There is a real risk, pointed out by #Sotomayor, that federal procedures could legitimize illegal acts like assassinations. However, one could just as easily presume that such actions would be unconstitutional and therefore fall outside the bounds of ordinary business, and thus do not meet the criteria for “official acts”.
Hard not to assume we’ll see the implementation will end up working out in the favour of this court’s political allies. In fact, if it was precise enough that both sides could apply it the same way, I’m sure they’d find that a flaw.
@Gradually_Adjusting Your biases might be coming into play here. There’s not much to indicate that this is the case.
#Trump hasn’t signaled that he wishes to do many actions as #POTUS in the future that would bump up against this, and for all of #Trump’s complaints, #JoeBiden hasn’t done much that would brush up against this either. I’d expect the 2028 administration to be the one that tests this ruling, and who knows if it would be a #GOP or #Democrat admin (though likely the latter)
There have been multiple Supreme Court cases regarding the scope presidential immunity.
Mississippi v. Johnson (1867)
Spalding v. Vilas (1896)
Barr v. Matteo (1959)
Chippewa Tribe v. Carlucci (1973)
National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon (1974)
Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)
Clinton v. Jones (1994)
Exactly it was the lower courts opnion that presidential immunity never applied. SCOTUS simply said there are instances when it does. The lower courts will make determinations on specific instances and if challenged those specific instances can reviewed by SCOTUS.
A good example is when Obama was killing American citizens in other countries. Should he be charged for that? While I don’t agree with his decision, it is his right as president. Impeachment is how you handle these issues
@wintermute_oregon While you’re right, my only problem with this is that there’s no harm in just providing that precision now.
While I’m not going through conniptions over this like the #BlueAnon wokeboi crew here, there is a part of me that suspects that this ruling could risk giving the #POTUS too much power in the future. With a ruling so broad, caution, rather than jubilance or terror, seems to be the only reasonable stance to take until we know just what this ruling will do.
@Gradually_Adjusting @wintermute_oregon I think it depends on how this ruling gets applied/interpreted.
There is a real risk, pointed out by #Sotomayor, that federal procedures could legitimize illegal acts like assassinations. However, one could just as easily presume that such actions would be unconstitutional and therefore fall outside the bounds of ordinary business, and thus do not meet the criteria for “official acts”.
I wish this ruling had a bit more precision.
Hard not to assume we’ll see the implementation will end up working out in the favour of this court’s political allies. In fact, if it was precise enough that both sides could apply it the same way, I’m sure they’d find that a flaw.
@Gradually_Adjusting Your biases might be coming into play here. There’s not much to indicate that this is the case.
#Trump hasn’t signaled that he wishes to do many actions as #POTUS in the future that would bump up against this, and for all of #Trump’s complaints, #JoeBiden hasn’t done much that would brush up against this either. I’d expect the 2028 administration to be the one that tests this ruling, and who knows if it would be a #GOP or #Democrat admin (though likely the latter)
I enjoyed reading your #commenthistory I’m going to go #drink now and be glad I #emigrated byeeee
Wow, people dislike your opinion almost as much as the mods here.
@TruffleStuff True. Can’t say that I care though lol
The president needs some immunity to do their job.
I think you’ll see more precision in future cases. This was more of a blanket ruling since they were trying to ignore immunity given to presidents.
As they sort through the charges, I suspect they’ll come back to scotus.
I am not against some immunity but I am against complete immunity.
Nearly 250 years as a country and it’s never been an issue until a criminal became president.
There have been multiple Supreme Court cases regarding the scope presidential immunity.
Mississippi v. Johnson (1867) Spalding v. Vilas (1896) Barr v. Matteo (1959) Chippewa Tribe v. Carlucci (1973) National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon (1974) Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) Clinton v. Jones (1994)
But the orange man! It’s funny to watch the comments from people who didn’t read or understand the ruling.
Really this is just confirming what has been said previously. It isn’t really ground breaking.
Exactly it was the lower courts opnion that presidential immunity never applied. SCOTUS simply said there are instances when it does. The lower courts will make determinations on specific instances and if challenged those specific instances can reviewed by SCOTUS.
A good example is when Obama was killing American citizens in other countries. Should he be charged for that? While I don’t agree with his decision, it is his right as president. Impeachment is how you handle these issues
@wintermute_oregon While you’re right, my only problem with this is that there’s no harm in just providing that precision now.
While I’m not going through conniptions over this like the #BlueAnon wokeboi crew here, there is a part of me that suspects that this ruling could risk giving the #POTUS too much power in the future. With a ruling so broad, caution, rather than jubilance or terror, seems to be the only reasonable stance to take until we know just what this ruling will do.