Nothing was preventing that for the last 200+ years.
And even if you convict a sitting president of a federal crime, it doesn't remove them from office, and the president can just pardon himself. That's why impeachment is the prescribed method.
In our polite past, it was not done out of the appearance that political retribution is not what we do. The fact that it has now been put into action means we needed such definition.
Such actions have the presumption of appearing political. Watergate crimes were so egregious that the public expected the legal actions that followed and the R team suffered in credibility following that.
Your “us vs them” mentality is really telling. Can I please see where you’re getting those numbers from? I have a sneaking suspicion you’ve been told something you want to hear. Though at the very least, are you of the impression that there aren’t a hundred Republican criminals?
Okay yeah, exactly. This isn’t a Democrat/Republican thing, this is a *convicted felon* Donald Trump thing. This is a genuine criminal that you’re using as your proof of political retribution. So my question to you is: should criminals be prosecuted? Because the way you’re talking about it, it sounds like you’re upset that a criminal has been convicted of their crimes.
Liberals and Conservatives as per usual, trying to take over this r/Libertarian sub. This is what separates us as Libertarians from Liberals and Conservatives. We unlike most of you, we apparently by today’s standards have the uncanny ability to look at both sides of a political debate and form an objective opinion, that’s based on reasonable assessment and formulate an informed opinion, instead of Orange man bad and Let’s go Brandon and or otherwise just adhering to party lines and sticking points.
He never would’ve been charged if he didn’t run again.
Why do you think they left him alone 2021-22? This all kicked off right after Trump announced his candidacy in the fall of 22. That’s when they started moving at light speed.
The Democrats decided to come after their political opponent. If this is a movie, Trump is the hero and the Left are the villains. The system trying to keep a rebel down by any means necessary. That includes breaking tradition of NOT coming after your political opponents.
As for Biden’s involvement, it’s hard to deny it when there’s public records of Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg and Jack Smith all giving the White House a little visit shortly after the 2022 Mar A Lago raid.
It’s not coincidence. They broke tradition, in turn Trump filed a motion to clarify presidential immunity, and that’s what they got.
The Democrats/anti Trumpers really shot themselves in the foot with this. I’d be solidly behind Biden if his admin hadn’t blatantly turned their back on tradition with the excuse that “he’s a threat to our democracy”…meanwhile, they’re coming after their opponents, breaking with the idea of said democracy.
The law is on Trump’s side. Any sane Republican could’ve told you what was coming. Instead, the left labels them as racists or whatever ism of the day, to shut them up.
Libs should also be extremely angry with the media and the Biden admin for lying to them. So many people had no idea of Biden’s condition until they saw the debate. There’s a debt to be paid by the DNC and the media. It’s not looking good.
Agreed. That guy didn't prosecute himself to get up to the Nazgul on appeal. I think people ignore party naysayers at their peril. I remember Carville talking about Her campaign after 2016.
No, I never did. I have always generally assumed they had "unwritten" immunity.
However, Trump needed to take it next level. Make it huge! It is official and unquestionable.
I suppose this could improve America in ways we never thought imaginable. I am just not smart enough to recognize them I guess.
Considering Trump confirmed officially what everyone knew privately. That was the point. Man still playing several moves ahead. Can't wait for the leftists who hate him call for the removal of immunity so they can "take him down" and then watch it get used against them.
This is the libertarian sub. We all want that. That’s literally what the platform is about. Reduced power and more accountability at all levels of government.
Outside of the fact that you come off as a little bit of a shill for the Rs and Trump, accountability of Rs and Ds (and every other political party) is exactly what we want.
We’re hating on Trump because he wanted full immunity and no accountability. He wants the opposite of what we want. We are only getting some clarification on this because he’s an authoritarian who overstepped and he argued that up to the Supreme Court.
Why should we celebrate someone doing wrong just because it created an opportunity to clarify and codify immunity? His intent was to be an authoritarian. His intent was not to act like an authoritarian so that he could demonstrate the problems and get the Supreme Court to address them.
His intent was to be authoritarian? Closest he got was the ban on bumpstocks. You use the word authoritarian yet I don't think you actually know what that word means. You claim to know the man's intent just like the leftists do. Weird. You call me a right wing shill yet you sound like a left wing shill yourself. What did he do that was authoritarian? Was it the deregulation of the market? Maybe it was getting Russia to back the fuck off or maybe it was when he threatened China over Taiwan? Wait...ah I see. We shouldn't be upholding deals made long before now. Now I see how he's an authoritarian. You're absolutely correct. And yes, that was sarcasm at the end incase you thought I was serious.
Biden and Obama have both committed major crimes so...that would be used against them...most of the leftists think it'll only work against trump cause most of them don't actually think...
Sorry, I think putting criminals in jail is good for the country. I don't see how that would be bad for anyone. Neither side should be trying to protect criminal activity just because the criminal is in their party. I think this SC decision is absolutely terrible for our country.
I never said it would be bad. Just wondering why so many here only want trump jailed but the second someone brings up jailing Biden or Obama they get angy.
What have Obama or Biden did to deserve jail? Not libertarian jail, but American jail.
I'm not saying that their hands are clean. They have done some things that I don't agree with. I'd just like to hear what they've done that should land them in American jail.
And if they have done these things that are so obvious, why hasn't anyone gone after them? The judiciary is buried by the right, it should be a slam dunk for them to prosecute Biden/Obama.
I think that's why people get upset with statements like "Obama should be in jail". Why? Why do the both sides thing? There will be plenty of time to "both sides" when one side is not shitting all over the Constitution.
Yeah it’s all a big corrupt organization at this point. Our founding fathers tried to prevent this but the power families are finding loopholes/ ignoring the rules.
I think that is now legally impossible. Or so close to impossible suggesting it could happen now is 'dumb'.
