Pt2: had to split in two because of length. See other comment first
_______continued…
my response to this is: if there is immunity, but not for criminal prosecution, what does the immunity apply to?
moving forward, the dissenter discusses the “framework for prosecution of unofficial acts”
Quick on the heels of announcing this astonishingly broad official-acts immunity, the majority assures us that a former President can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts.” Ante, at 15. Of course he can. No one has questioned the ability to prosecute a former President for unofficial acts Even Trump did not claim immunity for such acts and, as the majority acknowledges, such an immunity would be impossible
essentially saying, yes. unofficial immunity would be absurd.
It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” he is taking official action
they are arguing that the statement is too broad. that it would be effectively impossible to distinguish an item from “official” to “unofficial”
so their problem is not that there doesn’t exist a method to prosecute a president for criminal actions, but that the proposed framework is not going to be effective in doing so
to conclude: i’ve read a couple dissenters and i’ve read a couple of the majority. i personally don’t think this ruling is as important as everyone is making it out to be
why?
-
the president already has these powers, except it has been in a gray legal area up until now. it is essentially writing down active policy. the president had presumed immunity for official acts before this
-
it creates a framework to determine whether or not a president is acting in his official capacity. this power gets thrown to the courts.
what this does is it gives the legislative branch a check against the president. i support more checks against the president because i think the executive is too powerful in general
now, i understand the viewpoint that should the courts want to, they could rule everything the president does as “official” and therefore the president is effectively immune should the court politically be aligned with the president.
however, i would repond that is the courts are politically aligned, they would have inevitably ruled in the same manner should this case have come up 10 yearse from now.
this case, while important in the sense that it officially reinforces this precedence, it doesn’t functionally change anything going forward
now that i’ve written out my reasoning, if you disagree with any specific points, feel free. i’m not an expert i’m a layman with a mild interest in constitutional law. i’m more than happy to admit i’m wrong. i’m not a conservative so please believe me i’m not partisanly motivated to see one side or another here. i’m going off of my own independent interpretation
Mjpasta710@midwest.social 4 days ago
Your argument seems to be, they already had this power - now the Supreme Court can stop them. When will that ever happen?
You’re glossing over the fact that they’ve declared entire sections of communication off limits going forward. This is new. This is not same old, same old. The Supreme Court is currently compromised. No-one is going to prosecute a republican president in this environment.
Everything they could do can be construed as official, immune, business after being elected when viewed through the right lens.
If this the president previously had immunity, why was Nixon pardoned?
The Supreme Court was free to interpret this as they saw fit. They’ve demonstrated that they’re not following precedent and are marching to their own beat.
Regarding the clear power grab, Denying the facts that the other changes the court has made will have untold effects on the ability of states that are gerrymandering based on race: npr.org/…/supreme-court-ruling-makes-it-harder-to… It’s ok to insurrection, if you do it right, also while president: www.npr.org/…/supreme-court-jan-6-prosecutions It’s also ok to use your official employees as president to carry out illegal acts and prevent them from testifying: npr.org/…/consider-this-from-npr-draft-07-01-2024
Denying that folks who actually understand the law, like law professors, and Supreme Court Justices. There’s a different between laypersons and experts in some fields. I’m not claiming to be an expert in neurology, law, or other fields. I’m deferring to people who have studied these field and asking for their logic and expertise. You’re responding and relying on your logic.
The court is currently controlled by one party. One person openly claims credit for this, and definitely pushed the balance towards one direction.
Our congress is deadlocked by republicans when it comes to anything related to the former president.
They will not pass anything or see cases against their preferred president making them literally immune in practice.
kava@lemmy.world 3 days ago
If your argument is: the Supreme Court is compromised and will intentionally ignore the constitution and the laws to protect Trump- then what difference does this ruling make?
Why did the courts not hand the election to him? He sued in many courts over the 2020 election drama. Fake votes, rigged election, etc. He lost every court case.
I think people assume the 9 justices are politically motivated but they in general hold a deep respect for the laws and the constitution. Every single decision is documented and you can read their opinions. Everything has legal reasoning, nothing happens just because
For example the Roe v Wade one. I don’t think they should have repealed it for practical purposes- but the ruling legally makes sense. The courts are not legislators. Congress should be the one passing legislation to give right to abortion, not the courts.
Why did Congress not pass anything since 1974? There were many Democratic majorities since 1974.
I wouldn’t have repealed just because of the damage it caused, but I understand the legal argument.
So to summarize: they follow the law. Not necessarily what is best for the country
No, isn’t true. Insider trading? Not official. Is a crime and can be prosecuted.
And note that it is “presumptive immunity” not absolute immunity. Therefore even official actions can be criminally prosecuted on a case by case basis. It’s just that because it’s presumptive, there’s a higher threshold of evidence the state would need to prosecute.
Nixon did not act in an official capacity. He was guilty of obstruction of justice, breaking into office, etc. These things he did not do in an official capacity.
I think a better example would be the Iran Contra affair. I think that’s a very legitimate concern. If I order the CIA to do something - is it official? What if it’s something clearly against the laws and/or against interests of the USA? Here I think there is a valid concern although that doesn’t mean the ruling is the end of democracy like people are making it out to be
He can still be held criminally liable for the insurrection. He will argue he was acting officially, it will go to a lower court, then bubble up to the USSC and they will rule.
I think it’s fairly obvious it was not official
Yeah I think this is wrong and a valid concern. Although keep in mind: they already had this presumptive immunity. The difference is now the law is clearer and there’s a process to remove this immunity whereas before it wasn’t there
You can find just as many legal experts who agree with the majority opinion. It was 6-3 in the Supreme Court.
But again- appeal to authority doesn’t work. You make arguments, like you did in this comment. I respect you more than almost anyone else because you took the time to read and give reasoning
I don’t believe what someone says just because they’re an expert. I listen, but I look at the reasoning. Look up “Nobel disease” . Experts sometimes say some wild things
Yes they are a mess and we’re headed towards fascism. Not because of this ruling though
Mjpasta710@midwest.social 2 days ago
All of this ignores this is not happening in a vacuum. Project 2025, trump, the supreme court selection of limited precedent and ignorance of other precedent…
This is a brick in the pavement of our descent into fascism. Hand waving it away as a wonderful clarification that enabled prosecution of the office is unreasonable.
They already ruled the Constitution and clear discussion in Congress during the original Amendment, invalid when the insurrection clause and States rights were revoked… Colorado ballot decision ftr.
They’ve shown their hand. They’re willing to select evidence, much like your review, that fits the narrative - ignoring any other facts.
It’s already being used to delay adjudication in clear abuses of power.
Law requires a certification from a board to practice. You’re of the opinion that examination that proves ones understanding of the law(bar exam, exhaustive study followed by proving that knowledge)— puts you on equal footing with that majority?
I continue to firmly dissent your assertion regarding the validity of your opinion, you have firmly claimed not to be a bar certified individual.
Being an expert in law here has weight. A majority of them feel this is a power grab. You’re welcome to hold opinions. Spouting endless review to make responses difficult isn’t helping you.
This is akin to you saying you know better how to file legal paperwork or act as a defense attorney because you read about it.
Do you also dospense medical advice?