Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.
The whole “official” vs “non official” acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.
Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.
Quoting from Sotomayer’s dissent (pp 29-30, paragraphing my own):
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. Kore-
matsu 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 as-
sassinate a political rival? Immune.
Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Takes a bribe in ex-
change for a pardon?
Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
They go on with an incisive critique of the majority’s reasoning:
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trap-
pings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official
power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one
day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as
bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the
majority’s message today.
That’s not true. Criminal acts are not protected, nor can they be made in an official capacity. Furthermore, the ruling says the court that determines official acts is the trails court. Not the supreme Court. Stop spreading misinformation.
The ruling doesn’t even allow unrelated trials to use evidence that might be from official presidential business. Trump just requested his conviction in NY to be overburdened based on this ruling. So how it would not protect criminal acts when you can see in your own eyes this being used to get away from criminal acts. The other trials are also in jeopardy.
As for the “decision made by trials court” that is insignificant as SCOTUS can override them.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
Oo, nice try turning this around on them. But nah, man, you’re refusing to acknowledge the ruling itself explicitly telling you you’re wrong. You’re not arguing in good faith. Go away.
If official conduct for which the President is immune may
be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges
that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the
“intended effect” of immunity would be defeated.
The highest court didn’t give any president a free pass. If the president is carrying out a function of the constitution there is immunity. For everything else they enjoy no immunity. Like for instance breaking a law.
And the courts bought by Trump and Co. will see to it that every criminal behavior is considered official and constitutional. You are a bit blind if you see this having any positive effect. The president, and anyone else for that matter, should have zero immunity. Immunity only invites abuse. Just look at qualified immunity for a great example of how it is a failed idea.
True, but your defense of it does give the appearance that you at the least do not mind it. You don’t seem to find it problematic, and to others that itself is also problematic. Please feel free to contradict me if I’m wrong, but from what you’ve said so far you really, as I mentioned, do seem to not see the issues or repercussions this will have.
First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don’t want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.
The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.
If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.
This doesn’t mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That’s ridiculous. The ruling even states that.
There is a key difference there I think. That is that one is engaged in saving people that are about to die, the other has power to ruin a large swath of ordinary lives and set orders in place that destroy industries or prop up harmful ones, and remove agencies and regulations that keep people safe. They should be held accountable at all times of their presidency. They should be concerned about what can happen if they make a greviously bad decision. There should be no immunity and they should be held accountable for their actions just as every other person in this country is.
And again, in an ideal world, they would be held accountable by laws. But in this case, if we are talking Trump, he will not be because the highest court in the nation, is corrupt and planted by him as loyalists to him, and will give him a free pass and now will say it was because he had immunity. I and ideal world we wouldn’t have to have this conversation, but we are not talking about an ideal world.
Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.
The whole “official” vs “non official” acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.
Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Quoting from Sotomayer’s dissent (pp 29-30, paragraphing my own):
They go on with an incisive critique of the majority’s reasoning:
Sotomayor is behind the times.
They’re not “bribes” anymore, they’re “donations” now.
That’s not true. Criminal acts are not protected, nor can they be made in an official capacity. Furthermore, the ruling says the court that determines official acts is the trails court. Not the supreme Court. Stop spreading misinformation.
The ruling doesn’t even allow unrelated trials to use evidence that might be from official presidential business. Trump just requested his conviction in NY to be overburdened based on this ruling. So how it would not protect criminal acts when you can see in your own eyes this being used to get away from criminal acts. The other trials are also in jeopardy.
As for the “decision made by trials court” that is insignificant as SCOTUS can override them.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
“When the president does it, it is not illegal”
This has been a long time coming and the presumption is that he is allowed to until that is somehow challenged.
Again, incorrect. Stop reading headlines and making decisions. Read the ruling. You are spreading misinformation.
Oo, nice try turning this around on them. But nah, man, you’re refusing to acknowledge the ruling itself explicitly telling you you’re wrong. You’re not arguing in good faith. Go away.
Direct from the decision (page 31):
What’s a criminal act when your highest court gives you a free pass? Laws mean nothing if they are not enforced.
The highest court didn’t give any president a free pass. If the president is carrying out a function of the constitution there is immunity. For everything else they enjoy no immunity. Like for instance breaking a law.
And the courts bought by Trump and Co. will see to it that every criminal behavior is considered official and constitutional. You are a bit blind if you see this having any positive effect. The president, and anyone else for that matter, should have zero immunity. Immunity only invites abuse. Just look at qualified immunity for a great example of how it is a failed idea.
Never once have I said I’m for this.
True, but your defense of it does give the appearance that you at the least do not mind it. You don’t seem to find it problematic, and to others that itself is also problematic. Please feel free to contradict me if I’m wrong, but from what you’ve said so far you really, as I mentioned, do seem to not see the issues or repercussions this will have.
First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don’t want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.
The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.
If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.
This doesn’t mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That’s ridiculous. The ruling even states that.
There is a key difference there I think. That is that one is engaged in saving people that are about to die, the other has power to ruin a large swath of ordinary lives and set orders in place that destroy industries or prop up harmful ones, and remove agencies and regulations that keep people safe. They should be held accountable at all times of their presidency. They should be concerned about what can happen if they make a greviously bad decision. There should be no immunity and they should be held accountable for their actions just as every other person in this country is.
And again, in an ideal world, they would be held accountable by laws. But in this case, if we are talking Trump, he will not be because the highest court in the nation, is corrupt and planted by him as loyalists to him, and will give him a free pass and now will say it was because he had immunity. I and ideal world we wouldn’t have to have this conversation, but we are not talking about an ideal world.
Please tell me what capacity any court has to enforce a ruling against a sitting President. I’ll wait.
As that bastard Andrew Jackson once (allegedly) said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”