Is anyone else highly concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that the POTUS is immune from criminal liability?
Is anyone else highly concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that the POTUS is immune from criminal liability?
Sorry if this is not the proper community for this question. Please let me know if I should post this question elsewhere.
So like, I'm not trying to be hyperbolic or jump on some conspiracy theory crap, but this seems like very troubling news to me. My entire life, I've been under the impression that no one is technically/officially above the law in the US, especially the president. I thought that was a hard consensus among Americans regardless of party. Now, SCOTUS just made the POTUS immune to criminal liability.
The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences. They also already have the ability to pardon anyone else for federal violations. The POTUS can literally threaten anyone now. They can assassinate anyone. They can order anyone to assassinate anyone, then pardon them. It may even grant complete immunity from state laws because if anyone tries to hold the POTUS accountable, then they can be assassinated too. This is some Putin-level dictator stuff.
I feel like this is unbelievable and acknowledge that I may be wayyy off. Am I misunderstanding something?? Do I need to calm down?
You're viewing a single thread.
A president can't claim immunity. The president has always had immunity for acts that the constitution provides the office.
The president has inferred immunity for powers shared with Congress.
The president enjoys no immunity for acts as a private citizen.
These are important distinctions.
You or I cannot bomb another country. The president can.
You or I cannot kill a maid. The president cannot.
Only acts used with the power of the office are immune. You can't use presidential authority to sexually harass your staff. That's against the law.
The ruling didn't change anything, nor was anything given. SCOTUS doesn't create the law. We don't have a magical genie godking president all of a sudden.
Isn't the point that SCOTUS could decide that killing a maid was within the responsibilities of office.
No. The president could not personally kill their maid.
The maid was cleaning the presidents office. This was clearly presidential. Business. SCOTUS rules not guilty.
Do you believe that scenario is totally impossible?
Yes, because it doesn't fall within the powers granted to the president via the constitution. He cannot sexually harass her. He cannot kill her. He cannot take bribes from her. So on and so forth.
What if SCOTUS decide he can do all those things?
The Constitution bestows the power upon the presidential office onto the president. Not SCOTUS.
SCOTUS decides the limit (if it exists) of that power.
Trails court does. You obviously didn't read the ruling. We have nothing to discuss.
Lower court ruling gets appealed and the decision ends up back with SCOTUS.
You obviously didn't understand the implications of the ruling.