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.
He is only immune from acts that fall within his job description. If you want to criminally charge the president for one of his actions, you will have to convince a judge that the act was outside his job description.
SCOTUS didn't grant his immunity requests. They sent the case back to the trial court and told them "make sure you specify that this action was outside the scope of his official duties before you make your ruling".
That's it. SCOTUS didn't do him any favors.
You just have to convince a judge that the act was outside of his official duties. Oh, and by the way, the evidence that the act was outside of his official duties is not admissible in court.
Oh, and also by the way, if you somehow manage to convince a trial court judge that the act was outside of his official duties, he can appeal the ruling. All the way back to the Supreme Court.
You just have to convince a judge that the act was outside of his official duties.
Correct. That's all you have to do.
and by the way, the evidence that the act was outside of his official duties is not admissible in court.
Correct. If the judge rules the act was official, it cannot be used as evidence at trial. On the other hand, when the judge rules it is not an official act, it is admissible. So again, you just have to convince the judge it wasn't an official act.
What crime is Trump accused of where the only evidence of criminality is an official act? Answer: none. Not one. If he had stuck only to "official" acts, there would be no cause to charge him.
he can appeal the ruling. All the way back to the Supreme Court.
You are not actually suggesting that an accused criminal should not have access to an appeals process, so that criticism is invalid.
That's a neat little Catch 22 there. You need a ruling that it wasn't an official act to be able to introduce the evidence that it wasn't an official act.
No catch-22.
"Admissibility" refers to what the jury can hear, not the judge. The judge gets to hear about the act, and rule on it. If he rules it official, the jury never heard about it. If he rules it unofficial, the prosecutor is free to present it as evidence at trial.
Ah, I stand corrected on that point. The judge may see the evidence to determine whether an act was unofficial, but the evidence may not be introduced at trial to establish motive.
Total tangent here, but re-reading the ruling has got me wondering where in the Constitution the Originalists found this principle.
Total tangent here, but re-reading the ruling has got me wondering where in the Constitution the Originalists found this principle.
I would say the basic separation of powers. If you can drag the president before the courts for any act taken in office, then the president is not the executive; the court system is.
Since you seem a bit more knowledgeable about the subject, what is stopping this scenario:
Lower courts decide they can’t determine what is/isn’t a presidential act, since standards weren’t outlined in the decision. They send it up the courts, where it lands in front of the Supreme Court. And since they set no standards, can determine them on partisan lines.
Since you seem a bit more knowledgeable about the subject
Key word is seem, they're talking out their ass. Anyone pretending this isn't a big fucking deal is either an idiot or purposefully lying.
I was just trying my best to give them the benefit of the doubt. I’m trying to learn to not assume the worst of people. It’s hard lol
Lower courts decide they can’t determine
That is a nonsensical position. Perhaps a judge determines they are not capable, and recuses themselves or otherwise resigns from the case: the case is reassigned to another judge. But any nitwit can make some sort of decision and support it with some sort of rationale.
The trial court judge cannot "send it up the courts". They render a decision, and one of the litigants - not the judge - petitions the appellate court, arguing that the trial court's rationale was wrong.
And since they set no standards, can determine them on partisan lines.
That is, and always has been, a risk in the judicial system established by our constitution. The checks and balances the legislative and judicial branch have against the court are few and weak.
At best, If SCOTUS engages in such shenanigans, such shenanigans will be engaged against SCOTUS: court packing, etc. Ultimately, though, the only real limit on the court is the willingness of We The People to accept its decisions.
Personally, and this is off on a tangent, I think we are due for a fundamental change to the way we empanel the courts, to reduce the politicization of the court. Instead of fixing the size of the court at 9, I think we should ignore the size of the court entirely, and just appoint one new, life-term justice in the first and third year of each presidential term. Any justice who dies or resigns is not replaced. The courts composition shifts on a slow, but steady pace. It does not stagnate due to justices timing their retirements for when a favorable replacement can be made. Nor does it lurch wildly when a justice gets that timing wrong and dies with the wrong party in the white house.
Further, I would adjust the confirmation process. If the president nominates a candidate who has been previously confirmed to a circuit court, no additional confirmation is required. The president thus has a small pool of qualified candidates he can elevate to the court directly, without needing to involve a hostile Senate.
Thank you for the response! 🤙🏼
That's a basic admissibility criteria, you are not allowed to just dump a pile of evidence onto the judge's lap, you have to make a case for each item as to why they're relevant to the case.
That said, the idea that the president acting in an official capacity wouldn't be prosecutable for his behaviour is a scary thought in its own right.