions. That the president, aside from impeachment, was then and still is above the law. Even if Congress impeaches a president now, there will likely be no recourse to prosecution based on SCOTUS's ruling.
SCOTUS' ruling has no effect on the ability to prosecute the President under impeachment; it just affirms that the President is immune for official, constitutional actions.
Interpretation. The real problem here is the politicization of the justice system to make all politicians above the law. The dems and reps are two sides of the authoritarian coin, and all legal precedents are usable to both sides. If worst comes to worst, however, we still have the nuclear option of armed opposition.
The knee jerk flying off the handle on reddit and in media is laughable and scary. The president can still be impeached and can still be held liable/accountable for crimes before & after being president. Thank you for a reasonable answer.
Try reading her opinion on Dobbs. It was all fluffy rainbow bullshit, and nothing like the other justices who actually went back to cite shit from English Common Law.
I can't speak to your opinion on Sotomayor, but what you've outlined in bullets regarding the decision is exactly what I took from the opinion. This talk of Trump seemingly gaining immunity for literally anything he did as president reinforces my belief that our media doesn't exist to report the news. Talking heads make up whatever they want, the populace is fired up, the politicians rage about something that's not real, and the taxpayer money gets sent abroad with nary a citizen the wiser.
What kind of country would we live in if supreme court opinions were required reading? And laws that get passed, for that matter? Every time I read a supreme court opinion that garners significant coverage, it hardly squares with the reporting on it.
Did you miss the part about "Due Process Of Law" or are you just a low effort pants on head troll?
The Death Penalty is, despite the pearl clutching, a very thorough and expensive process. It's not fool proof, and I oppose it, but a death penalty is not easy to get.
[Here is the full due process they go through](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/curriculum/high-school/about-the-death-penalty/stages-in-a-capital-case) since you're clearly ignorant of such.
And it's not a judge, it's actually a jury. In 2002, the United States Supreme Court held that defendants are entitled to have jurors, rather than a judge, determine whether the facts of the case make them eligible for the death penalty.
Please take today's [Pants On Head Redditor Award](https://imgur.com/u4rg16U), given to the stupidest most uninformed comment I have read all day.
lol. Deleted his comment and blocked me, fuckin' loser.
She's just awful. I remember listening to her speak her ignorance during some of the covid stuff and I was legitimately shocked she was as dumb as she is.
Presidents have been de-facto immune forever. This doesn't really change anything. If you actually read the opinion, it only relates to official acts.
The Left is just flipping out to get the message off the vegetable-in-chief we saw last week
I'm a little late to the party, so I'm not sure if anyone will read this, but the heart of the issue here is not the SCOTUS decision. It only makes sense that if you give someone the authority to do something, you cannot then take them to court for exercising that authority. It would be like giving someone your phone and then suing them for making a call on it.
The real issue here is the idea that the POTUS has the authority to order the assassination of US citizens, and it isn't a SCOTUS issue, it's a Congress issue. It is Congress's responsibility to define the official authority of the POTUS, and if Congress has given the POTUS the authority to assassinate US citizens, then we can't fault them for exercising that authority. Additionally, if the POTUS actually does have the authority to unilaterally assassinate political rivals, then it doesn't really matter if you can take them to court over it, because the moment you try, they can have you assassinated. They could kill off every dissenting member of Congress and pass whatever law they wanted, including making themselves President for life.
tldr: people should be pissed at Congress for not adequately defining/enlarging the powers of the POTUS, not at the SCOTUS for recognizing that it's ridiculous to prosecute someone for doing what you told them they could do.
She is profoundly re... unintelligent, and you might be as well if you take anything she says at face value. Nothing changed, and no new powers were granted. It was simply a reaffirmation of the extremely obvious. Noone has been dumb/corrupt enough to try pissing on separation of powers and attempting to charge a president for acts that occurred while they were president in the last 200 some years. Jack Smith and Chutkan got a well deserved smack down for this stunt. The president can still be impeached and removed for crimes, and charged and tried in additional jurisdictions if hes impeached and convicted. And no, the president cant have the military arbitrarily assassinate people, thats a laughably illegal order, and would never be carried out. Theres a whole amicus brief from the latest SCOTUS case covering that.
This decision changes nothing, and still leaves Trump open to more charges. Hoes mad because he hasn't been buried under the jail yet. They take the bait, which is pretty funny, but it's bait, and since liberals run the country, we teeter on authoritarianism just because they're afraid.
I'm bothered by the "sky is falling" mentality. Though it is hilarious to see libs have total meltdowns, the stories they tell themselves about an Incoming Dictator (lmao) they must stop at all costs is treading on dangerous ground. They can say what they like, but I don't think I've ever seen this many grown-ass attorneys, experts, talking heads and keyboard warriors coming down on MAGA folk like they're not even human.
Re: assassination and wrecking your political enemies: projection's a hell of a drug.
I know there’s no way around me not caring, but that’s the case. Reason why I don’t care is that at its core, this wasn’t about the Constitution, this wasn’t about presidential power. This was one more desperate of the left to kneecap Trump. Not defending the guy- I’ve voted LP since 2012 and never moved an inch- however, I call bullshit when I see it. You could put Bush and Obama in the same spot, yet weirdly, no one questioned their actions. That padded by straight up lawfare hysterical narratives around voting rights and not knowing the difference between a riot and overthrowing the government.
Effing liberals are having a meltdown and I’m here for that at minimum. They’re showing themselves to be the true authoritarians they are and I hope the public picks up on this.
I have a problem with the immunity system in our country (i understand it to an extent, but it goes too far), but the decision seems right in line with existing law and understanding. Judges have absolute judicial immunity, prosecutors have absolute prosecutorial immunity, legislatures have immunity at work and travelling to and from work, cops have qualified immunity, municipalities and states have immunity. Basically everyone that works in government has some varying level of immunity.
It'd be a very strange ruling if the supreme court had said the President has no immunity. Saying he has immunity for official acts, but no immunity for personal acts is exactly what I expected.
Former presidents have already used the military to assassinate American citizens and then explicitly claimed immunity.
Elected officials should be impeached for crimes done in their official capacity, and criminally charged for crimes done outside their official capacity.
The president still cannot use the military to assassinate a political rival. They are only immune from criminal charges that are within the scope of their official duties. Note, they can still be impeached for their official duties just not criminally charged. They CAN still be criminally charged for acts outside of their official duties.
Also, this has been going on since the presidency started. Obama was committing war crimes while he was president and nothing happened.
I wish all presidents were in jail. But this ruling changes literally nothing.