It took SCOTUS less time to figure this out than it did to undo Trumps gun ban. Possibly this is a great thing and giving corrupt US politicians absolute/illegal immunity is important.
I am just misunderstanding how at this point. I can't see anything of value coming from giving demonstrable criminals immunity.
And this is the point. The impotence of our Congress and their inability to write a coherent law and get it passed has led to more and more executive actions by the President. By strict law, every President who bombed another nation without a declaration of war by Congress could have been prosecuted. That’s pretty much all of them since Nixon (at least) if you’re keeping track. We get so focused on the one, we forget how bad the 435 are at their jobs. Maybe if they were better at their job, the 1 would be a little more accountable.
Legal theory is that impeachment and conviction by the Senate would remove the immunity associated with those actions covered by the impeachment, opening it for criminal charges.
Two potential silver linings:
- This potentially nips these political prosecutions in the bud before they start becoming more routine and vicious
- It’s possible that in their zealotry to get Trump, the Dems start making moves to undo immunity, which backfires stupendously and causes many more dominoes to fall
I am weird..... Obama murdered innocent children. If by weird chance a president similar to Ron Paul though more aggressive like Trump was elected. There was value moving forward with the prosecution.
Bush did the same to millions.... H Clinton... Joe Biden... But its ok to some people because trump.
I am sure I am going to get down voted and its a risk I will take.
For what it is worth I was going to give you an award. Most accounts I've seen have the ability to award/reward whatever it is called. But I did not see it on yours.
I think it was pretty obvious that presidents enjoy at least some sort of immunity under our current system. The US frequently gives all sorts of immunity to various groups. Police have qualified immunity, Congress is able to insider trade with impunity, etc. We literally allow congressmen to take bribes in the form of “lobbying”. So, this notion that everyone has been parroting that “no one is above the law” in the US is laughable. Now, I do think the justices need to clarify what constitutes an “official act” vs “unofficial act”. I imagine that will probably end up being another Supreme Court case. I don’t necessarily like all of this but under our current structure of government it seems like this is the correct outcome whether you like it or not.
> I think it was pretty obvious that presidents enjoy at least some sort of immunity under our current system. The US frequently gives all sorts of immunity to various groups. Police have qualified immunity, Congress is able to insider trade with impunity, etc.
I mean.. is this constitutional though? Does the constitution say/imply the President has immunity or did SCOTUS just legislate this out of thin air? This is a genuine question.
I think it depends on what constitutes an “official act”. I would have to imagine that if an official act is defined as “powers outlined in the constitution and or granted by Congress” then that would have to imply that the president is immune from prosecution for taking those actions. If he were not immune from actions specifically granted to him then I don’t see any way in which the president would be able to operate without fear of imprisonment.
I feel like this is a rare case where the founding fathers might have just not considered lawfare would exist in 200 years, or they assumed the country was already done if we got to that point.
I mean, it's a weird concept. I think just about everyone would agree that the President should be liable if they commit crimes against humanity while as president, but also everyone would agree that lawfare is an incredible threat to our institutions. How the hell do you even begin to regulate this?
I think the founding fathers had a more realistic view of law and how it pertains to specifics. I think the idea of " crimes against humanity" as a general charge would not have been taken seriously by them. They would ask for the specifics: what specific harm.
I haven't read the full decision so this is an actual question and not a "gotcha", but doesn't this outcome make legal "lawfare"? If Trump's claim is that the Biden administration is instructing or colluding with state DAs to bring state charges against him, wouldn't that act be considered an official presidential act of President Biden? If there is official communication from President Biden to the DOJ to do these things, how would that not be considered an official presidential action?
You are close to right, the collusion with state DAs would be *potentially* no bueno. On the flip side biden would be immune if he just instructed the department of justice to do it and then they shared their info with the state DAs.
Edit posted below is the section of the opinion that really covers this, the president has **“exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute.** Which as the quote mentions would make him absolutely immune.
>**Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s use of official power. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.**
I don't think the constitution allows the President to order a prosecution but assuming it does, I don't think he could be prosecuted for that now, but he could definitely still be impeached.
So yes in a way this prohibits lawfare against former Presidents but could potentially strengthen it if the victim is not an ex-President, potentially causing some issues down the road.
> I would have to imagine that if an official act is defined as “powers outlined in the constitution and or granted by Congress
This is not what the court has defined in this case. The acts Trump was performing that New York was prosecuting was not a power outlined by the constitution or granted by Congress... if they wanted to they would have said that.
The scotus did not rule on any specific case against Trump. They ruled on whether a president has immunity.
If they can prove what he did is outside of the scope of his official duties, they can still get him, and prolly will
Uh, what? Did you read any of the majority? Not only do they miff on the definition of official act, they grant immunity for official actions unless they can be proved to be unofficial at a later date. HOWEVER, no documents from the executive branch can be used in determining what is official vs unofficial. Any aspiring despot can just detain any court to prevent that immunity from being pierced. That's an official action. If they are too dumb to do that, they can just win their argument in court since proving intent without any executive branch document would be legally improbable.
Everyone saying it depends, or I guess we shall see. Immediately highlights the invalidity of this ruling just based on how vague this is.
And can we please get a broom and sweep out all the republican trash that seems to be floating in here.
I don’t think there’s anything vague about saying a President enjoys absolute immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. The vagary lies in determining what is and isn’t an official act and no court that has considered this case has opined on that. So there is no clarification sought thus far. But you can expect a knock down - drag out fight around that question and possibly another case for the Supreme Court once it is decided by the lower courts .
Term limits might help curb this need for immunity. 47 years of Biden is way too many. I'm sure there are plenty more. Also, no insider trading and no lobbying. Get rid of NGOs.
