Is anyone else highly concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that the POTUS is immune from criminal liability?

Sorry if this is not the proper community for this question. Please let me know if I should post this question elsewhere.

So like, I'm not trying to be hyperbolic or jump on some conspiracy theory crap, but this seems like very troubling news to me. My entire life, I've been under the impression that no one is technically/officially above the law in the US, especially the president. I thought that was a hard consensus among Americans regardless of party. Now, SCOTUS just made the POTUS immune to criminal liability.

The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences. They also already have the ability to pardon anyone else for federal violations. The POTUS can literally threaten anyone now. They can assassinate anyone. They can order anyone to assassinate anyone, then pardon them. It may even grant complete immunity from state laws because if anyone tries to hold the POTUS accountable, then they can be assassinated too. This is some Putin-level dictator stuff.

I feel like this is unbelievable and acknowledge that I may be wayyy off. Am I misunderstanding something?? Do I need to calm down?

wick ,

I haven't seen anyone defend it. Closest to that was someone saying it seems vague in a few places. I think it's a pretty good heuristic that if you can't find anyone to argue the negative, the positive is probably true.

That said I didn't look so hard because I'm not American and got other shit to do. Good luck you crazy bastards.

AstridWipenaugh ,

🎶 it's the end of the world as we know it, and I have crippling anxiety 🎶

HelloHotel , (edited )
@HelloHotel@lemmy.world avatar

You reminded me of Event[0]'s music playing down a distant hallway with a highpass filter because of tinny speakers

Rivalarrival , (edited )

He is only immune from acts that fall within his job description. If you want to criminally charge the president for one of his actions, you will have to convince a judge that the act was outside his job description.

SCOTUS didn't grant his immunity requests. They sent the case back to the trial court and told them "make sure you specify that this action was outside the scope of his official duties before you make your ruling".

That's it. SCOTUS didn't do him any favors.

SwingingTheLamp ,

You just have to convince a judge that the act was outside of his official duties. Oh, and by the way, the evidence that the act was outside of his official duties is not admissible in court.

Oh, and also by the way, if you somehow manage to convince a trial court judge that the act was outside of his official duties, he can appeal the ruling. All the way back to the Supreme Court.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

You just have to convince a judge that the act was outside of his official duties.

Correct. That's all you have to do.

and by the way, the evidence that the act was outside of his official duties is not admissible in court.

Correct. If the judge rules the act was official, it cannot be used as evidence at trial. On the other hand, when the judge rules it is not an official act, it is admissible. So again, you just have to convince the judge it wasn't an official act.

What crime is Trump accused of where the only evidence of criminality is an official act? Answer: none. Not one. If he had stuck only to "official" acts, there would be no cause to charge him.

he can appeal the ruling. All the way back to the Supreme Court.

You are not actually suggesting that an accused criminal should not have access to an appeals process, so that criticism is invalid.

SwingingTheLamp ,

That's a neat little Catch 22 there. You need a ruling that it wasn't an official act to be able to introduce the evidence that it wasn't an official act.

Rivalarrival ,

No catch-22.

"Admissibility" refers to what the jury can hear, not the judge. The judge gets to hear about the act, and rule on it. If he rules it official, the jury never heard about it. If he rules it unofficial, the prosecutor is free to present it as evidence at trial.

Crikeste ,

Since you seem a bit more knowledgeable about the subject, what is stopping this scenario:

Lower courts decide they can’t determine what is/isn’t a presidential act, since standards weren’t outlined in the decision. They send it up the courts, where it lands in front of the Supreme Court. And since they set no standards, can determine them on partisan lines.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

Lower courts decide they can’t determine

That is a nonsensical position. Perhaps a judge determines they are not capable, and recuses themselves or otherwise resigns from the case: the case is reassigned to another judge. But any nitwit can make some sort of decision and support it with some sort of rationale.

The trial court judge cannot "send it up the courts". They render a decision, and one of the litigants - not the judge - petitions the appellate court, arguing that the trial court's rationale was wrong.

And since they set no standards, can determine them on partisan lines.

That is, and always has been, a risk in the judicial system established by our constitution. The checks and balances the legislative and judicial branch have against the court are few and weak.

