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.
The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences.
This isn't true.
They ruled that the President has criminal immunity for official acts in line with the constitutional rights and duties of the POTUS.
They also ruled that non-official acts, or acts taken in a personal capacity as a private citizen, are not immune to criminal prosecution, and that there's a large gray area in between the two where it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
They left it intentionally vague so cases will make it to the supreme Court so the court can decide based on of the president is on their team or not.
They also said that official acts cover just about everything when using presidential power, and you can't take motive into account when determining if it's an official act or not. Shooting a gun at someone himself. Not official sure. Ordering someone in the military to do it. You can't ask why he did it, and if it was legal, why would immunity matter?
As commander in chief, communicating with the military is definitely a core duty and absolutely immune. So is writing pardons. So you just order the military to crime in your name and pardon them afterward.
Or the CIA. We all know how trigger happy they are after all.
And as I understand it, they SCOTUS get to decide what counts as official. So theoretically, they could decide, for example, that killing a political opponent is official. After all someone who disagrees might effect the smooth running of the government. And so on.
Technically its the lower court but you know they will all be appealed and ultimately the supreme court will decide.
i know this is a dumb question, but why isn't there some kind of law mandating equal amounts of SC Justices from each party? that way, they would HAVE to work together and one side can't take control. i thought this country was sooo proud of our checks and balances, but it seems to me that they aren't working.
The SC judges are supposed to be non-partisan. The idea was that life terms would insulate them from partisan pressures. This has never really been the case. As far back as 1857, the Dred Scott decision was largely viewed as influenced by partisan politics. You can look to the tensions between Roosevelt and the court for more stark evidence of the political nature of the Supreme Court.
Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, which seems unlikely in the near future given the present state of affairs.
thank you for the informative reply. i was unfortunately homeschooled with very white washed Southern Baptist curriculum so i am still learning basics about how our government ACTUALLY works. and the more i learn, the more i hate it here.
it seems so obvious to me that life terms themselves are extremely prone to corruption, especially in a capitalist society. isn't this the whole reason Washington refused a third term? it is very interesting, albeit terrifying, to see the same principal held for certain parts of government, but not for others, with no discernable way to fix it at this point.
I'm happy I could help. My sympathies for having to make up later in life an education you were rightly owed. I'm from the south myself and know more than a few people who experienced the same. Fortunately it's never to late to learn and what better time than an election year?
If you're interested Scott Abernathy's "American Government: Stories of a Nation" is a great and comprehensive overview of the structure and function of the US government. It provides a fairly balanced view and a narrative style that is easier to digest than more textbook-like sources.
Our country is indeed in trouble and while I won't say fixing it will be easy, I urge you not to give in to doomerism. Stay informed, be critical, and most of all, find some way to get involved, if you can, at the local level.
i will look for that to listen to at work. it sounds helpful. I'm definitely not giving in, but it is very scary being queer in America right now. I'm hopeful for the best but preparing for the worst.
It's yet another tactic to delay.