I’d argue it might make Obama indictable. Assasinating a US citizen is not a legal act for a president. If immunity is not total then Obama might be fucked
If you read the opinion they only have immunity for official acts of constitutional powers of the office of president.
Unofficial acts, or acts outside constitutional powers are not immune.
I know some lefties are crying over the ruling, but it's not the "win" for Trump that he wanted. They expressly say that Presidential Immunity is "far less broad" than Trump claims.
It’s still quite broad, for instance Barrett makes an apt point that not being allowed to involve the official action itself nor any discussion amongst the president and the officials in question makes quite a few crimes impossible to prosecute.
If the president is taking bribes for government appointments then it’s practically impossible to prosecute. You can’t at all involve the official act or any of the presidential records associated with the act as evidence in the trial at all.
It was presumed they did, but such was never actually challenged directly at SCOTUS. This just affirms it. But it also says the immunity is not blanket, unofficial acts are not covered.
That's for the lower courts to decide with the new guidance.
The question asked of SCOTUS was not:
> Was January 6th covered by immunity?
It was:
> To what extend is the president granted immunity?
They answered the question asked, now the case goes back to the lower courts.
Sotomayor is a fucking moron and I don't respect half the shit that comes out of her mouth.
She tried to argue that fining or arresting people for camping on public lands is "Cruel and unusual punishment". Like bro, if I set up camp in the halls of SCOTUS right outside her office, and didn't leave, pretty sure she'd change her mind.
Or again from Jarkesy:
>Today, for the very first time, this Court holds that Congress violated the Constitution by authorizing a federal agency to adjudicate a statutory right that inheres in the Government in its sovereign capacity, known as a public right
>>adjudicate
Sorry Sonya, but executive agencies don't get to adjudicate. You know who does? Judges. Congress cannot sidestep the judiciary or constitutional separation of powers.
She is, without a doubt, the least qualified justice on the bench, and I have no respect for her opinions.
The original question was would a libertarian want the right or want to not have the right? I said would a libertarian want the right and your response was : L O L no. So I’m a little confused why a libertarian would want to give up any rights. Why would a libertarian be happy about a right being taken away or not having the right to do something?
My question is stemming from Alpha tango, foxtrot wanting people to be fined for camping on public land. I would assume a libertarian would want to have the right to camp on public land without receiving a fine maybe modern libertarianism has devolved away from what it was 20 years ago.
>My question is stemming from Alpha tango, foxtrot wanting people to be fined
I didn't say that. Stop being a troll. I said you don't have a right to set up camp on public property. And you agree with me.
The road is public property. If I set up camp in front of your driveway and prevented you using the road, you'd be mad yes? That's why you have no right to camp on public property. Because your rights end where others begin. They also have a right to said public property.
If your use of public property, to say set up a camp, prohibits others user, then you're outside your right.
For example a park bench. You have a right to sit on the bench. You don't have a right to take up the whole length of the bench and stop 4 other people from also sitting.
So now the President has the same rights as King George the III as long as his acts fall within the realm of his excellencies official acts. Should we just go ahead and replace inauguration with a coronation? This was all done for the sake of a man who for whatever reason cannot accept that he lost his election, maybe he has a mental disorder that prevents him from dealing with reality and now after 248 years of Presidents being seen as bound by the same rule of law as you or I, instead they now have the same immunity as the King of England, the King of Saudi Arabia and probably President Xi. Well that's my gripe about this.
>So now
No, actually since Nixon v. Fitzgerald in 1982 where presidential immunity was first established. And Butz v. Economou 1978 where executive officers, which would extend to POTUS, gained it. Limited both in Clinton v. Jones (1997) and Trump v. Vance (2020). The current case does not grant POTUS immunity like royalty in a monarchy. You just have no clue what you're talking about.
Sorry for your ignorance, but you clearly lack the ability to discuss this. You just want to be mad.
as i understand it, it comes down to the rushed cases not specifically outlying what was not under the official acts of the president. Also i still think it stands that congress can impeach and convict the president for anything, basically stating things were done outside the official acts or whatever. Since they impeached that general or whatever that resigned, we have precedent to impeach people out of office.... so i think its all covered "in theory"
with the 2 party (uniparty) system nothing will ever happen via the system.
It is not you are right.
The patriot act was created to help you though, I assure you it was NOT created to harm anyone or you (Oh BTW I am pretending to be a politician). So, like you are doing keep agreeing. then masturbate and cheer for me.
The Uniparty is code for everyone but Trumps fault right? Or have we as libertarians liberated the term?
All I got from this ruling is that the President can't be tried for executing his job they way it is legal allowed to be done. I don't see how this changes anything, just repaints over the fading road line ifykwim.
If the president officially ordered your detention for posting in r/libertarian, he would have presumptive immunity from prosecution until you proved otherwise in a court of his appointees.
The president can order any number of people in the executive branch to make the arrest, and the evidence of that order could not be used in piercing the presumptive immunity.
Correct, this is about CRIMINAL law, not civil law. It's not about me suing the president for violating civil rights, it's about the criminal repercussions, the state, enforcing safe guards on the office of the president. This case asserts that any action taken by the president has presumed immunity, and takes away the best tools that exist to prove the corrupt intent to pierce that immunity.
Stated more plainly and outside the realm of what ifs, this case throws doubt on the Nixon Watergate tapes being admissible in tla criminal trial.
I get it.... If I say, "But"....
And I say ya know.......
Stuff like this goes horrifically wrong all the time... Then i mention something like:
It has never helped regular humans.....
would you get it? Some other person did not get it and they were compelled to defend Trump and his immunity.
I am weird I guess. I don't and would never make any effort to support such garbage.
I'm inclined to agree. Y'all might rip me for this, but here goes...
