On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.
But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.
Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.
“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.
Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.
I don't know exactly what the limits of his powers are, but at the most extreme couldn't he blockade the homes of the conservative justices, preventing them from fulfilling their duties? If any official act is immune, why not go all the way? I guess it could get him impeached, which probably wouldn't be great for November, but it feels like something has got to give at this point, these rulings have been beyond the pale.
The understanding of what is and isn't an official act is severely lacking. An official act is within the duties of the president. The president can't break the law and claim it was an official duty, lol.
Something about "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". They would be arguing about the detailed interpretation longer than Biden will be around.
That's extremely doubtful, as Trump was never convicted for something that would label him as an enemy of the United States.
Didn't he get 34 counts of election fraud? Election fraud seems threatening to the USA.
Falsifying business records is not election fraud is the eyes of the law.
idk man "upholding democracy and fair representation" seems awfully familiar to what would be considered an "official action" to me, but what do i fucking know.
According to the supreme court they can, as long as breaking the law was an official act.
No, again, you've misunderstood. Breaking the law is not within the duties of the president.
ok so question then, if the immunity act makes the president criminally immune, how does it not constitute breaking the law as a duty of the president? What the fuck is that supposed to mean otherwise?
The best example is first responders. They have immunity doing their duty. They cannot hesitate to perform their duty - such as giving life saving services - if they fear they are unsuccessful and are sued / thrown in prison. If they break the law though on duty it was never their duty to break the law and are therefore not immune. Take CPR. They might perform CPR and injure the person they are working over, or they might not save them. The family of that person cannot sue them, nor can a court convict them if they accidentally make things worse.
Same thing with the president. The president can't break the law and say, "whoops, just doing my official duty". It doesn't work like that.
the president already has immunity as well? Though i believe specifically, it's civil immunity, which tbf is probably most of the cases that would arise.
Regardless it's literally enshrined in the founding papers of america, that the president is not treated any different from a normal civilian. It's a foundational part of our government.
And if you really wanted immunity. Why not provide immunity during their tenure? And not outside of it. We can't justifiably hold our president from the prospects of criminal charges, and we don't (privately), and haven't (entirely) for the past 200 years. And even if they did get charged with something, it's not like you couldn't get a pardon. That's what happened with nixon.
Here's a better question though. Why would the president ever break a law, could you provide a example where it would be obviously beneficial for the president of the US to be immune (across the board) from prosecution? Because in most cases where you would argue for it, it's already explicitly immune due to a separate exclusive immunity, rather than inclusive immunity, as this provides. At best this seems incredibly redundant, and at worst this literally removes an entire segment of checks and balances against the executive, as currently defined, it basically blanket removes a check and balance.
Why not institute some form of decorum for processing and handling criminal charges against the executive that ensure that no duties are "inhibited" without providing a total immunity, except for cases that are not currently defined. It's not like the president doesn't have any legal experts around him.
And while it's true that it's dependent on what's classified as an "official duty" the sole discretion of that is left up to the supreme court. Which removes the independent nature of the congress performing a check and balance. Especially considering the often turbulent nature of the modern supreme court.
The discretion of official duty is left up to the trails court, not the supreme court. It's literally in the ruling.
The president has always had immunity. This changes nothing.
If I order someone to be murdered in another country I can be prosecuted. If the president does it they cannot be prosecuted (if, obviously, it was for the protection of the United States). There is your example. SCOTUS didn't give the president anything. The president already had it. Because SCOTUS doesn't make law.
Have a nice day / night.
Here’s an actual lawyer doing analysis of the dissent from an actual justice. Maybe you should watch it and learn what the decision actually says about official acts
https://youtu.be/MXQ43yyJvgs?si=ZLIXDxQBJjaYEfyS
I read the decision. The dissent is so ludicrous no one takes it seriously. I've seen several discussions of lawyers breaking the decision down. The only part of the dissent that makes sense is Amy Conny Barrett's examples.