It only impacts the actions of a sitting president. After his term, he has no immunity for subsequent acts.
So the simple answer to that question you were originally replying to is yes? The president can now freely firebomb DNC Headquarters without consequences, whereas he COULD have theoretically faced some kind of consequences before the ruling?
That’s not accurate. For example, the fake elector element of his indictments will likely survive review. They were the actions of a candidate, using his power to rig a state election he does not directly control.
Where motive may not be questioned is for crimes committed via his core constitutional duties. If he has Seal Team 6 assassinate someone, his reasons are no one else’s concern.
Well, yes, subject to all the convoluted categories and limits SCOTUS pulled out of its ass.
But you see, he was simply carrying out his duty under the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” by ensuring that the states weren’t appointing the wrong electors based on millions of illegal votes that were cast, and nobody is allowed to assert in court that his motive was anything other than genuine concern for our electoral integrity.
The legal experts I’ve heard disagree. As shitty as this decision is, and it’s horrible, it’s not “get out of jail free” for any and all acts.
Yeah. Saying that the President is not covered for Unofficial Acts isn’t as reassuring as some make it out to be.
To reiterate, I’m not assured at all by this cluster@#$& of a decision. But experts say by a plain reading that there must be acts deemed unofficial. Even Barrett referenced the fake electors as beyond the pale.
I refer you to Legal Eagle’s video. It is essentially impossible to establish that anything the president does from now on is not an “official act”.
He should get right on the phone to Justice Barrett and set her straight.
She still voted.to give him that immunity regardless of whatever she said in her concurrence.
Her concurrence specifically provides guidance for at least one act that’s self-evidently unofficial. But we’re splitting hairs. It’s a horrible decision that scarcely provides any guidelines where it does at all, and it’s tailor made for abuse and seemingly designed to create confusion.
No, it is up to the Supreme Court.
If her concurrence was the majority opinion, I’d disagree with it, but it wouldn’t be catastrophically bad for our democracy. But her concurrence was not the majority opinion, so all the caveats she made are simply not binding. And Roberts and Co did not make any of those carveouts; the immunity provided in their opinion is much more widespread.
Honestly, I have no idea why she concurred. She could have dissented, with basically the same exact opinion she actually wrote, and at least some of the liberal judges would probably have signed on with her.
Right, and given the partisan nature of the court, the fear is that anything one candidate (trying to stick to FQ here so I won’t name them) does will be rubber stamped, while anything another candidate does will be slapped down.
This decision can certainly be seen as expanding the power of the president (because it means his actions are no longer controllable by legislation passed by congress), but it can also be seen as a power grab by the court.
I don’t know why people keep pointing out to me what the types of opinions are when it had nothing to do with my point, which was in response to a few posts alleging a particular constitutional matter was either settled or not even considered. My point was (is) that there are expert constitutional opinions that disagree, include a number of SCOTUS justices.
“No one thinks that.”
“Sotamayor does.”
“That was the dissent. It has no real legal weight.”
Correct, Sotomayor’s opinion is not binding. It doesn’t try to be; it criticizes the majority’s opinion but if the president did use Seal Team Six to kill political opponents his lawyer couldn’t cite Sotomayor’s opinion in court.
Likewise, ACB’s opinion clarifies her position as it relates to the majority opinion, but is not legally binding.
Thanks so much. I was very confused.
I think they needed to specify some sort of immunity. While it is the case that we had done just fine for almost 240 years without any guidlines, even making it through the Nixon debacle, the rules have changed, or rather the gentleman’s agreement not to undermine the foundations of our Democracy for partisan gain, has been discarded.
The dangers of expanded immunity in such a environment is clear as has been discussed in this thread. But no immunity has its dangers as well, if unscrupulous people in power set their sigtht on the former president. If the supremes said there was no immunity for official acts then I guarantee Biden would be charged with a slew of crimes in state court as soon as he left office. The one that comes to mind is obstruction of justice for ordering Texas to stop its border actions.
Yes its a bullshit charge, but file the suit in a jurisdiction with a single sympathetic judge, and grab a jury of Republican supporting Texans and the charge could stick.
The ideal would be to have some form of, “do what you need to but don’t be corrupt” written into law, but that is difficult. Still, by any measure, what they came up with instead was way off the scales of balance. At the very least the caveats described in Coney Barrett’s dissent seem like a baqre minium of accountability.
Maybe to avoid a visit from Seal Team 6?
Only half joking.