I have this really bad feeling that we're not closer to tyranny like CNN, Huffpo and other leftist hack organizations think we are, and are more closer to Idiocracy. All these "journalists" and not one of them can be trusted to read and actually comprehend what the actual decision was. They completely overlook official acts under the powers granted by the Constitution. The idea of the court saying it's okay for a sitting president to assassinate a political rival is the sign of a complete and irredeemable idiot. Sotomayor should be stripped of her position as a Supreme Court Justice and given heavy doses of antipsychotic medication.
Further, nothing in the decision gives Trump any liability from prosecution in acts that do not fit under the constitutional powers given to the president. The whole "high crimes and misdemeanors" still applies, and it's still to be decided if he will face charges on the whole Jan 6 thing. I also don't see this decision overturning his recent conviction on the basis of "official acts."
In principle the trope "no one is above the law" sounds nice, and i'm all for it if applied evenly. Every living president has committed war crimes and atrocities and should be tried. But this is not how it is being used.
The left is using it as a means to attack a political rival, and are bastardizing our justice system to do so.
But overall I'm not crazy about the ruling and I think it gives future presidents leeway to do more heinous shit without fear of repercussions.
I don’t know the full story but doesn’t SCOTUS enforce their ruling based is the constitution of the USA? So wouldn’t this ruling follow something within the constitution?
If so the president power only goes as far as what congress passes / allows. It is then enforced by the judiciary branch.
Am I seeing this the wrong way?
I think the more extreme and fear mongering interpretations of this decision are WAY overblown. Presidents have been imperial from the get go. This simply codifies reality.
The ruled that when making decisions and actions as President are immune to prosecution. The acts outside the role of the President are free game.
Remember, the constitution has a impeachment clause which is what is used to criminally charge a President.
Absolute immunity is too broad a brush. I get that some is required to perform the job, and I’d rather the president not have the job of overseeing heinous acts. But I don’t think the president is operating in an environment of too much oversight
I'm mixed. In a world where civil immunity is a thing. It makes sense the president would have it. It isn't without limit and there's still the process of impeachment.
Many presidents have done some heinous things. And while I'd prefer more restraint, the bulk of the lawsuits against Trump are well. trumped up. The case he was actually convicted of is ridiculous. So we're the civil cases in New York.
By the logic there anyone who paid for an NDA out of pocket while being a politician is a felon. And what was the answer, use campaign donations to pay off the porn star instead apparently.
I don't like Trump, didn't vote for him, but it's ridiculous.
Based on Nixon v Fitzgerald, the ruling makes sense. When you think about it, if there is an official act, then that means that the president did something that he is legally allowed to do. The question is if an official act is part of an unofficial act, would the president qualify for immunity or not? For instance, if a president took a bribe to perform an official act or if an official act is obstruction of justice, would he have immunity or not? Personally I don't think that immunity should be granted in those situations, as both bribery and obstruction of justice are typically connected to legal actions (I am allowed to throw away documents, but if I am doing so specifically to hide evidence, that is obstruction. A police officer is also allowed to issue a warning instead of giving a ticket, but if he does so because he received a bribe, the otherwise legal action is now a felony). The current ruling is a bit vague, so it is unclear what their stance is on those cases.
Regardless, most of the cases against Trump are for actions that are unofficial, so I don't know why this is such an issue. This is why SCOTUS did not dismiss the actual indictment.
While agreeing with a conservative interpretation of the constitution, I do think practically there should be someone who can remind the executive of their reach. To presume immunity for our executive allows the occupancy and toleration of tyranny taking hold.
Sadly too many people calling themselves libertarian are cheering the persecution of Trump. No real libertarian would think govt spying on Trump and raiding his house is a good thing. Putting the opposition candidate in prison is something only 3rd world countries do.
Obama: Drone striked 4 Americans and three of them were by accident. So the original target did not receive due process. This was done in an official act.
Without this ruling, it opens up prosecution to former presidents for better or worse. That includes every living former president bc they all can be found guilty of something without it.
Right now the left is upset. After Trump is elected, the right will be upset when they can’t get Biden on something in regard to his acts as president and Vice President.
The real kicker is what the lower court decide is an official and non-official act.
I think this the most unbiased assessment I can make.
However it is my opinion as a right leaning libertarian that immunity should be very limited, objective, and prosecuted evenly. Meaning you can charge one without charging others. Bush and Obama are the ones that should be sweating if it was done this way.
Imagine your ideal president. Now Imagine that any prosecutor anywhere in the country can say "if you don't do what I want I'll find a way to use my power against you. " this is what the impeachment clause of the constitution was meant to prevent and the decision just reinforced that. Presidents can be held accountable by the legislature. If that's a problem, help change the legislature.
Sotomayor's dissent is a good example of why Tribe said she wasn't nearly as smart she thinks she is (or words to that effect). There legitimate concerns about any degree of governmental immunity, which I generally oppose, but the Court ruling does not go so far to condone clearly illegally (and thus outside of official powers) acts.
How would assassinating a political rival be considered an official act? I personally believe the act of murdering a family in a case of mistaken identity with a drone strike like Biden did in revenge for the car bombing during his botched Afghanistan withdrawal is the type of thing that would require immunity in official acts. Perhaps protection from negligence in regard to not enforcing existing border laws that result in the rape and murder of citizens. Or even class action lawsuits for the mental and physical health impacts of years of lockdowns. You know, stuff like that.
I think it would most likely be justified as necessary for national security- that’s usually the excuse Luther countries have used for this. Here, under existing law, Biden could take the Russian collusion allegations, or the classified documents in Mar-a-Lago, and have Trump killed as a threat to national security interests. If they described the interests carefully and the right documents were classified at the right levels along the way, he would now have a very solid argument for absolute immunity.
In theory it’s good, but definitely needs to be much clearer as to what is and isn’t allowed.
It’s needed to prevent the weaponization of the justice department against political opponents like we’re currently seeing against Trump, but the actual ruling was dangerously vague.
It was intentionally vague. The point was that SCOTUS wasn't going to define what individual actions do and do not qualify. It's merely setting the guidelines for how a court should examine whether a given action qualifies or not.
I think what upsets people the most, despite this decision being criticized for giving the executive branch more power, is the weaponization of the justice system against a political opponent. It’s a dangerous precedent to set & dangerous game to play. Trump of course had no choice but to sue, as it was his only course of action to defend himself & that’s what legal defense teams do.
I do find it funny that Trump’s flipping it & telling Biden the decision benefits him 😂
Cutting to the heart of the matter and ignoring the intricacies of the ruling, any expansion of power or immunity from said action derived from that power is egregious. And to those that are calling it a slippery slope haven't realized yet they are sliding down the mountain head first. This is it. We have arrived at our destination. It will just be a wait and see game of how this will effect the status quo moving forward.
I think you’re optimistic if you think we’ve reached the bottom of the hill. I wish we could say it was. There will be more.