At best, If SCOTUS engages in such shenanigans, such shenanigans will be engaged against SCOTUS: court packing, etc. Ultimately, though, the only real limit on the court is the willingness of We The People to accept its decisions.

Personally, and this is off on a tangent, I think we are due for a fundamental change to the way we empanel the courts, to reduce the politicization of the court. Instead of fixing the size of the court at 9, I think we should ignore the size of the court entirely, and just appoint one new, life-term justice in the first and third year of each presidential term. Any justice who dies or resigns is not replaced. The courts composition shifts on a slow, but steady pace. It does not stagnate due to justices timing their retirements for when a favorable replacement can be made. Nor does it lurch wildly when a justice gets that timing wrong and dies with the wrong party in the white house.

Further, I would adjust the confirmation process. If the president nominates a candidate who has been previously confirmed to a circuit court, no additional confirmation is required. The president thus has a small pool of qualified candidates he can elevate to the court directly, without needing to involve a hostile Senate.

Crikeste ,

Thank you for the response! 🤙🏼

gamermanh ,

Since you seem a bit more knowledgeable about the subject

Key word is seem, they're talking out their ass. Anyone pretending this isn't a big fucking deal is either an idiot or purposefully lying.

Crikeste ,

I was just trying my best to give them the benefit of the doubt. I’m trying to learn to not assume the worst of people. It’s hard lol

SwingingTheLamp ,

Ah, I stand corrected on that point. The judge may see the evidence to determine whether an act was unofficial, but the evidence may not be introduced at trial to establish motive.

Total tangent here, but re-reading the ruling has got me wondering where in the Constitution the Originalists found this principle.

Rivalarrival ,

Total tangent here, but re-reading the ruling has got me wondering where in the Constitution the Originalists found this principle.

I would say the basic separation of powers. If you can drag the president before the courts for any act taken in office, then the president is not the executive; the court system is.

MolochAlter ,

That's a basic admissibility criteria, you are not allowed to just dump a pile of evidence onto the judge's lap, you have to make a case for each item as to why they're relevant to the case.

That said, the idea that the president acting in an official capacity wouldn't be prosecutable for his behaviour is a scary thought in its own right.

Perrin42 ,
@Perrin42@fedia.io avatar

Beau of the Fifth Column on Youtube:
https://youtu.be/vNzFQ10uSfU
https://youtu.be/0Y-C1fWx37g

"This is now the most important election issue; it has to supersede all of the other ones. The American people now are no longer no longer choosing between two candidates that they really don't like as many of the previous election cycles have been. They're trying to make a determination which one is less likely to become a tyrant."

The only problem I have with this quote is that a large portion of the electorate want the tyrant.

amorangi ,

The same people who want the tyrant are the same crowd that wanted covid. There's too many morons.

HawlSera ,

I was hoping the Anti-Vaxxers would take themselves out by refusing medicine.... Too many of them survived...

popemichael ,
@popemichael@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Can the current president hunt the former president for sport now?

craftyindividual ,
@craftyindividual@lemm.ee avatar

"The most dangerous game"

StinkySocialist ,

Yes I'm terrified! Honestly I'm thinking about moving to Vietnam. One it's socialist and check with my username I'm into that lol. Also like America is the world hegemon if it starts going after everybody or World War 3 breaks out I can't think of a safer place to be the Vietnam.

This may seem dramatic and hopefully it is but I don't think it is. Democrats won't use this power it or actually curtail it and as soon as another republican wins office this country will go full mask off fascist so fast. Honestly the mask might be off now. This frogs been boiled so long she's not sure if she's dead yet.

AngryCommieKender ,

The global south is probably the safest place to be in the event of WWIII. Most of our, Russia's, and China's nukes are targeted at the global north. France will probably hit some of the global south, like Australia, and possibly South Africa, but the latter shouldn't be a target anymore as they disarmed. France will absolutely nuke enemies and allies though, they told us back in the 70s that if anyone nukes anyone else, they are nuking everyone. Honestly Bali or Samoa would be the places to be.

Soggy ,

A lot of those island colony-states aren't self-sufficient and will have massive famines when the trade routes stop.

AngryCommieKender ,

I was trying to avoid nukes.