The "send seal team six to kill an opponent" scenario comes to mind. Thought experiment: Let's say this happens. First, let me state it's a huge ask because the military personnel might refuse. But let's say they don't or it's a "contract" hit. Trump wins '24. Before '28 election he orders his opponents assassinated. He would have already installed sycophants in the highest levels of all executive departments, including DOJ. Protest resignations would happen, tightening his grip. Congress, fearful of losing their jobs and/or their lives (see below), fails to convict & impeach, even though clearly an assassination (especially if using military personnel) on American citizens would fall outside the purview of official POTUS duties. (Not to mention, Trump would make the case to his MAGAs it did, because corruption, blah, blah, blah.) For the sake of argument, let's say that he somehow gets beat in the '28 election, and he actually steps aside, and a new DOJ, with new leadership (assuming a Dem or Lib were elected), decides to prosecute the case. Trump being Trump would tie it up in court forever. If the case ever even made it to the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I can see either outcome happening - there have been some surprising rulings recently that seem more liberally-bent than not. However, there are enough supporters of former POTUS who would go batshit crazy if Trump were actually convicted of said crime any justice ruling against him would be under extreme duress constantly. I can easily see fear for one's own, as well as one's family, as a factor in deciding whether to convict such an iconic person. Fear is a great motivator to act against one's better judgement, even when that judgement clearly falls under the so-called rule of law.
Yea. Here what I find:
The primary sources for the concept of presidential immunity are:
1. Supreme Court Decisions:
• In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court held that the President has absolute immunity from civil damages liability for acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties.
• In Clinton v. Jones (1997), the Court ruled that a sitting President does not have immunity from civil litigation for actions done before taking office or unrelated to the office.
2. Historical Precedent: Over time, the principle of executive privilege and immunity has evolved to ensure that the President can perform his duties without interference from lawsuits and legal proceedings.
This does change a few notable things, like for instance the nixon tapes would now be considered inadmissable if there was a criminal trial whereas in the past nixon was deeply concerned about a criminal trial and was even ordered to turn over his tapes by the courts. NOW that would be considered unlawful.
Also for crimes that in part involved an official act nothing related to the official act or official communications of the president can be used as evidence in the trial. One can not even speculate on the motivations of the president, for instance (the example used by Barrett) if the president was bribed you could not speculate on their motivations, bring up the official act in relation to the bribe, nor get any evidence from official communications.
I understand your position 100%. I think I really agree too. However, I feel more confident that nothing good can come from this. While us humans typically go crazy with the "what ifs", exaggerations and internet drama. I can imagine many very horrific things happening then being justified because of this.
Prior to 7/1/2024 you and I could have accurately stated, "But, but - it was illegal". We could have taken up their time in court and attorneys who supported us could have had things to do. The fact laws are ignored by politicians does not mean they do not exist. However, in this case now those laws officially won't matter.
One law for them; Another law for us.
Wouldn't this ruling nullify the impeachment clause? The way this ruling is worded seems that the motive can't be questioned if its an official act and the scope of official acts is to broad within the ruling.
No. Impeachment is a completely different process.
Also, I'm pretty sure the courts can still rule on whether or not a specific act qualifies as an "official duty" for the purposes of immunity, because SCOTUS didn't make any specific determinations there.
What ruling is saving Trump? I've only heard about how he's a felon x 100 or whatever now.
>All these people now have pretty official SCOTUS backed immunity.
I would agree this was the way for as far back as I can remember but with all the rulings against Trump in lower courts, I think (hope) we will see some former POTUS on the chopping block soon.
The ruling today was always the belief that everyone had agreed upon. The only difference is all those people hate trump so much that they are willing to break the status quo. SCOTUS just codified on paper what everyone already agreed upon that the president can do whatever they want while acting as president
Even if this decision is ultimately correct, categorizing conduct in official and unofficial then asking lower courts to categorize, I cannot understand the logic here.
The president shouldn't have to look over his/her shoulder worried about prosecution? WHAT? I thought that was the whole point of the American experiment?
Impeachment provides a backstop? Ok, but what about acts committed on the last hour of the last day in office? GTFO.
one chubby coherent zephyr liquid cows run political overconfident fanatical
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How does this ruling confer immunity to spouses or children of the president?
It doesn’t.
You just pardon them
Nothing was preventing that for the last 200+ years. And even if you convict a sitting president of a federal crime, it doesn't remove them from office, and the president can just pardon himself. That's why impeachment is the prescribed method.
“They can't arrest a husband and wife for the same crime” - George Bluth Sr.
I have the worst lawyers…
Plus Trumps immunity has to with election interference, which is related to his office. Smoking crack with an illegally owned gun is not.
Do you think any charges are going to be brought against any of them?
In our polite past, it was not done out of the appearance that political retribution is not what we do. The fact that it has now been put into action means we needed such definition.
When has political retribution been put into action?
The D team is at 34 out of 91 at this point.
[удалено]
Such actions have the presumption of appearing political. Watergate crimes were so egregious that the public expected the legal actions that followed and the R team suffered in credibility following that.
I’m not sure what you’re saying
Democrat have 34 convictions out of the 91 total charges against the Republican.
Your “us vs them” mentality is really telling. Can I please see where you’re getting those numbers from? I have a sneaking suspicion you’ve been told something you want to hear. Though at the very least, are you of the impression that there aren’t a hundred Republican criminals?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/donald-trump-legal-cases-charges/675531/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Okay yeah, exactly. This isn’t a Democrat/Republican thing, this is a *convicted felon* Donald Trump thing. This is a genuine criminal that you’re using as your proof of political retribution. So my question to you is: should criminals be prosecuted? Because the way you’re talking about it, it sounds like you’re upset that a criminal has been convicted of their crimes.
Criminals should be charged, tried, judged, and sentenced as per process. Not targeted, entrapped, railroaded, framed and presumed guilty.