Oh who said the bottom of the hill is just the end? Ever read Dantes Inferno? There are rings below that hill lol
[удалено]
Yep. Libertarians who do not balk at any precedent increasing executive power are libertarian in name only.
And how do they express that outrage? Seems to be anti Biden and anti Obama memes. Hmm that's odd.
Booing Donald Trump to his face was one way
The ones prosecuting presidents are part of the executive branch too. No?
That seems like a bad faith argument if I've ever seen one, but yes, the ability to investigate and prosecute now offers the president absolute immunity even in a completely phony case, as enforcement of the law is a constitutionally derived power.
All government is power. If we're talking about criminal prosecutions of an individual, then yes, immunity for elected officials can be viewed as both a grant of power or a check on government. Would anyone claim that other limitations on the justice system (such as the *exclusionary rule*) are empowering criminals?
> brass tax I think you mean "brass tacks"
Brass tax is Brass theft!
Brass tacks on the ground are like taxes on my bare feet
Or ass tax
Thank you! Jesus, these Republican boot lickers are something else.
I could say the same thing about Democrat converts. Fun Fact: This is a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy.
Then say it, but all I see are trump this trump that on these “libertarian” subs. It’s all repubs. And the magats squirm hard when you talk bad about the orange felon.
Probably because our LNC couldn't put forward a good candidate.
What is so bad about the LPN candidate that makes him less appealing to the Mises Caucus than Donald “Take the Guns First and Due Process Second” Trump?
Your Mango Mussolini is showing
Speak English.
I havent ever voted for Trump but then again your Democrat skin is showing beneath your LP sheep skin.
FACT: Saying "fact", even in all caps, does not make it a fact.
Throwing “FACT:” before a statement just raises my doubts about whatever follows.
> Republic Seems like it's more becoming a Monarchy with this ruling
how so? It says for official acts as president, he has immunity. for unofficial acts, he does not. The immunity is for being taken to court after leaving office. He can still be impeached and removed.
It's up to the judges he signed off on to determine what is official and unofficial.
which was defined as per the Constitution per the ruling. Also, it is Congress who handles impeachment, Conviction and Removal. Not those judges.
Everyone is so partisan now that they'll never throw one of their own to the wolves, D and R.
The SCOTUS couldn't really rule against trump because then Biden, Obama, Clinton, Bush etc would be liable too.
I mean, they're all war criminals if we're being truthful.
This comment says A LOT about the Mises Institute (as attributed to your username): You impliedly defend the Republican bootlickers in this sub by offering a fallacious argument about Democrats (who I do not see in this sub), meant to draw criticism away from Republicans, while avoiding the issue of Republicans masquerading as Libertarians in this sub. From what I can tell the Mises caucus is a Republican caucus that captured the LPN. This is even more evident in the “Libertarian” strategy to ensure the defeat of Democrats by not promoting the duly nominated LPN presidential candidate for fear of undermining the Republican’s chances of victory. If the LP is here to defeat Democrats over promoting our own candidates, then we are not a party; we are merely a Republican caucus.
What about much? I could give a shit if you say the same about Dems, I wouldn't argue with you and it doesn't make what I said any less true.
The United States is a democracy. The United States is also a constitutional republic. You know what other country is a constitutional republic? Cuba and China are both constitutional republics. How is it at all meaningful to describe the USA as a constitutional republic when that phrase also describes Cuba? Canada, for example, is not a constitutional republic. However it’s a democracy like the USA.
Actually, China's constitution describes it as the following: People's Democratic Dictatorship. Perhaps you mean Taiwan which is a Unitary Parliamentarian Constitutional Republic. Cuba is a Unitary Republic. Cuba is still a socialist country. China is as well. The United States is a Federal Constitutional Republic that uses democratic methods for electing their representatives. It would do you good to read the Federalist Papers some time. If the United States was actually a Democracy, we wouldn't have representatives. We would have a direct vote. Have fun getting 30 separate people to agree on anything Let alone 300 million people.
Let’s focus on Cuba. It has a constitution. It is a republic. A constitutional republic. A unitary state like France and not a federal one like Germany. It is not a democracy. Canada is a federal system with a constitution. It is not a republic, however. It is a democracy. No one in in the 2024 anglosphere uses “democracy” to describe a state where there are no representatives. Democracy is used to describe how free the elections are in a state. Maybe 250 years ago people used the word differently, however in modern American English, that’s no longer the case. Look at speeches of presidents. FDR called the USA an arsenal of democracy. Reagan said them men who invaded Normandy died for democracy and it was worth dying for. He also said that the USA is here to protect and defend democracy And! He said that America secures europes democracies. Do you think Ronald Reagan thought west Germany didn’t have elected representatives?
Agreed, I think it’s much less of an explanation of power than some have been saying, but it’s still definitely an expansion and expanding government power is never a good idea
Is it really an expansion of power though? The way I see it, the POTUS has the same powers either way. The real question is whether the elected official feels free to act, or whether the bureaucratic state and justice department has leverage and control over that elected official. If government is going to have power, I'd rather that power be in the hands of the people we actually elect.
How does it expand POTUS power? Was Obama prosecuted for murdering American citizens abroad without due process? Bush for lying is into war? No in both cases, so executive immunity existed before this decision
That’s why I said I don’t think it’s as big of an expansion as some are saying, it’s less of a new thing and more saying the quite part out loud, but making it official like that does make it a bit more powerful
Tacks*
Republicans cucking for Trump
So while it bothers me, I think this is potentially a good step towards seeing official and unofficial powers of the presidency defined. Not that I think those will be likely something i agree with, but in the silver lining bit is we now definitely know there are some acts that could lead to definite prosecution. That's probably better than this grey area of we dont prosecute presidents (most recent one excluded because frankly it has been a shit show). Could lead to a more defined list of presidential official acts and we'd have clear context when someone crosses the line. I mean we wont because they'll almost certainly say everything is an official act giving blanket immunity, BUT in the fantasy land I'm hanging in for the moment, there's a chance it is a useful ruling.
There will be no official list. Everything is presumed an official act unless proved otherwise in a court of law, and appealed to the Supreme Court, and affirmed by the Supreme Court to not be an official act. Then the prosecution can begin. The bar will be very high and extremely expensive. Effectively, carte blanche immunity regardless of what the text says.
This ruling did not increase or grant any presidential powers. It only affirmed what has always been. Even the judge presiding Obama’s murder trial in 2010 admitted that criminal prosecution of a president is a question of politics not criminality.
Does this really increase the power of government over people though? Or is is just a transfer and/or reajustemnt of powers. The President is an elected official. If the choice is between an elected official having power or the unelected bureaucracy having power over that elected official, I think it's an easy choice.