Soggy ,

I'd rather be nuked than starve to death.

AngryCommieKender ,

I'm hoping fish and kelp survive

Semjaza ,

Vietnam, the country allied with the US against Chinese expansion?

I wouldn't want to be in a South China Sea nation when things get hotter.

feedum_sneedson ,

SCOTUS
POTUS
FLOTUS

jbk ,

Using these instead of just "the Supreme Court" and "the President" seems so weird as someone not from the US

intensely_human ,

No it doesn’t concern me. I have no illusions that the top of society is full of people with unfair power over me. And it’s relieving that the law finally reflects the reality of the situation.

The only thing worse than a nightmare is a nightmare with lipstick on.

HelloHotel ,
@HelloHotel@lemmy.world avatar

Ive allways wondered the point of putting presedents like this into writing, I beleave the reason is to ligitimize it. From "we can do evil but our court trial will look like Trump's trial, and thats a headache and a risk". Now it is "ligitimate" to break the law and a "just action done for the good of our nation".

intensely_human ,

It’s a good question. I suppose it might open the door for more of it, but I don’t really see this as “the moment it became true the POTUS could get away with murder”.

Like, a year or so ago there was a story about finding cocaine in the white house. People were like “Aren’t you shocked?” and my response was “not in the least”.

HelloHotel ,
@HelloHotel@lemmy.world avatar

but I don’t really see this as “the moment it became true the POTUS could get away with murder”.

Yes. Its like riding a bike up a hill vs down one, making it "ligitimate" according to the machenery skips the mandated step of prosicution where the kangaroo court is at least semi-visable and at least faintly accountable to the public.

Illuminostro ,

I'm more worried about them making being homeless illegal, which pretty much guarantees slavery via for-profit prisons.

PsychedSy ,

Every prison is for-profit.

ben_dover ,

how?

PsychedSy ,

Police unions. Less than ten percent of federal prisons are private. Who do you think lobbies more: 10% of prisons or the unions for 90% of federal prison employees?

The public ones still give out contracts for all of the services performed.

ben_dover ,

oh i see, you mean every US prison. couldn't think of a reason why any prison would be for profit this side of the pond

PsychedSy ,

I mean the UK put a dude in prison for four months for having a miniature Master Sword on a street alone thanks to CCTV.

Semjaza ,

UK has outsourced prisons to for profit companies, too.

As a country we spend too much time looking at the US and deciding we want to be more like that. It's infuriating.

ben_dover ,

yes but i seem to be missing the for-profit bit of that arrest

PsychedSy ,

CCTV operators, piggies doing the arrest, entire court system, prison, all the fucking private contractors involved?

duderium2 ,

I ain’t readin’ all that, Free Palestine

atrielienz , (edited )

It is absolutely highly concerning. That said, there's way too many people who haven't read the official ruling who are panicking instead of advocating for people to vote to keep Biden in office and prepare another viable candidate for that office once his second term is up. Because the only way to get these idiots off the SCOTUS is to elect non-conservative presidents who can win. And that only happens if people both vote and lobby for what they want. We need better electoral college regulations. We need ranked voting. We need the people to lobby to further limit the government because obviously this is what happens when we don't.

This ruling, coupled with the whole "Biden is too old, he should step down" BS is exactly the kind of propaganda concoction that will lead to Trump being re-elected in November if we don't do something.

Do I think this is a way for a President to sanction and enact the murder of political rivals? Under certain circumstances, yes. Do I think the average citizen should be worried about the President signing their death warrant? No.

You have to understand that we've had alphabet agencies for a long time and the President literally could use certain pretexts to kill a person if they wanted so long as they did it a specific way. That has not changed just because of this ruling and that's a big factor people should look at. There's a reason former Presidents haven't been prosecuted for drone strikes. Technically they could have been held accountable in a court of law before that. But we've known for a long time that in all actuality the law only works that way if you're poor or if you're going up against someone else who's independently wealthy. That's why Epstein is dead after all. Not because he trafficked young girls. But because his imprisonment put other rich people in danger. Sam Bankmanfried isn't in prison because he stole money. He's in prison because he stole from other rich people. Same with Elizabeth Holmes.

