• Ranvier
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I agree, but 6 of the 9 justices of the supreme court don’t apparently. It’s quite disturbing. Any use of powers delegated to the president in the constitution including thing like use of the military and pardons, is beyond any question according to this ruling.

      • Ranvier
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Read the ruling. They’re quite clear about the absolute immunity for any use of executive powers granted by the constitution. That includes things like being commander in chief of the military, powers of pardon, appointing and firing of officials, and more! I even linked it for you to read. Don’t have to take my word for it. And if you can’t figure out the implications of the ruling read justice Sotomayor’s and justice Jackson’s dissents.

        • Akuden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          5 months ago

          Oh yeah so you’ll believe the minority opinion but not the majority. Gotcha. No wonder you’re confused.

          • Ranvier
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The majority are the ones who said that any use of constitutional presidential powers creates absolute immunity. All the dissenters are doing is pointing out the obvious implications and saying why the majority is wrong to create that immunity more eloquently than I can. You are the one who is confused. Or more likely, just arguing in bad faith. But just in case,

            It’s on the very first page of the majority ruling, here you go:

            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

            Seperately from the absolute immunity, any powers not delegated in the constitution (official acts they call it), have presumptive immunity. Uses of specifically delegated constitutional powers, like the military, have absolute immunity. If its an ability delegated to him in the constitution, the majority ruling says that cannot be questioned. They say neither by themselves or congressional laws. Only use of powers not delegated in the constitution can the court even begin to question if it was an “official act.”

            The majority says something along the lines of “oh this is just a little immunity we didn’t give turmp everything he asked for.” I have no idea why they can write that with a straight face. Besides the fact that giving any criminal immunity to the president is totally antithetical to the founding principles of our country, they in fact have given him everything he asked for. Trump himself was arguing if he was impeached for something then he should be able to be criminally liable still. But now thanks to the supreme court conservative justices, for the vast majority of the scariest things a president can do, like the command the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of officials, he couldn’t be held criminally liable even if he was impeached. It was more than Trump asked for. They may have even managed to torpedo both of his state criminal cases.

            The Supreme Court majority is just so worried that poor president’s will get harassed by prosecutors afterwards? Good! He should be afraid of breaking the law, just like everyone else. And if that can be proven in a court of law, he should go to jail, just like everyone else. The supreme court has now elevated the president above the rule of law and abdicated the responsibilities of the judiciary branch.