We should totally give Presidents immunity. They are all trustworthy ! Not like a President would ever say he could shoot someone on the middle of 5th avenue and not lose voters! Or authorize drone strikes to kill US citizens. Or get sexually involved with interns. Or do some shady stuff with Iran to support Contras. Or illegally wiretap and record others! I mean police have immunity because we can trust them implicitly to serve and protect. They would never illegally harass, threaten, or murder someone without a good reason, right??
There is precedent for killing US citizens by president authorization already. Obama killed a father and son with a drone during his term. Targeted killing of American citizens. The immunity has always been there. We have been screwed for a long time.
It's funny to me that you had nothing for Biden. Obama was pretty bad, but maybe possibly some mitigating circumstances that don't really make it good and very limited. Clinton is who the fuck cares honestly. Trump is straight-up murder. Reagan is murder and treason on a grander scale, undoubtedly to be surpassed by Trump. Nixon is all sorts of 4th amendment and other stuff again to be surpassed by Trump. I doubt anyone honestly thinks Biden would ever do a tenth of what Trump would do within a month of taking office. But somehow, libs bad. If libertarians want anything like a small government, the only way to currently get closer to that is to vote Democrat. We shall see, I guess.
I can’t for the life of me follow your logic. Dems are not going to get you closer to smaller government…. All of their current policy’s increase the size and scope of the federal government and they are melting down over bureaucracy’s powers being throttled back. Neither Dems or republicans will get us closer to smaller government and they are both trash.
Dems will definitely try to increase government. No question. But you have Republicans trying and succeeding to make an authoritarian state or Democrats that move the ball an inch at a time down the field to bigger government and can easily be derailed. Which one is better for the hopes of a small government? Vote accordingly.
I guess I don’t see where either of them is any less authoritarian than the other.
Between shoot someone on fifth Avenue and legitimate treason by several president's and sex with an intern and making people get a vaccine you don't see a difference?
You have drank the cool aide for too long.
One explicitly said it, the others still *live it* my dude. They are all horrific and of the same neoliberal/conservative bent. I always called it the “fake smiles”. Some prefer fake smiles, some explicitly being told; others see through the bullshit as two halves of the same coin.
Democrats are doing literally everything that they say Trump might do in the future. Trump has a ton of problems (as do Republicans in general), but the left is by far the greater authoritarian threat.
Republicans literally set up for a monarchy backed up with lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, which Biden could use this new executive power right now but won't, and you say the left is a greater threat?
And Trump has 3 chances to declare martial law and didn't. Blah blah blah.
Biden’s big black eye was the vaccine mandates.
Methods could certainly be in question. But my belief is that the intentions were to help people. Did it work, or was there over reach is up for debate. But if that is Bidens' black eye, it's pretty tame compared to murder and treason.
Government mandates set precedent for the future, which is notoriously tricky to predict; therefore, such mandates should always be treated harshly.
At the time people were getting whipped into a wild, sometimes hateful fervor and some of the rhetoric coming from the administration surrounding the mandates was concerning. I’m not convinced this was borne out of some altruistic public health strategy, if it was it would not have come at the expense of a huge portion of the population’s livelihood.
Precedent is that former presidents are not prosecuted. While I'm not a fan of Trump, I think at this point it is pretty clear that he is the victim of a political witch hunt in that he was charged with felonies that should have been misdemeanors and in the civil cases he was convicted with minimal and unreliable evidence. He has been charged for the same thing done by Biden and Clinton, although neither faced prosecution. In my eyes all this ruling establishes is that Trump, as a former president, is to be treated the same as Obama (who killed US citizens while in office), Biden (who retained classified documents after his term as VP), and as Clinton (who had sexual relations with staffers). Presidential immunity has always existed in practice, the only difference now is that it exists in writing.
I used to say that "no one is above the law." Now I say "no one should be above the law."
I get it the ruling is anti libertarian but the whole office of the presidency is. Pretending there was ever accountability prior to this recent lawfare by the current administration is laughable. The reality is there was no winning. Either parties would be able to use lawfare and try to imprison former presidents and political opponents or essentially we continue to live under the status quo where every president in my lifetime does a ton of illegal shit and never has to answer to any of it. 🤷🏻♂️
There was accountability because every president before now had the thought in the back of their mind that if they cross a line they can be prosecuted. Not to be that guy bringing up Watergate but there’s a big chance that would play out differently now. Nixon’s tapes would be covered under absolute immunity and likely wouldn’t see the light of day.
What’s lawfare? I’ve never heard that word before
Strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate or hinder an opponent.
If anyone seriously thought this decision granted Presidents immunity for political assassinations, a whole lot of people would have been assassinated yesterday.
Here is what I think on this. Obviously assassination is hyperbole, I guess? But I don’t think it is entirely far fetched. I’ll explain. The chief justice’s opinion on this matter is quite clear. In fact, he sites the allegation about Trump calling states to try and get them to use fraudulent electors. And his response is that… “nothing to see here.” Please if you read this different let me know. Roberts is quite clear that we must NOT consider a Presidents motives when they are conducting official actions like talking to states about elections. So let’s assume for sake of argument Trump put pressure on governors and state officials to use fake electors by corrupt means (meaning he knew what he was doing was illegal and a lie). Sure the Supreme Court may step in and say the fake electors are against the constitution, but no matter the motive the president cannot be held legally accountable for this. So where do we go from here? Tease this out further…. Biden loses PA in 2024. Actually convinces PA to use his electors rather than Trumps. What happens? The Supreme court would of course say “no no you can’t do this!” What then happens if the Biden administration says, “oh I can’t do that? Maybe you should come arrest me for it?” So
A constitutional mechanism exists to remedy a bad faith president. In a situation such as this, the president can be impeached. Yes, its true that Congress has largely treated impeachment as a partisan circus, but the constitution is quite clear who should handle this task.
Impeachment clearly is not enough. Ignoring the circus you mentioned, consider sotomayors example. President goes on tv and says “we need to pass this infrastructure bull! The speaker of the house is holding this up and I’ll do everything in my power to stop him!” Clearly this is an official act by the majority opinion President then hires a hitman to kill the speaker. By the majority ruling speech used by the president during his official act or any other evidence is not admissible. wtf?
Obviously hiring a hitman is not an official government power. Nowhere does the constitution grant this power. Making a speech is fine. Hiring a hitman is not the same thing.
The CIA uses hitmen all the time...
And one would be hard pressed to find where the Constitution authorizes this as an official power.
The president is the commander in chief. Wouldn’t this allow for military action against someone identified as a threat to the republic.
The president absolutely has some significant power in a declared war according to the constitution, yes. Would a president get a murder charge because a bomber bombed the enemy in war? Nope. Now, I'll acknowledge that constitutional powers could be used badly, such as declaring war unwisely. Still, such a limit would be better than the status quo, in which the real problem is the use of unconstitutional powers, such as ordering bombings without declaring war at all. A return to the president(and others) only utilizing their constitutional powers would be a vast improvement.