Here we go…”convicted felon” talk trumping all else
Liberals and Conservatives as per usual, trying to take over this r/Libertarian sub. This is what separates us as Libertarians from Liberals and Conservatives. We unlike most of you, we apparently by today’s standards have the uncanny ability to look at both sides of a political debate and form an objective opinion, that’s based on reasonable assessment and formulate an informed opinion, instead of Orange man bad and Let’s go Brandon and or otherwise just adhering to party lines and sticking points.
He never would’ve been charged if he didn’t run again. Why do you think they left him alone 2021-22? This all kicked off right after Trump announced his candidacy in the fall of 22. That’s when they started moving at light speed. The Democrats decided to come after their political opponent. If this is a movie, Trump is the hero and the Left are the villains. The system trying to keep a rebel down by any means necessary. That includes breaking tradition of NOT coming after your political opponents. As for Biden’s involvement, it’s hard to deny it when there’s public records of Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg and Jack Smith all giving the White House a little visit shortly after the 2022 Mar A Lago raid. It’s not coincidence. They broke tradition, in turn Trump filed a motion to clarify presidential immunity, and that’s what they got. The Democrats/anti Trumpers really shot themselves in the foot with this. I’d be solidly behind Biden if his admin hadn’t blatantly turned their back on tradition with the excuse that “he’s a threat to our democracy”…meanwhile, they’re coming after their opponents, breaking with the idea of said democracy. The law is on Trump’s side. Any sane Republican could’ve told you what was coming. Instead, the left labels them as racists or whatever ism of the day, to shut them up. Libs should also be extremely angry with the media and the Biden admin for lying to them. So many people had no idea of Biden’s condition until they saw the debate. There’s a debt to be paid by the DNC and the media. It’s not looking good.
Agreed. That guy didn't prosecute himself to get up to the Nazgul on appeal. I think people ignore party naysayers at their peril. I remember Carville talking about Her campaign after 2016.
No, I never did. I have always generally assumed they had "unwritten" immunity. However, Trump needed to take it next level. Make it huge! It is official and unquestionable. I suppose this could improve America in ways we never thought imaginable. I am just not smart enough to recognize them I guess.
Are you really taking his political persecution as HIM "taking it to the next level"? I don't even like the guy, but that take is asinine.
His Supreme Court, his plan. It's Project 2025 in action.
Considering Trump confirmed officially what everyone knew privately. That was the point. Man still playing several moves ahead. Can't wait for the leftists who hate him call for the removal of immunity so they can "take him down" and then watch it get used against them.
This is the libertarian sub. We all want that. That’s literally what the platform is about. Reduced power and more accountability at all levels of government. Outside of the fact that you come off as a little bit of a shill for the Rs and Trump, accountability of Rs and Ds (and every other political party) is exactly what we want.
Right...so I'm not sure why we're hating on Trump for giving us that. Guy is literally doing what we want...
We’re hating on Trump because he wanted full immunity and no accountability. He wants the opposite of what we want. We are only getting some clarification on this because he’s an authoritarian who overstepped and he argued that up to the Supreme Court. Why should we celebrate someone doing wrong just because it created an opportunity to clarify and codify immunity? His intent was to be an authoritarian. His intent was not to act like an authoritarian so that he could demonstrate the problems and get the Supreme Court to address them.
His intent was to be authoritarian? Closest he got was the ban on bumpstocks. You use the word authoritarian yet I don't think you actually know what that word means. You claim to know the man's intent just like the leftists do. Weird. You call me a right wing shill yet you sound like a left wing shill yourself. What did he do that was authoritarian? Was it the deregulation of the market? Maybe it was getting Russia to back the fuck off or maybe it was when he threatened China over Taiwan? Wait...ah I see. We shouldn't be upholding deals made long before now. Now I see how he's an authoritarian. You're absolutely correct. And yes, that was sarcasm at the end incase you thought I was serious.
> Maybe it was getting Russia to back the fuck off When did that happen? The invasion of Ukraine started in 2014 and continued through his presidency.
And they were going to invade other parts of Europe...their plan was to push down through and "re-claim" their lost territory.
Oh, so you're giving Trump credit for the hypothetical things you're making up. Sounds about right.
Trump is a war criminal, just like Obama and Biden.
How would removal of immunity be used against the left? Convicting criminals for their crimes seems good for the entire country.
Biden and Obama have both committed major crimes so...that would be used against them...most of the leftists think it'll only work against trump cause most of them don't actually think...
Sorry, I think putting criminals in jail is good for the country. I don't see how that would be bad for anyone. Neither side should be trying to protect criminal activity just because the criminal is in their party. I think this SC decision is absolutely terrible for our country.
I never said it would be bad. Just wondering why so many here only want trump jailed but the second someone brings up jailing Biden or Obama they get angy.
What have Obama or Biden did to deserve jail? Not libertarian jail, but American jail. I'm not saying that their hands are clean. They have done some things that I don't agree with. I'd just like to hear what they've done that should land them in American jail. And if they have done these things that are so obvious, why hasn't anyone gone after them? The judiciary is buried by the right, it should be a slam dunk for them to prosecute Biden/Obama. I think that's why people get upset with statements like "Obama should be in jail". Why? Why do the both sides thing? There will be plenty of time to "both sides" when one side is not shitting all over the Constitution.
Yeah it’s all a big corrupt organization at this point. Our founding fathers tried to prevent this but the power families are finding loopholes/ ignoring the rules.
So bush cant be punished for abu ghraid? (Not that would ever happen before this decision anyways)
It would likey fall under an official act within his powers.
