Comment on Supreme Court issues decision on Trump immunity case | CNN Politics

Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  @Gradually_Adjusting @wintermute_oregon I think it depends on how this ruling gets applied/interpreted.

  There is a real risk, pointed out by #Sotomayor, that federal procedures could legitimize illegal acts like assassinations. However, one could just as easily presume that such actions would be unconstitutional and therefore fall outside the bounds of ordinary business, and thus do not meet the criteria for "official acts".

  I wish this ruling had a bit more precision.

  source

  • Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Hard not to assume we’ll see the implementation will end up working out in the favour of this court’s political allies. In fact, if it was precise enough that both sides could apply it the same way, I’m sure they’d find that a flaw.

    source
  • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The president needs some immunity to do their job.

    I think you’ll see more precision in future cases. This was more of a blanket ruling since they were trying to ignore immunity given to presidents.

    As they sort through the charges, I suspect they’ll come back to scotus.

    I am not against some immunity but I am against complete immunity.

    source

    • Shadehawk25@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Nearly 250 years as a court try and it’s never been an issue until a criminal became president.

      source

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        There have been multiple Supreme Court cases regarding the scope presidential immunity.

        Mississippi v. Johnson (1867) Spalding v. Vilas (1896) Barr v. Matteo (1959) Chippewa Tribe v. Carlucci (1973) National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon (1974) Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) Clinton v. Jones (1994)

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • jimbolauski@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Exactly it was the lower courts opnion that presidential immunity never applied. SCOTUS simply said there are instances when it does. The lower courts will make determinations on specific instances and if challenged those specific instances can reviewed by SCOTUS.

      source

      • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        A good example is when Obama was killing American citizens in other countries. Should he be charged for that? While I don’t agree with his decision, it is his right as president. Impeachment is how you handle these issues

        source
    • realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      @wintermute_oregon While you're right, my only problem with this is that there's no harm in just providing that precision now.

      While I'm not going through conniptions over this like the #BlueAnon wokeboi crew here, there is a part of me that suspects that this ruling could risk giving the #POTUS too much power in the future. With a ruling so broad, caution, rather than jubilance or terror, seems to be the only reasonable stance to take until we know just what this ruling will do.

      source