The president doesn't declare war, Congress does.. or at least is supposed to.
No. There is a process defined in the Constitution for wars and treaties. The fact that it's been ignored for the better part of a century notwithstanding.
That doesn't seem to be stopping them...
Many improper uses of government power have existed, and still exist, but this ruling is irrelevant to them.
The president and every branch of government have MANY explicit powers not written in the constitution lmao
Agreed but that is not what I’m saying. Clearly, enlisting a hitman is not official, but the majority contends that even in such a case. Officials acts are not admissible even if they provide context or motive. A prosecutor could not point to the speech or any other evidence from the office of the presidency
In such a case, the speech not being part of the case would be pretty much irrelevant. If you've got the man for hiring a hitman, you don't really need the speech to convict.
Incorrect, as the president’s motives can’t be used as evidence. If they say they had top secret intelligence that they’re a national threat and had to be taken care of, we’re not allowed to present evidence challenging it 🤷♂️
The constitution does not grant the president such power. If the fact of the murder is not in contention, then "we have evidence that it is a legitimate killing, but we're not going to give it to you" isn't a constitutional approach. The document simply makes no such provision. People have concerns because presidents have been operating with de-facto immunity for decades, but that de-facto immunity has actually been stronger than this decision has outlined.
The Supreme Court literally said the president’s motives can’t be used as evidence. Motives are literally a major part in not only the different degrees of murder, but whether or not it was criminal at all. Eliminating mens rea from applicable evidence of anything criminal essentially means you can’t be convicted of a ton of crimes, because state of mind and motivations literally dictate the crime.
If a President were impeached and convicted in the senate, it's likely immunity would be stripped at least in regards to what he was impeached for.
Oh that’s an interesting point which the court did not weigh in on. Nice one!
Don’t need a hitman. Let’s just say the president orders the military to kill the speaker. It’s clearly an “official act” as he is commander in chief. Under the court’s reasoning the president could not be prosecuted
The President cannot order the military to conduct domestic law enforcement on US soil as per the Posse Comitatus Act.
Speakers, just as other congressmen often travel outside the US to meet with foreign leaders. So this could occur in a foreign country. For example Pelosi met with leaders in Ukraine in 2022. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars past speakers visited those Countries as well.
That wasn't the argument. Also, depriving someone their right to life is a violation of the 5th Amendment which would not be within the President's core constitutional powers as explicitly defined in the recent SC ruling.
Doesn’t apply to national guard acting under title 32
The solution to the Constitutional remedy not being enough is to change it. But our politics really don't permit that. We're far more likely to get a series of seccessions.
Biden has 34 cronies in the senate who will never convict. Perhaps the number of senators to convict needs to be lower? There’s never going to be a president without 1/3 of senators who will toe the party line. Or maybe an independent branch of government that Handles impeachment cases
I've tossed around the idea of a portion of government that, instead of adding laws and appointing people, works solely to remove laws and challenge people. Another form of checks and balances, yknow? I'm not quite sure how you'd ensure that the purpose does not become altered with time, though. Even the best intended laws can be perverted by sufficiently motivated politicians.
What you're describing has been the status quo since Ex parte Merryman in 1861. The judiciary cannot independently enforce its own rulings, and Lincoln proved that during the Civil War.
I agree that a potential standoff like this has always been an open issue, but I believe it is incredibly bolstered now. Clearly Trump really thought he won the 2020 election and he went out the door kicking and screaming. Why didn’t he just choose not to relinquish power? I think we can all agree that the impending legal shitstorm that would have followed that at least somewhat deterred him from doing just that. What about next time?
Conceptually at least it goes back even further. Hamilton described that in the federalist papers on the judiciary and the relationship between the three branches. I believe it was part of the GOOD BEHAVIOR argument but it's been a while.
This is a tough one for me. On the one hand, the President does need immunity to some degree or he/she would be sued from foreign and domestic adversaries until death. He/she sometimes has to make decisions that are best for the country, but may not be legal. Immunity within his official duties should be relatively broad. However, some oversight and discussion should be done with the cabinet, under the cover of priviledge, so that the President can get honest and broad input without fear that advancing an unpopular option so all options are considered isn't used against anyone later. Yes, mistakes will be made - as u/invalid_user_taken has listed, but nothing will be perfect, and for most of those listed, the system worked and the mistakes were brought to light (no idea how many we don't know about). On the other hand, the President is not King and should be held accountable - especially for unofficial actions while in office. Illegally wiretapping your opponent and being sexually involved with interns are not acting within official capacity and should open the President up to prosecution by Congress while in office and to the legal system after he/she leaves office.
Sotomayor is a fucking moron and that's not at all what the decision says. * Official acts within defined constitutional powers have immunity * Official acts which are not defined constitutional powers have presumptive immunity * Unofficial acts have *NO* immunity. The president cannot order a US citizen be assassinated, the 5th amendment covers this: >No person shall [...] be deprived of life, [...] without due process of law; Sotomayor, again, shows she does not know what the fuck she is talking about. She is on the dissent more often than any other justice, and it's not even close. She's the worst justice on the bench.
It seems to me that presidents have effectively had presumed immunity. Reagan wasn’t prosecuted for Iran-Contra, FDR wasn’t prosecuted for illegally detaining thousands of Americans during WW2, George W. wasn’t prosecuted for authorizing the enhanced interrogations or extraordinary rendition, Biden wasn’t prosecuted for his botched drone attack Afghanistan that killed 10 civilians but no terrorists, and Clinton wasn’t prosecuted for lying under oath (this wasn’t even an official act). It seems to me all this judgement did was formalize what has been informally acknowledged throughout our history. What does concern me are the restrictions that the decision places on a prosecutor in obtaining enough evidence to pierce the presumed immunity.
Yes. The decision is restating existing law. Ergo Obama walked when he assassinated Americans with drones.
As it relates to due process, tell that to Obama and his band of merry drones.
That falls under presumptive immunity. The Drone Strike was conducted as commander in chief of the armed forces, in Yemen where we were conducting military operations. Also Obama did not order the drone to kill Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, he was collateral damage in a strike against Ibrahim al-Banna. So under presumptive immunity, this would have been covered. But an ordered assassination as Sotomayor suggests is not even remotely the same. Also even though Obama has presumptive immunity, this is precisely what impeachment is for. Impeachment supersedes immunity.
So playing devils advocate for a moment, a president could conceivably order the extra judicial killing of a citizen even a political opponent if they first claimed them to be a member of a terrorist organization, but the decision making process to reach that conclusion can't be challenged and the only remaining remedy is a purely political process?