When Trump was in office, I need you to understand that the government (the people who guard national secrets) actually considerered him a threat and limited his ability to do damage by not telling him things. We would have been much worse off if they hadn't.

As a result, the apparatus of the government is not a monolith, just like the apparatus of the military or even just the US as a whole. It's made up of people. And we've limped along this far because we could rely on them not to do certain things. But what Trump was able to get away with by being elected and being in office? This is the fallout of that.

Your statement that the president can "personally" violate any law without criminal liability isn't correct. Here's a direct quote from the ruling "Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

"As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts."

On its face this ruling admits there is a such thing as an unofficial act. The problem is that the SCOTUS should not be allowed to make this decision without checks or balances in place. I.e. if they are making the deduction that a President has immunity, they must cede the determination of such acts that have immunity vs those that don't to another regulatory body. That's the disturbing part to me.

This also makes me question what the point is of the impeachment process specifically because of this passage from the same ruling:

"When the President exercises such author ity, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions."

Technically an impeachment is not a criminal trial. But that passage doesn't specify the scope. So it could be used to argue that impeachment (while not a criminal proceeding) is an examination of the Presidents actions that potentially would not be allowed. And since the impeachment process is a check and balance for the presidential office, that's not okay.

scrubbles ,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

Very well thought out reply, thank you. I'm absolutely alarmed, zero people should be above the law, and I think this puts us on a very dangerous path, but if we all collect our heads we can still keep our current president, and maybe work some stuff out from there.

I'm absolutely annoyed with the Biden talk, like no he isn't my favorite candidate. He's just not openly calling for overthrowing democracy, so that's my choice. I don't worship my leaders, and in a 2 party system I just choose the least worst. He's the least worst.

I keep thinking back to Carlin. He called it in the 90s. "We don't have leaders, we have owners, they own you." Two big things keep me from panic attacks right now. One is that the true owners of the country right now are corporations, and they want stability and you to keep paying, which is oddly comforting in terms of what's going to happen. The second is that it's not over yet, we just need to all go out and vote for the least horrible candidate we have! Huzzah!

atrielienz , (edited )

I'm a bit bothered that people aren't going to the web to read the ruling in full. They're relying heavily on dissenting SCOTUS member's statements and the media. I'm also disheartened at the number of people who don't know their rights, don't understand the government's functions in society, and don't understand that the constitution is meant to be a living document that restricts what the government can do, not what its citizens can. Of course the number of people who don't know what's in the constitution and its amendments is also very high.

It wasn't that terribly long ago that we didn't have presidential term limits. There's absolutely a way forward with further amendments to the constitution which is something we as a people should also lobby for.

Edit: Speak of the devil: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4750735-joe-morelle-amendment-supreme-court-immunity-ruling/

atx_aquarian ,
@atx_aquarian@lemmy.world avatar

This one, including all text from the justices (including dissents) is over a hundred pages. That's doable for many people, though not all, and it should be important enough to prioritize for those who can. But I think this one falls into the category of sticking my head up a bull's ass while most people will just see what the butcher has to say.

atrielienz ,

Reading even the first few pages would be preferable to the fear mongering and panic in my opinion. If you're getting a pared down version from Cornell law, fine. If it's coming from fox news or vox media, I don't think that should be the end of anyone's endeavours to understand what is going on.

scrubbles ,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

The real problem isn't what this does right now, it's how vague and open it is to interpretation. Official acts aren't described anywhere in it, and they're explicitly allowing other courts to decide rather than call out things that are obviously wrong for someone with that much power to do. Rather than cracking the door and opening it when needed, they swung the door wide open, and it will be up to courts to close it later. That vagueness is the terrifying part, who knows what acts will be "justified" later.

atrielienz ,

They aren't though. They say in the document that they are the final word on what is within the scope of official acts. So it's not even a separate regulating body purpose built for that. It's lower courts making a decision and the SCOTUS deciding if it is right and wrong and having the final say.

scrubbles ,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

If you trust the courts, that works fine, but they have proven all year how the court is definitely partisan and corrupt now. The court shouldn't swing in either direction - they should be only beholden to the constitution, and justices who take money are no longer just listening to the constitution

atrielienz ,

Yes. And to be clear I don't think this is a good thing. I'm actually very much against the courts deciding the preview of what is lawful conduct for the president within his duties to the Constitution and what is not.

scrubbles ,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

Yeah I see it as left open so it can swing either way depending on the election, and that worries me. As a kid I was naive, I thought we had the perfect uncorruptable government, and here we are proving even the nine people who are supposed to be the least corrupted people - are some of the most.