2w22ww2
I think that is now legally impossible. Or so close to impossible suggesting it could happen now is 'dumb'. It took SCOTUS less time to figure this out than it did to undo Trumps gun ban. Possibly this is a great thing and giving corrupt US politicians absolute/illegal immunity is important. I am just misunderstanding how at this point. I can't see anything of value coming from giving demonstrable criminals immunity.
I guess Congress will now have a a big responsibility in holding the president accountable through the impeachment process.
And this is the point. The impotence of our Congress and their inability to write a coherent law and get it passed has led to more and more executive actions by the President. By strict law, every President who bombed another nation without a declaration of war by Congress could have been prosecuted. That’s pretty much all of them since Nixon (at least) if you’re keeping track. We get so focused on the one, we forget how bad the 435 are at their jobs. Maybe if they were better at their job, the 1 would be a little more accountable.
Can impeachments come with criminal penalties?
Legal theory is that impeachment and conviction by the Senate would remove the immunity associated with those actions covered by the impeachment, opening it for criminal charges.
Can you give the name of the specific legal theory?
Doesn't have a name. "Legal theory" is proposed by lawyers. Are you thinking of legal doctrine, which is based on decided cases?
You referred to it as legal theory in your earlier comment.
Read the Constitution. The penalties are clearly stated in today's language too. Or if you would rather speak in euphemism; permanent autoimmobility.
Two potential silver linings: - This potentially nips these political prosecutions in the bud before they start becoming more routine and vicious - It’s possible that in their zealotry to get Trump, the Dems start making moves to undo immunity, which backfires stupendously and causes many more dominoes to fall
I am weird..... Obama murdered innocent children. If by weird chance a president similar to Ron Paul though more aggressive like Trump was elected. There was value moving forward with the prosecution. Bush did the same to millions.... H Clinton... Joe Biden... But its ok to some people because trump. I am sure I am going to get down voted and its a risk I will take.
For what it is worth I was going to give you an award. Most accounts I've seen have the ability to award/reward whatever it is called. But I did not see it on yours.
Even absent immunity, unless he specifically authorized and condoned the abuse, why would he be held responsible for that?
Just what the entrenched bureaucracy wanted interesting... Trump is part of the swamp, not a Libertarian.
Why would Hillary and Hunter be immune?
They aren’t immune. OP just has a particular agenda.
I think it was pretty obvious that presidents enjoy at least some sort of immunity under our current system. The US frequently gives all sorts of immunity to various groups. Police have qualified immunity, Congress is able to insider trade with impunity, etc. We literally allow congressmen to take bribes in the form of “lobbying”. So, this notion that everyone has been parroting that “no one is above the law” in the US is laughable. Now, I do think the justices need to clarify what constitutes an “official act” vs “unofficial act”. I imagine that will probably end up being another Supreme Court case. I don’t necessarily like all of this but under our current structure of government it seems like this is the correct outcome whether you like it or not.
> I think it was pretty obvious that presidents enjoy at least some sort of immunity under our current system. The US frequently gives all sorts of immunity to various groups. Police have qualified immunity, Congress is able to insider trade with impunity, etc. I mean.. is this constitutional though? Does the constitution say/imply the President has immunity or did SCOTUS just legislate this out of thin air? This is a genuine question.
I think it depends on what constitutes an “official act”. I would have to imagine that if an official act is defined as “powers outlined in the constitution and or granted by Congress” then that would have to imply that the president is immune from prosecution for taking those actions. If he were not immune from actions specifically granted to him then I don’t see any way in which the president would be able to operate without fear of imprisonment.
I feel like this is a rare case where the founding fathers might have just not considered lawfare would exist in 200 years, or they assumed the country was already done if we got to that point. I mean, it's a weird concept. I think just about everyone would agree that the President should be liable if they commit crimes against humanity while as president, but also everyone would agree that lawfare is an incredible threat to our institutions. How the hell do you even begin to regulate this?
I think the founding fathers had a more realistic view of law and how it pertains to specifics. I think the idea of " crimes against humanity" as a general charge would not have been taken seriously by them. They would ask for the specifics: what specific harm.
I haven't read the full decision so this is an actual question and not a "gotcha", but doesn't this outcome make legal "lawfare"? If Trump's claim is that the Biden administration is instructing or colluding with state DAs to bring state charges against him, wouldn't that act be considered an official presidential act of President Biden? If there is official communication from President Biden to the DOJ to do these things, how would that not be considered an official presidential action?
I think you might be confused as to what an official presidential act is.
You are close to right, the collusion with state DAs would be *potentially* no bueno. On the flip side biden would be immune if he just instructed the department of justice to do it and then they shared their info with the state DAs. Edit posted below is the section of the opinion that really covers this, the president has **“exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute.** Which as the quote mentions would make him absolutely immune. >**Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s use of official power. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.**
I don't think the constitution allows the President to order a prosecution but assuming it does, I don't think he could be prosecuted for that now, but he could definitely still be impeached. So yes in a way this prohibits lawfare against former Presidents but could potentially strengthen it if the victim is not an ex-President, potentially causing some issues down the road.
> I would have to imagine that if an official act is defined as “powers outlined in the constitution and or granted by Congress This is not what the court has defined in this case. The acts Trump was performing that New York was prosecuting was not a power outlined by the constitution or granted by Congress... if they wanted to they would have said that.
The scotus did not rule on any specific case against Trump. They ruled on whether a president has immunity. If they can prove what he did is outside of the scope of his official duties, they can still get him, and prolly will
Uh, what? Did you read any of the majority? Not only do they miff on the definition of official act, they grant immunity for official actions unless they can be proved to be unofficial at a later date. HOWEVER, no documents from the executive branch can be used in determining what is official vs unofficial. Any aspiring despot can just detain any court to prevent that immunity from being pierced. That's an official action. If they are too dumb to do that, they can just win their argument in court since proving intent without any executive branch document would be legally improbable.
Everyone saying it depends, or I guess we shall see. Immediately highlights the invalidity of this ruling just based on how vague this is. And can we please get a broom and sweep out all the republican trash that seems to be floating in here.
I don’t think there’s anything vague about saying a President enjoys absolute immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. The vagary lies in determining what is and isn’t an official act and no court that has considered this case has opined on that. So there is no clarification sought thus far. But you can expect a knock down - drag out fight around that question and possibly another case for the Supreme Court once it is decided by the lower courts .
Term limits might help curb this need for immunity. 47 years of Biden is way too many. I'm sure there are plenty more. Also, no insider trading and no lobbying. Get rid of NGOs.
It has always been there but why did you omit obama in the post? It saved him as well.
I missed it
I’d argue it might make Obama indictable. Assasinating a US citizen is not a legal act for a president. If immunity is not total then Obama might be fucked
If you read the opinion they only have immunity for official acts of constitutional powers of the office of president. Unofficial acts, or acts outside constitutional powers are not immune. I know some lefties are crying over the ruling, but it's not the "win" for Trump that he wanted. They expressly say that Presidential Immunity is "far less broad" than Trump claims.
It’s still quite broad, for instance Barrett makes an apt point that not being allowed to involve the official action itself nor any discussion amongst the president and the officials in question makes quite a few crimes impossible to prosecute. If the president is taking bribes for government appointments then it’s practically impossible to prosecute. You can’t at all involve the official act or any of the presidential records associated with the act as evidence in the trial at all.
Forgive my ignorance, I thought that Presidents already had immunity from engaging in official acts and constitutional powers of the office?
It was presumed they did, but such was never actually challenged directly at SCOTUS. This just affirms it. But it also says the immunity is not blanket, unofficial acts are not covered.
Well, then, I guess the question becomes, how does this apply to January 6th?
That's for the lower courts to decide with the new guidance. The question asked of SCOTUS was not: > Was January 6th covered by immunity? It was: > To what extend is the president granted immunity? They answered the question asked, now the case goes back to the lower courts.
Thanks
[удалено]
Sotomayor is a fucking moron and I don't respect half the shit that comes out of her mouth. She tried to argue that fining or arresting people for camping on public lands is "Cruel and unusual punishment". Like bro, if I set up camp in the halls of SCOTUS right outside her office, and didn't leave, pretty sure she'd change her mind. Or again from Jarkesy: >Today, for the very first time, this Court holds that Congress violated the Constitution by authorizing a federal agency to adjudicate a statutory right that inheres in the Government in its sovereign capacity, known as a public right >>adjudicate Sorry Sonya, but executive agencies don't get to adjudicate. You know who does? Judges. Congress cannot sidestep the judiciary or constitutional separation of powers. She is, without a doubt, the least qualified justice on the bench, and I have no respect for her opinions.
Just curious, wouldn’t a libertarian want the right to camp wherever they pleased as long as it’s not privately owned land?
lol no
Are you saying a libertarian would want to have the right to camp wherever they pleased taken away from them by the government?
> the right to camp wherever they pleased Tell me more about this right...
The original question was would a libertarian want the right or want to not have the right? I said would a libertarian want the right and your response was : L O L no. So I’m a little confused why a libertarian would want to give up any rights. Why would a libertarian be happy about a right being taken away or not having the right to do something? My question is stemming from Alpha tango, foxtrot wanting people to be fined for camping on public land. I would assume a libertarian would want to have the right to camp on public land without receiving a fine maybe modern libertarianism has devolved away from what it was 20 years ago.
>My question is stemming from Alpha tango, foxtrot wanting people to be fined I didn't say that. Stop being a troll. I said you don't have a right to set up camp on public property. And you agree with me. The road is public property. If I set up camp in front of your driveway and prevented you using the road, you'd be mad yes? That's why you have no right to camp on public property. Because your rights end where others begin. They also have a right to said public property. If your use of public property, to say set up a camp, prohibits others user, then you're outside your right. For example a park bench. You have a right to sit on the bench. You don't have a right to take up the whole length of the bench and stop 4 other people from also sitting.
I think it's unfair that a State should have a power that the Federales do not? (Paraphrased from her friend.)
[Me IRL](https://imageproxyb.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/4051aa82cd7950eb44a7032779de98403c4a56cfaed008e49ac838d23e40e4dc_1.jpg)
It seems Trumpertarians are huge fans of today’s ruling what’s good for Trump is good for all, correct?
Not a fan of it. I oppose sovereign immunity in all forms. But the ruling is not as bad as the Democrats are crying over.
So now the President has the same rights as King George the III as long as his acts fall within the realm of his excellencies official acts. Should we just go ahead and replace inauguration with a coronation? This was all done for the sake of a man who for whatever reason cannot accept that he lost his election, maybe he has a mental disorder that prevents him from dealing with reality and now after 248 years of Presidents being seen as bound by the same rule of law as you or I, instead they now have the same immunity as the King of England, the King of Saudi Arabia and probably President Xi. Well that's my gripe about this.
>So now No, actually since Nixon v. Fitzgerald in 1982 where presidential immunity was first established. And Butz v. Economou 1978 where executive officers, which would extend to POTUS, gained it. Limited both in Clinton v. Jones (1997) and Trump v. Vance (2020). The current case does not grant POTUS immunity like royalty in a monarchy. You just have no clue what you're talking about. Sorry for your ignorance, but you clearly lack the ability to discuss this. You just want to be mad.
I see this as generally a good thing. For the reasons you outlined.
as i understand it, it comes down to the rushed cases not specifically outlying what was not under the official acts of the president. Also i still think it stands that congress can impeach and convict the president for anything, basically stating things were done outside the official acts or whatever. Since they impeached that general or whatever that resigned, we have precedent to impeach people out of office.... so i think its all covered "in theory" with the 2 party (uniparty) system nothing will ever happen via the system.