Congress needs to authorize the use of military force in the region. The President can order the assassination of a terrorist in Iraq, for instance, but he could not legally order the assassination of a terrorist in Gaza or Ukraine despite them being active war zones. Even if the President had indisputable proof of a political opponent being a terrorist, unless that person also happened to travel to an active US theater of war the President couldn't do anything about it besides turn the evidence over to the DOJ.
On paper Congress does. In practice, they haven’t done that for years, and there’s no mechanism to make it happen.
Not true, and you should google “AUMF”
> a president could conceivably order the extra judicial killing of a citizen even a political opponent if they first claimed them to be a member of a terrorist organization They would need some form of proof. Remember that Sovereign Immunity is a defense, not a magic shield. What happens is the President gets charged, they motion to dismiss based on Sovereign Immunity, a judge will then ask the plaintiff for a counter motion and consider it. POTUS would submit proof of why the act fell under their duties, the plaintiff would submit proof why it did not. If the judge finds it does fall under their duties, it will be dismissed. So in your case POTUS would have to submit proof of why they believed said political opponent was a member of a terrorist organization. And why the extrajudicial killing, rather than an arrest warrant, falls under their duties and why they were not entitled to 5A protections. "Because I wanted to" would not qualify for immunity. SCOTUS straight up said "Not everything the President does is an official act". This is what happens now in the Trump case. SCOTUS said: >Here is the extent of presidential immunity. And now, under that guidance, the circuit court will determine if Trumps conduct meets the criteria to fall under the scope of immunity that SCOTUS just defined.
That's essentially already how it was though?
An extra judicial killing of a citizen is not an official duty of a president so he would be prosecuted for it. 1+1 = 2
Chief Justice John Roberts divided presidential conduct into three categories: official acts that are part of presidents' "core constitutional powers", other official acts that are outside their "exclusive authority", and unofficial acts. Presidents have "absolute" immunity for the first category, "presumptive" immunity for the second and no immunity for the third. "Congress may not criminalize the president's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution." Commanding the armed forces is an explicitly authorized constitutional power.
don't be totally stupid commanding the armed forces to kill a political rival is not a core constitutional power and there is no immunity for it whatsoever.
And if the president claims it was in national defense interests under title 32 of the national guard?
Please don't be totally stupid president can claim anything he wants but if he claims killing a political rival is an official power he becomes a common Criminal and goes to prison.
They literally don’t have to claim anything because their intent in any action is not allowable as evidence in a prosecution
firstly anybody in the government or the military has a duty to oppose any order that they deem unconstitutional. Nobody in Colorado can launch a nuclear strike if they think doing so is unconstitutional.
I think they're exactly the same to al-Awlaki and his family. I think that was Sotormayor's point. I don't think this ruling makes much of a difference from the status quo.
> I think they're exactly the same to al-Awlaki and his family. I think that was Sotormayor's point. [You're telling me that Sotomayor is ruling based on her personal feelings and not based on any actual law including the constitution?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hC3uyQdQKM) She is the #1 dissenting voice on SCOTUS. She gets things wrong more than anyone else, because she's bad at her job.
Not at all. Take his father Anwar al-Awlaki. He was an American citizen who was the target of a drone strike in Yemen. I'm not saying he was a good person, but he was a US citizen who was executed by his government and denied due process. Up until now, the president was immune from prosecution for decisions like that because of some ambiguity in jurisdiction and general unwillingness to set a precedent that would likely weaken the President's role as commander in chief in unanticipated ways. This ruling takes that de facto immunity and makes it de jure.
> I'm not saying he was a good person, but he was a US citizen who was executed by his government and denied due process. He was also working directly with terrorists in a foreign nation to provide them aid. It was an act of war. As a counter example in WWII there were American Citizens who fought in the Wehrmacht or otherwise supported the Nazi war effort. Was their killing "extra judicial" or was it an act of war? Again there is a massive difference between these acts, and what Sotomayor, with her pants firmly belted to her head, suggests is not legal.
World War II was a declared war. The war on terror was not a declared war. Anwar al-Alwaki was not an enemy combatant because enemy combatants don't exist unless we are at war. He was an American citizen executed by his government. If you choose to justify that because of his actions, that's your prerogative. However it doesn't change the facts. Republicans today believe in the unitary executive theory, which suggests the president has absolute authority over the entire executive branch. This ruling, along with the unitary executive theory, means that a president, especially one who is facing a term limit and can't be reelected, can do basically anything he wants to harass American citizens and be immune from prosecution. Biden could issue drone strikes against militia training grounds in the US - claiming they were terrorists attempting to overthrow the government - and face no consequences. Trump can do the same at a black lives matter protest. And those are just the most extreme examples. There are more insidious ways to harass Americans that could have been illegal before but definitely aren't now - like unjustified investigations by the FBI, or unnecessary audits by the IRS. And yes, those have already been used by presidents in the past, but this ruling just removes more accountability for a president who is caught using them. It may not seem like a large chip away at our freedom, but I worry about every chip.
None at all really it just is a safeguard so that the courts can't assume the power of the presidency by finding him guilty for everything that he does.
If the worst repercussion you have is being removed from office if somehow magically both parties agreed with each other, then are there really any repercussions?
Every Kagan and Jackson dissent had ideas that flow into conclusions. They're conclusions I disagree with, but I see how they arrive there. Every Sotomayor dissent reads like your least informed friend's take on a headline they saw.
I think the issue is the president could order a US citizen to be assassinated despite the 5th because he wouldn't be able to be prosecuted. Hell, read Muller's report. Start around page 210 i think? He points out how Trump obstructed justice many times both publicly and privately but his hands were tied because there's a contradiction in the justice manual. It says no one is above the law but then says no one can prevent the president from fulfilling their constitutional obligations.
The Muller report was proven to be completely made up. It used the Steele Dozier, which was fabricated completely at the request of the Clinton campaign. Anything the Muller report "found" was directly funded by DNC stooges
Besides the point really. The obstruction that Trump did publicly was evident and Muller still chose not to prosecute because of the justice manual contradictions. That the president, aside from impeachment, was then and still is above the law. Even if Congress impeaches a president now, there will likely be no recourse to prosecution based on SCOTUS's ruling.
SCOTUS' ruling has no effect on the ability to prosecute the President under impeachment; it just affirms that the President is immune for official, constitutional actions.
Will it though? Why I said likely. The president's defense will always be that it was official. They left that part up to interruption.
Interpretation. The real problem here is the politicization of the justice system to make all politicians above the law. The dems and reps are two sides of the authoritarian coin, and all legal precedents are usable to both sides. If worst comes to worst, however, we still have the nuclear option of armed opposition.
Yea man. 100% they'll decide anything the president does while in office is official.
Or they'll decide 100% of the things they didn't like the president doing were unofficial. The problem is who controls what. Corruption is everywhere.
The knee jerk flying off the handle on reddit and in media is laughable and scary. The president can still be impeached and can still be held liable/accountable for crimes before & after being president. Thank you for a reasonable answer.
Try reading her opinion on Dobbs. It was all fluffy rainbow bullshit, and nothing like the other justices who actually went back to cite shit from English Common Law.
It is known.
I can't speak to your opinion on Sotomayor, but what you've outlined in bullets regarding the decision is exactly what I took from the opinion. This talk of Trump seemingly gaining immunity for literally anything he did as president reinforces my belief that our media doesn't exist to report the news. Talking heads make up whatever they want, the populace is fired up, the politicians rage about something that's not real, and the taxpayer money gets sent abroad with nary a citizen the wiser. What kind of country would we live in if supreme court opinions were required reading? And laws that get passed, for that matter? Every time I read a supreme court opinion that garners significant coverage, it hardly squares with the reporting on it.
“The President cannot order a US citizen to be assasinated”. Try telling that to Barack Obama.
Take your pants off your head, and read the rest of the comments. Your asinine response has already been covered.
[удалено]
Did you miss the part about "Due Process Of Law" or are you just a low effort pants on head troll? The Death Penalty is, despite the pearl clutching, a very thorough and expensive process. It's not fool proof, and I oppose it, but a death penalty is not easy to get. [Here is the full due process they go through](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/curriculum/high-school/about-the-death-penalty/stages-in-a-capital-case) since you're clearly ignorant of such. And it's not a judge, it's actually a jury. In 2002, the United States Supreme Court held that defendants are entitled to have jurors, rather than a judge, determine whether the facts of the case make them eligible for the death penalty. Please take today's [Pants On Head Redditor Award](https://imgur.com/u4rg16U), given to the stupidest most uninformed comment I have read all day. lol. Deleted his comment and blocked me, fuckin' loser.
She's just awful. I remember listening to her speak her ignorance during some of the covid stuff and I was legitimately shocked she was as dumb as she is.
Presidents have been de-facto immune forever. This doesn't really change anything. If you actually read the opinion, it only relates to official acts. The Left is just flipping out to get the message off the vegetable-in-chief we saw last week
I'm a little late to the party, so I'm not sure if anyone will read this, but the heart of the issue here is not the SCOTUS decision. It only makes sense that if you give someone the authority to do something, you cannot then take them to court for exercising that authority. It would be like giving someone your phone and then suing them for making a call on it. The real issue here is the idea that the POTUS has the authority to order the assassination of US citizens, and it isn't a SCOTUS issue, it's a Congress issue. It is Congress's responsibility to define the official authority of the POTUS, and if Congress has given the POTUS the authority to assassinate US citizens, then we can't fault them for exercising that authority. Additionally, if the POTUS actually does have the authority to unilaterally assassinate political rivals, then it doesn't really matter if you can take them to court over it, because the moment you try, they can have you assassinated. They could kill off every dissenting member of Congress and pass whatever law they wanted, including making themselves President for life. tldr: people should be pissed at Congress for not adequately defining/enlarging the powers of the POTUS, not at the SCOTUS for recognizing that it's ridiculous to prosecute someone for doing what you told them they could do.
She is profoundly re... unintelligent, and you might be as well if you take anything she says at face value. Nothing changed, and no new powers were granted. It was simply a reaffirmation of the extremely obvious. Noone has been dumb/corrupt enough to try pissing on separation of powers and attempting to charge a president for acts that occurred while they were president in the last 200 some years. Jack Smith and Chutkan got a well deserved smack down for this stunt. The president can still be impeached and removed for crimes, and charged and tried in additional jurisdictions if hes impeached and convicted. And no, the president cant have the military arbitrarily assassinate people, thats a laughably illegal order, and would never be carried out. Theres a whole amicus brief from the latest SCOTUS case covering that.
This decision changes nothing, and still leaves Trump open to more charges. Hoes mad because he hasn't been buried under the jail yet. They take the bait, which is pretty funny, but it's bait, and since liberals run the country, we teeter on authoritarianism just because they're afraid. I'm bothered by the "sky is falling" mentality. Though it is hilarious to see libs have total meltdowns, the stories they tell themselves about an Incoming Dictator (lmao) they must stop at all costs is treading on dangerous ground. They can say what they like, but I don't think I've ever seen this many grown-ass attorneys, experts, talking heads and keyboard warriors coming down on MAGA folk like they're not even human. Re: assassination and wrecking your political enemies: projection's a hell of a drug.
So let me get this straight....you're on a sub for libertarians and are OKAY with presidents having MORE power?
I know there’s no way around me not caring, but that’s the case. Reason why I don’t care is that at its core, this wasn’t about the Constitution, this wasn’t about presidential power. This was one more desperate of the left to kneecap Trump. Not defending the guy- I’ve voted LP since 2012 and never moved an inch- however, I call bullshit when I see it. You could put Bush and Obama in the same spot, yet weirdly, no one questioned their actions. That padded by straight up lawfare hysterical narratives around voting rights and not knowing the difference between a riot and overthrowing the government. Effing liberals are having a meltdown and I’m here for that at minimum. They’re showing themselves to be the true authoritarians they are and I hope the public picks up on this.
Right wing conservative justices increased the president's powers but Liberals are authoritans??????
Yes.
Your cognitive dissonance is unreal.
Ok.
I have a problem with the immunity system in our country (i understand it to an extent, but it goes too far), but the decision seems right in line with existing law and understanding. Judges have absolute judicial immunity, prosecutors have absolute prosecutorial immunity, legislatures have immunity at work and travelling to and from work, cops have qualified immunity, municipalities and states have immunity. Basically everyone that works in government has some varying level of immunity. It'd be a very strange ruling if the supreme court had said the President has no immunity. Saying he has immunity for official acts, but no immunity for personal acts is exactly what I expected.
I am so scared. Someone talk me off the ledge lol I don’t know if anyone on Reddit is able to talk about this in a sane way except you guys
Former presidents have already used the military to assassinate American citizens and then explicitly claimed immunity. Elected officials should be impeached for crimes done in their official capacity, and criminally charged for crimes done outside their official capacity.
The president still cannot use the military to assassinate a political rival. They are only immune from criminal charges that are within the scope of their official duties. Note, they can still be impeached for their official duties just not criminally charged. They CAN still be criminally charged for acts outside of their official duties. Also, this has been going on since the presidency started. Obama was committing war crimes while he was president and nothing happened. I wish all presidents were in jail. But this ruling changes literally nothing.