SwingingTheLamp ,

Do I think the average citizen should be worried about the President signing their death warrant? No.

That's not what anybody is worried about, but rather that this is the vanguard of a movement whose followers will happily kill us for any number of out-group reasons, take away bodily autonomy, labor rights, civil rights, and regulatory protections, and then, okay, yes, have the President sign our death warrants should we decide to protest all of this.

As one of the candidates has openly advocated and said he'd do.

atrielienz , (edited )

Those things are already happening and will get worse if we don't lobby and vote. This has been the vendetta of the conservative party in this country for several decades. They have been taking small chunks out of every regulatory legislative government branch and agency for literal decades with the intent that eventually they could undermine the government process enough to get what they want.

The reason I said "citizens worried about the President signing their death warrant" is because that's literally what headlines have been saying and I see a lot of those same headlines parotted both on Lemmy in these discussion threads, and in other web forums in relation to the topic of criminal charges being brought against a sitting or former president.

We should have always been worried about our rights. We should have always been lobbying to further limit the government in what it can do against the people. Instead we haven't made a new amendment to the constitution since '92, and we are leery of doing so and keeping it a living document because we fear all the things the other side will do, and they're doing them anyway.

SwingingTheLamp ,

I see what you're saying, and I can wholeheartedly agree that we should have been worrying about our rights for years. I'm not here trying to say that this latest ruling suddenly changes everything, but that it's incrementally worse.

I guess I do have to defend those headlines a little bit. It's not that we worry that the President is going to murder us, personally, but that it's abominable that he could, and not be prosecuted. But, then, I was complaining about that when Obama had al Awlaki killed based on ersatz due process that he made up.

HawlSera ,

I'm trans and I'm legitimately worried the President will try to cure my ADHD by sending me to a camp that specializes in "concentration" if you catch my cold

Mango ,

Nope. Nobody is concerned. Did you know that a new episode of One Piece is coming out this week?

ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ

PythagreousTitties ,

No dude, it's only the most talked about things right now.

Maeve ,

You're not misunderstanding, but calm down, anyway.

grandkaiser ,

Hey so there's some echo-chambery stuff going on in Lemmy right now, so I want to provide some clarification:

  1. The court decision did not create a new law. It provided clarity on laws already in place. Presidential immunity is not a new thing. It's a well established power. See: Clinton v. Jones (1997), United States v. Nixon (1974), United States v. Burr (1807), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

  2. The court decision does not expand on the law either, it clarifies that:

The President has some immunity for official acts to allow them to perform their duties without undue interference. However, this immunity does not cover:

  • Unofficial acts or personal behavior.

  • Criminal acts, (to include assassination).

The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties. It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.

People who are giving opinions based on what they read on Lemmy instead of going and reading the supreme court opinion that is totally online and right here for you to reference are spreading misinformation and fear.

Semjaza , (edited )

Doesn't the ruling say that if the president takes a bribe to give someone an official appointment, that the person was appointed is not admissable as evidence in court?

That's both new, and stupid. But what Roberts wrote in the majority ruling.

Edit: It also states that Trump putting pressure on Pence to change the election results may or may not be an official act, and whether it can be prosecuted is unclear (and whether it can be discussed in law needs an investigation and a ruling, rather than deciding it in a court of law).

Edit II: Romer below said it all far better than me.
https://lemmy.autism.place/comment/224475

grandkaiser ,

This is exactly why i'm asking people to read the ruling that I linked for your convenience It doesn't even talk about bribery. At all. People are just saying things without doing any effort to source/reference/research what they're talking about.

Semjaza , (edited )

You're right, the bribery talk is the logical extrapolation of the ruling that is laid out in the dissenting opinion. (and also in a minor dissent from one of the 6 judges who made the ruling.)

