- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,958
SCOTUS: Presidents have Immunity for Official Acts
- Thread starter CaptUSA
- Start date
CCTelander
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 9,173
So, do we start calling presidents Caesar now?
CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,922
So what else is new?
Make no mistake. This isn't about the left's problem with the ruling. This is about how they intend to exploit it in the future.
ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,227
ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,227
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,405
So what else is new?
No, I was asking what else. You know. Something new.
CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,922
Can we add that to the Constitution??
Madison320
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 6,028
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I don't like the idea of immunity but it seems like it might lead to a dictatorship since no one in office would ever want to leave and face prison time.
It hasn't yet. The Supreme court didn't break any new ground here. They just confirmed what has always been.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,405
It certainly indicates that they think we're getting through to our fellow citizens. It's like a glimpse into the real polling, the results of which they don't show us. It smells like they're getting nervous, if they feel the need to make that formal.
It shakes the faith the Chevron decision was trying to give me in this court.
Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
Snowball
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,237
Most people on social media have no idea what they are talking about.
Their comments above are wrong. Civil immunity is not legal immunity.
Any criminal act can be punished if Congress wants it to be punished
because Congress is not a court.
The Potus is still not immune from the law.
His official acts are still under the separation of powers.
Scotus can rule against him in matters that need not be "criminal" also.
Their comments above are wrong. Civil immunity is not legal immunity.
Any criminal act can be punished if Congress wants it to be punished
because Congress is not a court.
The Potus is still not immune from the law.
His official acts are still under the separation of powers.
Scotus can rule against him in matters that need not be "criminal" also.
Last edited:
CCTelander
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 9,173
Upon further reflection, and considering the fact that Trump is very likely to be the next POTUS (according to plan?), “God Emperor” is probably more appropriate.
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
Regarding Presidential Immunity —for the first time in American history— the Supreme Court, solidly relying on a whole bunch of previous cases about related presidential issues, announced a brand-new three-tier immunity test:
Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts. “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under Article Two of the Constitution. Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier.
Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts. The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” In short, if the President acts officially, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that type of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office.
Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums. Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not supposed to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh.
Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts. “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests.
Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all.
As you can see, this three-tier system neither turns Presidents into kings —not Burger King, impotent King Charles, or Solomon— nor places presidents above the law. Certainly not Trump. The decision only resolved a couple of the worst counts in a single Trump case. As for the surviving counts involved in this particular appeal (Judge Chutkan’s case), the Supremes bounced most of the counts back down to her, to apply the new test and then get back to them.
Clueless, low-information Democrats are wailing that the Judges anointed a Presidential King by creating a three-tier test under which —wait for it— Presidents can be prosecuted for crimes. Democrats are acting like this is a revolutionary improvement of the Presidential position. But that, like nearly everything else partisan Democrats say, is a lie.
What was the rule before the Supreme Court issued its decision? Well, before Trump, no president was ever prosecuted for a crime. Not for droning an Iraqi wedding. Not for illegal wars. Not even for jaywalking or running lawn sprinklers on a Tuesday.
Presidential prosecutions never ever happened.
Don’t miss this: before Trump, presidents obviously enjoyed de facto total immunity. The unspoken rule that everyone followed was that nobody can prosecute the President, or even a former President.
During the period the de facto total immunity rule reigned, the Supreme Court never had to address Presidential immunity. There were no cases; that’s how absolute the immunity was. But now that the Court has crafted a de jure (legal) rubric, Presidents who do illegal things can be prosecuted. They can now be prosecuted much more easily, in fact. Just not for nuisance claims, like the creative, trumped-up claims brought against President Trump, such as for notating his check stubs wrong.
Let’s do a little thought experiment. Evidence shows President Obama was involved in the now-discredited Russia Dossier matter, which was used as a false predicate to spy on the Trump campaign for partisan political purposes. Evidence suggests Obama knew the Dossier was fake, purchased by the Clinton campaign. Yesterday’s new 3-tier test provides a clear procedure for prosecuting Obama for those very serious allegations.
In other words, the High Court incinerated de facto Presidential immunity, and replaced it with a clear de jure prosecutorial process. Former and future Presidents susceptible to more serious crimes than Trump’s are now fair game.
The irony! By bringing all these silly, creative claims against President Trump for keeping a few boxes of “classified documents,” and because his bookkeeper wrote the wrong thing on a check stub, the Supreme Court got an unprecedented opportunity to end forever the silent, implicit protection previously enjoyed by every other previous President. That de facto absolute immunity is gone, never to return.
And now it’s open season on serious crimes committed by Presidents.
If President Trump wins the election, this decision provides exactly the right tool his DOJ needs to prosecute the last twenty years of Presidential malfeasance and abuses of authority. It almost seems like Trump planned it this way. In hindsight, it couldn’t have gone any better for Trump in the big picture. When Trump’s DOJ brings its first charges against Biden and Obama, the media cannot wail about it being “unprecedented.” He’ll just be following the law.
Beyond those long-term benefits for President Trump, the decision also placed a massive granite capstone on out-of-control Presidential authority. All future Presidents, Trump included, must now consider potential criminal liability under the new Trump v. US standard. The new rule will make Presidents much more careful when acting outside their Constitutional authority, like when they mandate vaccine shots or something, just as a random example.
So … it’s not even so much that Trump won. The American People won.
More at: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/devastating-tuesday-july-2-2024-c
Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts. “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under Article Two of the Constitution. Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier.
Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts. The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” In short, if the President acts officially, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that type of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office.
Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums. Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not supposed to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh.
Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts. “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests.
Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all.
As you can see, this three-tier system neither turns Presidents into kings —not Burger King, impotent King Charles, or Solomon— nor places presidents above the law. Certainly not Trump. The decision only resolved a couple of the worst counts in a single Trump case. As for the surviving counts involved in this particular appeal (Judge Chutkan’s case), the Supremes bounced most of the counts back down to her, to apply the new test and then get back to them.
Clueless, low-information Democrats are wailing that the Judges anointed a Presidential King by creating a three-tier test under which —wait for it— Presidents can be prosecuted for crimes. Democrats are acting like this is a revolutionary improvement of the Presidential position. But that, like nearly everything else partisan Democrats say, is a lie.
What was the rule before the Supreme Court issued its decision? Well, before Trump, no president was ever prosecuted for a crime. Not for droning an Iraqi wedding. Not for illegal wars. Not even for jaywalking or running lawn sprinklers on a Tuesday.
Presidential prosecutions never ever happened.
Don’t miss this: before Trump, presidents obviously enjoyed de facto total immunity. The unspoken rule that everyone followed was that nobody can prosecute the President, or even a former President.
During the period the de facto total immunity rule reigned, the Supreme Court never had to address Presidential immunity. There were no cases; that’s how absolute the immunity was. But now that the Court has crafted a de jure (legal) rubric, Presidents who do illegal things can be prosecuted. They can now be prosecuted much more easily, in fact. Just not for nuisance claims, like the creative, trumped-up claims brought against President Trump, such as for notating his check stubs wrong.
Let’s do a little thought experiment. Evidence shows President Obama was involved in the now-discredited Russia Dossier matter, which was used as a false predicate to spy on the Trump campaign for partisan political purposes. Evidence suggests Obama knew the Dossier was fake, purchased by the Clinton campaign. Yesterday’s new 3-tier test provides a clear procedure for prosecuting Obama for those very serious allegations.
In other words, the High Court incinerated de facto Presidential immunity, and replaced it with a clear de jure prosecutorial process. Former and future Presidents susceptible to more serious crimes than Trump’s are now fair game.
The irony! By bringing all these silly, creative claims against President Trump for keeping a few boxes of “classified documents,” and because his bookkeeper wrote the wrong thing on a check stub, the Supreme Court got an unprecedented opportunity to end forever the silent, implicit protection previously enjoyed by every other previous President. That de facto absolute immunity is gone, never to return.
And now it’s open season on serious crimes committed by Presidents.
If President Trump wins the election, this decision provides exactly the right tool his DOJ needs to prosecute the last twenty years of Presidential malfeasance and abuses of authority. It almost seems like Trump planned it this way. In hindsight, it couldn’t have gone any better for Trump in the big picture. When Trump’s DOJ brings its first charges against Biden and Obama, the media cannot wail about it being “unprecedented.” He’ll just be following the law.
Beyond those long-term benefits for President Trump, the decision also placed a massive granite capstone on out-of-control Presidential authority. All future Presidents, Trump included, must now consider potential criminal liability under the new Trump v. US standard. The new rule will make Presidents much more careful when acting outside their Constitutional authority, like when they mandate vaccine shots or something, just as a random example.
So … it’s not even so much that Trump won. The American People won.
More at: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/devastating-tuesday-july-2-2024-c
Sonny Tufts
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 2,925
The problem with this is that the majority either assumed a President would never exercise these powers corruptly or if even he did he should get away with it. The classic example is granting pardons in exchange for bribes. Why in the world should a President who engages in this kind of conduct skate?
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,554
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
Bribes and the like are not covered by the immunity, they are specific grounds for impeachment in the Constitution.
Similar threads
