in practice, not really much of a change. Did FDR stand trial for interning Japanese people? Ok, ok he died too soon. Would he have?
The dissent notes that official acts as a defense is already A Thing. What’s changed is upgrading that to immunity, which means they can’t be tried in the first place, no defense needed. The law is simply held not to apply.
It will take many, many cases to elaborate on what defines an official act and what exactly decides immunity, and in the process we could see a lot of potential what-I’d-say is overreach.
It is far too early to declare that there will be zero side effects from this — as with literally any Supreme Court ruling.
We’ve already seen what qualified immunity gets us, and I’d bet many people didn’t expect it to go that way.
A President, if they act in an "official" capacity, cannot later be charged with a crime for something they did in that official capacity. Not "can offer being an official as a defense", "cannot be charged".
What is an official capacity? Well there's the traditional stuff like vetoes, appointments, and the like, but there's a lot of stuff that is far more nebulous. Does the President act in an official capacity when telling the Vice President what to do with regards to certifying an electoral college result? Well, if that's official, Trump has to be more-or-less let go for what happened on January 6th.
We are now basically saying that it's up to a judge - who may or may not have been appointed by the President in question - to decide whether something was an official act. If it is? Welp, sorry the President's wanton order violated your Constitutional rights, but no trial.
Charge every act of violence ordered in places war is undeclared as war crimes?
If not, the things they have on Trump seem like really small potatoes to zero in on.
You could make a very good case that drone strikes on American citizens in foreign lands that are a part of jihadist groups without due process are unconstitutional. And yet, it happens. According to the standard Roberts puts in place, things that are on the extreme periphery of the duties of the Presidency are exempt from criminal prosecution. Does this mean drone strikes? Almost certainly. The President has an enumerated power to command the armed forces.
I fail to see why throwing all of the living Presidents in prison is a problem, particularly if they receive a day in court before getting thrown in prison. What this ruling does is create a class of American that can do some genuinely awful things and not be subject to legal process at all. There is no process, due or otherwise. The person gets to live their life as before.
Trump's being tried because the things he did weren't small potatoes. Trying to overthrow the electoral process unilaterally is a state fair record-setting potato. It's a far more immediate and widespread risk to American life and liberty than the drone strikes on foreign land that I mentioned earlier. One impacts a few dozen Americans globally at most; the other impacts literally all of them.
This is wrong, and your ability to make an argument suggests you know it is. And the most extreme acts being mentioned as risks are the exact ones where "presumptive" matters.
citationneeded.jpg
> And the most extreme acts being mentioned as risks are the exact ones where "presumptive" matters.
Are they? Can you count on humans to not abuse power? I don't trust the SCOTUS to provide a real counterweight. These are the same people who knew that 12-year-olds would be giving birth with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and did it anyways. The same institution that ignored votes in 2000 and appointed a President. The same institution who had no power to stop Andrew Jackson from committing genocidal acts against the Cherokee. Either ineffective or complicit in severe violations of constitutional rights.
Read the ruling itself.
Roe v Wade was an easy overturn from a legal perspective. Pro choice folks with half a brain knew it stood on nonsense. Obama said in 2007 he wanted to codify it because he knew it was standing on shaky logic.
Hell IIRC at one point all living governors of Illinois were in prison
Your last paragraph is closer to accurate, except a president doesn't just "appoint" a judge. They have to be voted in by the senate. So, if the president is a crook and nominates a crook and the senate is full of crooks and vote yes to have said crook become a judge, then yes really bad stuff can happen. But if the president is a crook and the majority of the senate are crooks, it's already all over.
It is and isn't, which is the problem.
> Your last paragraph is closer to accurate, except a president doesn't just "appoint" a judge. They have to be voted in by the senate. So, if the president is a crook and nominates a crook and the senate is full of crooks and vote yes to have said crook become a judge, then yes really bad stuff can happen. But if the president is a crook and the majority of the senate are crooks, it's already all over.
They more or less do appoint. There's never going to be a judge voted on that doesn't push a President's viewpoint, particularly not in the last thirty years. If a system doesn't take into consideration this particular contingency, it wasn't a very good system, was it?
You are confusing necessary and sufficient.
That’s essentially what happened with Kavanaugh, Amy, and Neil minus the judge being a crook part. Well, Kavanaugh is a rapist so for him the crook part applies. The really bad stuff is happening. You just are not aware of it.
If you think all those things are in place, this really is the least of your worries.