Edit: and unfortunately I live in a place where the US supreme Court website does not allow access so I can't read the conveniently shared link. I have tried to find it online and read as much of it as I can. I would like to read the full thing, maybe you could share the image on a Lemmy instance and link to that? You could do the same with the dissenting opinion, too, for completion's sake.

What I can find from the reports and snippets I can find is that the ruling that Roberts wrote talks about not only immunity for official acts, but not using official acts as evidence for prosecuting a US president. This then becomes the talk of bribery as making an appointment is very much an official act, and where that one conservative justice breaks line with the other five, as she maintains that official acts should be eligible as evidence when prosecuting unofficial acts.

JollyG ,

The court concluded that the POTUS has presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts--those that fall within in the outer perimeter of his duties-- or acts is that are "not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority."

The court goes on to say that if the government wants to prosecute the POTUS for a crime, they have the burden of proving that the prosecution would "pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
Such a ruling seriously hamstrings any effort to hold a criminal POTUS accountable since much of the evidence for criminal conduct is going to involve interactions with government officials.

It is just wrong to say that this ruling does not immunize the POTUS from criminal acts, that is exactly what it does. As it stands now, the president can order parts of the executive branch to engage in criminal behavior, like murdering political rivals or seizing voting machines, and he would be immune from prosecution because his actions (giving an order to executive officers) are "not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority." All he would need to do, as the law stands now, is come up with some argument about how his prosecution for a crime interferes with executive function. An extremely low bar.

Also, this is new law. Most of the cites you give deal with civil immunity, not criminal immunity, this law immunizes the POTUS from crimes.

wanderer ,

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Taken directly from the supreme court ruling.

grandkaiser ,

That's not from the supreme court ruling. That's an opinion piece. It holds no meaning over the ruling. Political fear mongering.

wanderer ,

It is from the link you provided, it was written by a supreme court justice.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf Page 29

PM_Your_Nudes_Please ,

The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties.

But notably, it does shield them from prosecution for crimes which are tangentially related to their official duties. For example, granting a presidential pardon is an official duty. Taking a bribe in exchange for that pardon would be a crime. But now the president is allowed to openly and blatantly take that bribe, because the bribe is tangential to their official duty, and they are therefore shielded from prosecution.

It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.

Many experts disagree with the second half of your sentence, because ordering an assassination could easily be argued to be an official duty; After all, the POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. According to this ruling, ordering it illegally would be protected, because the illegality is tied to the official duty.

grandkaiser ,

But notably, it does shield them from prosecution for crimes which are tangentially related to their official duties. For example, granting a presidential pardon is an official duty. Taking a bribe in exchange for that pardon would be a crime. But now the president is allowed to openly and blatantly take that bribe, because the bribe is tangential to their official duty, and they are therefore shielded from prosecution.

Not at all. While granting a pardon is an official duty, taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon is a criminal act. The decision does not shield the President from prosecution for such criminal conduct. Criminal acts are just as prosecutable as there were prior.

Excerpt from the ruling:

“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. 520 U. S., at 684. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Id., at 694, and n. 19.”

Unofficial conduct includes taking bribes.

Many experts disagree with the second half of your sentence, because ordering an assassination could easily be argued to be an official duty; After all, the POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. According to this ruling, ordering it illegally would be protected, because the illegality is tied to the official duty.

"Many experts" isn't someone I can talk with or argue against. They're just weasel words.

Ordering an assassination is illegal. It violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution (as they deprive persons of "life, liberty, or property" without fair legal procedures and protections). as well as Executive Order 12333 in which assassination is explicitly deemed illegal.

Illuminostro ,

Who decides what is "official," or "unofficial?" Oh, that's right, Federalist Society planted judges.

grandkaiser ,

Who decides what is “official,” or “unofficial?” Oh, that’s right, Federalist Society planted judges.

The distinction between official and unofficial acts is largely guided by precedents set by the Supreme Court. Cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) and Clinton v. Jones (1997) provide frameworks for understanding the scope of presidential immunity and the nature of official duties. It's not just something they drum up out of nowhere. Judicial review and precedent are used for building out what constitutes official duties.

Illuminostro ,

Yeah, it sounds all good when it's on paper and you assume the powers that be will act in good faith. They won't.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • asklemmy@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •