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?
Hey so there’s some echo-chambery stuff going on in Lemmy right now, so I want to provide some clarification:
The court decision did not create a new law. It provided clarity on laws already in place. Presidential immunity is not a new thing. It’s a well established power. See: Clinton v. Jones (1997), United States v. Nixon (1974), United States v. Burr (1807), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)
The court decision does not expand on the law either, it clarifies that:
The President has some immunity for official acts to allow them to perform their duties without undue interference. However, this immunity does not cover:
Unofficial acts or personal behavior.
Criminal acts, (to include assassination).
The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties. It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.
People who are giving opinions based on what they read on Lemmy instead of going and reading the supreme court opinion that is totally online and right here for you to reference are spreading misinformation and fear.
Taken directly from the supreme court ruling.
That’s not from the supreme court ruling. That’s an opinion piece. It holds no meaning over the ruling. Political fear mongering.
It is from the link you provided, it was written by a supreme court justice.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf Page 29
The court concluded that the POTUS has presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts–those that fall within in the outer perimeter of his duties-- or acts is that are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”
The court goes on to say that if the government wants to prosecute the POTUS for a crime, they have the burden of proving that the prosecution would "pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Such a ruling seriously hamstrings any effort to hold a criminal POTUS accountable since much of the evidence for criminal conduct is going to involve interactions with government officials.
It is just wrong to say that this ruling does not immunize the POTUS from criminal acts, that is exactly what it does. As it stands now, the president can order parts of the executive branch to engage in criminal behavior, like murdering political rivals or seizing voting machines, and he would be immune from prosecution because his actions (giving an order to executive officers) are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” All he would need to do, as the law stands now, is come up with some argument about how his prosecution for a crime interferes with executive function. An extremely low bar.
Also, this is new law. Most of the cites you give deal with civil immunity, not criminal immunity, this law immunizes the POTUS from crimes.
Doesn’t the ruling say that if the president takes a bribe to give someone an official appointment, that the person was appointed is not admissable as evidence in court?
That’s both new, and stupid. But what Roberts wrote in the majority ruling.
Edit: It also states that Trump putting pressure on Pence to change the election results may or may not be an official act, and whether it can be prosecuted is unclear (and whether it can be discussed in law needs an investigation and a ruling, rather than deciding it in a court of law).
Edit II: Romer below said it all far better than me. https://lemmy.autism.place/comment/224475
This is exactly why i’m asking people to read the ruling that I linked for your convenience It doesn’t even talk about bribery. At all. People are just saying things without doing any effort to source/reference/research what they’re talking about.
You’re right, the bribery talk is the logical extrapolation of the ruling that is laid out in the dissenting opinion. (and also in a minor dissent from one of the 6 judges who made the ruling.)
Edit: and unfortunately I live in a place where the US supreme Court website does not allow access so I can’t read the conveniently shared link. I have tried to find it online and read as much of it as I can. I would like to read the full thing, maybe you could share the image on a Lemmy instance and link to that? You could do the same with the dissenting opinion, too, for completion’s sake.
What I can find from the reports and snippets I can find is that the ruling that Roberts wrote talks about not only immunity for official acts, but not using official acts as evidence for prosecuting a US president. This then becomes the talk of bribery as making an appointment is very much an official act, and where that one conservative justice breaks line with the other five, as she maintains that official acts should be eligible as evidence when prosecuting unofficial acts.
Who decides what is “official,” or “unofficial?” Oh, that’s right, Federalist Society planted judges.
The distinction between official and unofficial acts is largely guided by precedents set by the Supreme Court. Cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) and Clinton v. Jones (1997) provide frameworks for understanding the scope of presidential immunity and the nature of official duties. It’s not just something they drum up out of nowhere. Judicial review and precedent are used for building out what constitutes official duties.
Yeah, it sounds all good when it’s on paper and you assume the powers that be will act in good faith. They won’t.