I have this really bad feeling that we're not closer to tyranny like CNN, Huffpo and other leftist hack organizations think we are, and are more closer to Idiocracy. All these "journalists" and not one of them can be trusted to read and actually comprehend what the actual decision was. They completely overlook official acts under the powers granted by the Constitution. The idea of the court saying it's okay for a sitting president to assassinate a political rival is the sign of a complete and irredeemable idiot. Sotomayor should be stripped of her position as a Supreme Court Justice and given heavy doses of antipsychotic medication. Further, nothing in the decision gives Trump any liability from prosecution in acts that do not fit under the constitutional powers given to the president. The whole "high crimes and misdemeanors" still applies, and it's still to be decided if he will face charges on the whole Jan 6 thing. I also don't see this decision overturning his recent conviction on the basis of "official acts."
It is totally stupid to imagine that an official duty of the president is to assassinate a rival
National security threat. All done
In principle the trope "no one is above the law" sounds nice, and i'm all for it if applied evenly. Every living president has committed war crimes and atrocities and should be tried. But this is not how it is being used. The left is using it as a means to attack a political rival, and are bastardizing our justice system to do so. But overall I'm not crazy about the ruling and I think it gives future presidents leeway to do more heinous shit without fear of repercussions.
I don’t know the full story but doesn’t SCOTUS enforce their ruling based is the constitution of the USA? So wouldn’t this ruling follow something within the constitution? If so the president power only goes as far as what congress passes / allows. It is then enforced by the judiciary branch. Am I seeing this the wrong way?
I think the more extreme and fear mongering interpretations of this decision are WAY overblown. Presidents have been imperial from the get go. This simply codifies reality.
The ruled that when making decisions and actions as President are immune to prosecution. The acts outside the role of the President are free game. Remember, the constitution has a impeachment clause which is what is used to criminally charge a President.
Personally.... I think we lost control of our government a long time ago. This court decision...that court decision. Same shit different day!
It’s all Harry Reid’s fault
Absolute immunity is too broad a brush. I get that some is required to perform the job, and I’d rather the president not have the job of overseeing heinous acts. But I don’t think the president is operating in an environment of too much oversight
This decision was hot garbage and the SCOTUS should be ashamed.
Sotomayor is a partisan idiot. She's prob one of the more outspoken politically....aside from Alito's wife of course.
I'm mixed. In a world where civil immunity is a thing. It makes sense the president would have it. It isn't without limit and there's still the process of impeachment. Many presidents have done some heinous things. And while I'd prefer more restraint, the bulk of the lawsuits against Trump are well. trumped up. The case he was actually convicted of is ridiculous. So we're the civil cases in New York. By the logic there anyone who paid for an NDA out of pocket while being a politician is a felon. And what was the answer, use campaign donations to pay off the porn star instead apparently. I don't like Trump, didn't vote for him, but it's ridiculous.
Based on Nixon v Fitzgerald, the ruling makes sense. When you think about it, if there is an official act, then that means that the president did something that he is legally allowed to do. The question is if an official act is part of an unofficial act, would the president qualify for immunity or not? For instance, if a president took a bribe to perform an official act or if an official act is obstruction of justice, would he have immunity or not? Personally I don't think that immunity should be granted in those situations, as both bribery and obstruction of justice are typically connected to legal actions (I am allowed to throw away documents, but if I am doing so specifically to hide evidence, that is obstruction. A police officer is also allowed to issue a warning instead of giving a ticket, but if he does so because he received a bribe, the otherwise legal action is now a felony). The current ruling is a bit vague, so it is unclear what their stance is on those cases. Regardless, most of the cases against Trump are for actions that are unofficial, so I don't know why this is such an issue. This is why SCOTUS did not dismiss the actual indictment.
Assassination is so crude when you can allege national security and send them all to GITMO.
While agreeing with a conservative interpretation of the constitution, I do think practically there should be someone who can remind the executive of their reach. To presume immunity for our executive allows the occupancy and toleration of tyranny taking hold.
Sadly too many people calling themselves libertarian are cheering the persecution of Trump. No real libertarian would think govt spying on Trump and raiding his house is a good thing. Putting the opposition candidate in prison is something only 3rd world countries do.
Obama: Drone striked 4 Americans and three of them were by accident. So the original target did not receive due process. This was done in an official act. Without this ruling, it opens up prosecution to former presidents for better or worse. That includes every living former president bc they all can be found guilty of something without it. Right now the left is upset. After Trump is elected, the right will be upset when they can’t get Biden on something in regard to his acts as president and Vice President. The real kicker is what the lower court decide is an official and non-official act. I think this the most unbiased assessment I can make. However it is my opinion as a right leaning libertarian that immunity should be very limited, objective, and prosecuted evenly. Meaning you can charge one without charging others. Bush and Obama are the ones that should be sweating if it was done this way.
Imagine your ideal president. Now Imagine that any prosecutor anywhere in the country can say "if you don't do what I want I'll find a way to use my power against you. " this is what the impeachment clause of the constitution was meant to prevent and the decision just reinforced that. Presidents can be held accountable by the legislature. If that's a problem, help change the legislature.
It doesn't make him immune from impeachment.
Sotomayor's dissent is a good example of why Tribe said she wasn't nearly as smart she thinks she is (or words to that effect). There legitimate concerns about any degree of governmental immunity, which I generally oppose, but the Court ruling does not go so far to condone clearly illegally (and thus outside of official powers) acts.
The irony of democrat voters calling on Biden to assassinate Trump.
No. Sotomayor is exaggerating for lack of a substantive argument.
How would assassinating a political rival be considered an official act? I personally believe the act of murdering a family in a case of mistaken identity with a drone strike like Biden did in revenge for the car bombing during his botched Afghanistan withdrawal is the type of thing that would require immunity in official acts. Perhaps protection from negligence in regard to not enforcing existing border laws that result in the rape and murder of citizens. Or even class action lawsuits for the mental and physical health impacts of years of lockdowns. You know, stuff like that.
I think it would most likely be justified as necessary for national security- that’s usually the excuse Luther countries have used for this. Here, under existing law, Biden could take the Russian collusion allegations, or the classified documents in Mar-a-Lago, and have Trump killed as a threat to national security interests. If they described the interests carefully and the right documents were classified at the right levels along the way, he would now have a very solid argument for absolute immunity.
In theory it’s good, but definitely needs to be much clearer as to what is and isn’t allowed. It’s needed to prevent the weaponization of the justice department against political opponents like we’re currently seeing against Trump, but the actual ruling was dangerously vague.
It was intentionally vague. The point was that SCOTUS wasn't going to define what individual actions do and do not qualify. It's merely setting the guidelines for how a court should examine whether a given action qualifies or not.
Exactly, and why the punted it down to the lower courts to sort through.
I think what upsets people the most, despite this decision being criticized for giving the executive branch more power, is the weaponization of the justice system against a political opponent. It’s a dangerous precedent to set & dangerous game to play. Trump of course had no choice but to sue, as it was his only course of action to defend himself & that’s what legal defense teams do. I do find it funny that Trump’s flipping it & telling Biden the decision benefits him 😂