For reference: Article 48 Wikipedia I’m trying to understand how anyone with any knowledge of the history of dictators could possibly justify granting a president unchecked “official” power so if anyone has any actual theories I am ALL ears.

  • oxjox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    As I understand it, POTUS has absolute immunity for core acts as specifically defined in the constitution. There are other official acts the president may conduct that are not strictly defined. There’s a presumed immunity for these actions but that does not mean they can not be challenged or that a president can not be impeached. And then there are actions a person holding office as president of the US may conduct outside their role as president which are by no means immune from criminal prosecution.

    So, from what I’m reading, this ruling hasn’t really changed very much. It actually seems to me that it holds a president more accountable for their actions as it strengthens the guidelines they must follow as president.

    Now, how congress goes about utilizing these guidelines in a bipartisan matter is 100% always going to be a concern. There’s going to be a lot of back and forth and forth and back to more clearly define what “official acts” are. Because our politics are so toxic now, this is likely going to have a monumental impact on the momentum of the already agonizingly slow to do anything federal government.

    So, it’s up to voters to decide if they want Washington to work for them in a meaningful dinner table manner or perpetually act as a court to hold politicians accountable for their actions. We still, currently, have the choice to move forward or stay stuck in 2020.

    In regard to the Reich Constitution, POTUS has always had most of these rights. In instances of political unrest or natural disaster, the president has power to declare an emergency. Funding still has to be agreed upon by Congress.

    Also, FWIW, SCOTUS very clearly states in the middle of Page 8 “The President is not above the law.”

    The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think the intent of this ruling, and certainly the current interpretation is that anything anywhere in the scope of POTUS responsibilities is now above the law. So Trump can, and is going to argue that his insurrection was within his scope of protecting elections and therefore he has full immunity. He has also filed paperwork trying to have his election interference felony convictions overturned based on yesterday’s ruling. They have made POTUS a king at the discretion of the court, instead of the beholden to the constitution.

      • Icalasari@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        In short, this wouldn’t be a big deal if politicians were acting even half way in good faith. But since Trump, the GoP and Supreme Court have not been acting in good faith at all, making it terrifying as to what they may do

      • oxjox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        In the sense that the Constitution is above the law, yes.

        The president is not obligated with protecting elections so that should not fall within absolute immunity. At best, the president appoints election-related officials and may pressure them to do something about an election, But acting unilaterally is not something a president is supposed to do. (In my opinion)

        Edit: Having now read the syllabus and opinions a couple times, Roberts has stated what I have. It’s up to judicial review to determine if what he’s done is within his core duties or peripheral duties.

        I’m super confident this guy will be found guilty of election interference. When is a much bigger unknown.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          The US Constitution gives the Executive official responsibility for the enforcement of all federal law.

        • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          This is from snippets of Justice Sotomayer’s disent I found here.

          Sotomayor said that the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, invents “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.” Their ruling, she went on, makes three moves that she said “completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability.” Sotomayor said the court creates absolute immunity for the president’s exercise of “core constitutional powers,” creates “expansive immunity for all ‘official acts,’” and “declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him.”

          • oxjox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            the court creates absolute immunity for the president’s exercise of “core constitutional powers

            Right here is where she’s losing me. It’s The Constitution. It is very much The Law above all laws. By definition, these acts, as defined in Article II, are immune from prosecution.

            Roberts was very clear that the charges against Trump need to be reviewed to determine if they’re “core” official acts or “perimeter” official acts. As I interpreted what Roberts said, there’s no way Trump is getting away with everything.

            • adderaline@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              listen. even if we disregard the fact that lots of legal experts, including the peers of the people who put this ruling in place, believe this is an existential threat to democracy, in practice, the ruling puts the authority for determining what is an official act into the hands of the judiciary. the supreme court is the ultimate authority in making these determinations. its a power grab, plain and simple, which grants the president immunity for “official acts”, and places the authority to determine what is and isn’t an “official act” in the hands of the same people who granted him that immunity.

              the fact that Roberts is making vague gestures towards some kind of accountability means less than nothing. considering how Trump is behaving, what he and his crowd seem to believe about the breadth of this decision, we should not assume that a room full of people Trump put into power have any interest in ensuring Trump doesn’t “get away with everything”, and we shouldn’t assume that these people are even nominally interested in telling the truth about their intentions, considering just how much of their personal comfort is guaranteed by the institutions that Trump represents, and how resistant they are to accountability for their extremely well documented lies.

              your personal confidence in Trump’s eventual, eternally forthcoming guilt relies on the trustworthiness of liars and the moral fiber of bigots. good luck with that.

            • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              My understanding is that a President from founding until now has been afforded immunity from civil lawsuits for official duties, but it was never intended to shield a President against criminal prosecution. That is why Nixon stepped down, because he had crossed that line and was going to be criminally charged/prosecuted.

              The court has now taken and re-written the law for Trump, knowing that Biden (or any Dem) President will not abuse this new King power that the Court put themselves in charge of determining what applies and what doesn’t. They have opened Pandora’s box thinking they can control this new power, but if a dictator wants to be a dictator, they will find a way around the Court. This is going to have long term major repercussions for generations.

          • johant@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            “declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him.”

            To me (as a non-US citizen and outside observer) this seems to be the real problem. Seems to present a catch-22 to me. What am I missing?

            • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              You aren’t missing anything. Our Supreme Court is supposed to look at each case and make sure that the law was applied correctly according to the constitution and case law, but has now become an extension of Trump’s legal counsel doing backflips to bend (and inow seems also rewrite) the law to his benefit.

    • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think this makes sense, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I don’t agree with some of the things I’ve seen online about having seal team six assassinate political rivals just because one uses the power of the office does not mean it is an official act of the office. That is where courts would decide which is true. Previously they were making the argument for absolute immunity for everything, the Supreme Court said that isn’t the case.

      I think there is trepidation because there aren’t precedents yet and this is happening in the context of January 6 and the big lie. I don’t think it ends Trump’s trouble, his speaking to the public that day was on the behalf of DJT, not the president. It gets more murky if someone questions not sending the national guard, was that an official act and just a bad call? The hope would be some sort of reasonable president standard is created but really who knows.

      • BmeBenji@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 months ago

        There is absolutely precedent for these exact events. Pick the name of a famous dictator from history out of a hat and they most likely have acquired absolute power through “legal” means.

        • Icalasari@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, so many arguing that this isn’t a big deal are arguing based on good faith actors. The GoP and the majority of the SC are not good faith actors, so it would be easy to twist things and have the SC go, “Well if you squint, turn your head, and cross your eyes, it fits as an official act”

        • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          What legal precedent is there in US courts for deciding if something is official or personal?

      • oxjox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        I appreciate the few level-headed people observing this historic event.

        • stembolts@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s interesting that a “level-headed” comment is one in which bringing up the murder of a US president’s rival is not an unexpected topic.

          If that is the new threshold for level-headed then this world has gone insane.

          • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Bringing it up is not unexpected since that has been some of the online fervor. It isn’t uncommon to talk about what people are saying.

            You’re arguing that the world has gone mad, which is true.

            • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              4 months ago

              The assassination of political rivals by Seal Team 6 is what Trump’s lawyer argued before the Supreme Court. They argued that anything the President orders is an official act, and immunity must apply to it (unless in their bad faith reading of the constitution he was impeached AND convicted by the Senate). But the court also said that if a President is immune, then by this new ruling the Presidents actions cannot be used in court, aka President is above the law without any check in place.

              • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                This is really the key device in the ruling. How are we going to let judges decide if their acts were or were not official if he has presumptive immunity for official acts and they aren’t even allowed to bring the evidence to court?! The ruling prevents the very review they are suggesting should happen in any case where the president argues he was discharging his official duties.