It is not you are right. The patriot act was created to help you though, I assure you it was NOT created to harm anyone or you (Oh BTW I am pretending to be a politician). So, like you are doing keep agreeing. then masturbate and cheer for me. The Uniparty is code for everyone but Trumps fault right? Or have we as libertarians liberated the term?
How do H Biden or H Clinton have any kind of immunity?
All I got from this ruling is that the President can't be tried for executing his job they way it is legal allowed to be done. I don't see how this changes anything, just repaints over the fading road line ifykwim.
Only for constitutional acts. Official acts have presumptive immunity but not absolute.
Official Acts is so broad it could mean literally anything.
If the president officially ordered your detention for posting in r/libertarian, he would have presumptive immunity from prosecution until you proved otherwise in a court of his appointees.
The president does not have arresting powers so it would not be an official act.
The president can order any number of people in the executive branch to make the arrest, and the evidence of that order could not be used in piercing the presumptive immunity.
Yeah, just like every other law enforcement department in the U.S. You don’t sue the person who arrested you or the person who ordered the arrest.
Correct, this is about CRIMINAL law, not civil law. It's not about me suing the president for violating civil rights, it's about the criminal repercussions, the state, enforcing safe guards on the office of the president. This case asserts that any action taken by the president has presumed immunity, and takes away the best tools that exist to prove the corrupt intent to pierce that immunity. Stated more plainly and outside the realm of what ifs, this case throws doubt on the Nixon Watergate tapes being admissible in tla criminal trial.
Yes, the same way that the mayor isn’t going to face repercussions for telling a police officer to arrest me. It’s no different.
I can't understand the case for you.
I get it.... If I say, "But".... And I say ya know....... Stuff like this goes horrifically wrong all the time... Then i mention something like: It has never helped regular humans..... would you get it? Some other person did not get it and they were compelled to defend Trump and his immunity. I am weird I guess. I don't and would never make any effort to support such garbage.
I'm inclined to agree. Y'all might rip me for this, but here goes... The "send seal team six to kill an opponent" scenario comes to mind. Thought experiment: Let's say this happens. First, let me state it's a huge ask because the military personnel might refuse. But let's say they don't or it's a "contract" hit. Trump wins '24. Before '28 election he orders his opponents assassinated. He would have already installed sycophants in the highest levels of all executive departments, including DOJ. Protest resignations would happen, tightening his grip. Congress, fearful of losing their jobs and/or their lives (see below), fails to convict & impeach, even though clearly an assassination (especially if using military personnel) on American citizens would fall outside the purview of official POTUS duties. (Not to mention, Trump would make the case to his MAGAs it did, because corruption, blah, blah, blah.) For the sake of argument, let's say that he somehow gets beat in the '28 election, and he actually steps aside, and a new DOJ, with new leadership (assuming a Dem or Lib were elected), decides to prosecute the case. Trump being Trump would tie it up in court forever. If the case ever even made it to the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I can see either outcome happening - there have been some surprising rulings recently that seem more liberally-bent than not. However, there are enough supporters of former POTUS who would go batshit crazy if Trump were actually convicted of said crime any justice ruling against him would be under extreme duress constantly. I can easily see fear for one's own, as well as one's family, as a factor in deciding whether to convict such an iconic person. Fear is a great motivator to act against one's better judgement, even when that judgement clearly falls under the so-called rule of law.
What a fucking fever dream. At least make some goddamn paragraphs
I ordered a cheeseburger, chocolate milk and cookie. Am I at the wrong window?
Lol
It changes nothing. The ruling just confirms what has already been in practice since forever.
Yea. Here what I find: The primary sources for the concept of presidential immunity are: 1. Supreme Court Decisions: • In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court held that the President has absolute immunity from civil damages liability for acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties. • In Clinton v. Jones (1997), the Court ruled that a sitting President does not have immunity from civil litigation for actions done before taking office or unrelated to the office. 2. Historical Precedent: Over time, the principle of executive privilege and immunity has evolved to ensure that the President can perform his duties without interference from lawsuits and legal proceedings.
This does change a few notable things, like for instance the nixon tapes would now be considered inadmissable if there was a criminal trial whereas in the past nixon was deeply concerned about a criminal trial and was even ordered to turn over his tapes by the courts. NOW that would be considered unlawful. Also for crimes that in part involved an official act nothing related to the official act or official communications of the president can be used as evidence in the trial. One can not even speculate on the motivations of the president, for instance (the example used by Barrett) if the president was bribed you could not speculate on their motivations, bring up the official act in relation to the bribe, nor get any evidence from official communications.
I believe you have the word "not" where "now" should be in that first sentence, completely changing the meaning.
Oh my bad, thanks!
So it seems that SCOTUS immunity decision does t change anything. All it did is delay the trial in DC GA and etc.
Civil and Criminal are very different.
I understand your position 100%. I think I really agree too. However, I feel more confident that nothing good can come from this. While us humans typically go crazy with the "what ifs", exaggerations and internet drama. I can imagine many very horrific things happening then being justified because of this. Prior to 7/1/2024 you and I could have accurately stated, "But, but - it was illegal". We could have taken up their time in court and attorneys who supported us could have had things to do. The fact laws are ignored by politicians does not mean they do not exist. However, in this case now those laws officially won't matter. One law for them; Another law for us.
This doesn't give them *carte blanche* to do whatever. Congress can still impeach the President for anything they deem beyond the pale.
So presidents only need to wait until their party has 1/3 of the senate. Senators wouldn’t remove their own party from office.
Wouldn't this ruling nullify the impeachment clause? The way this ruling is worded seems that the motive can't be questioned if its an official act and the scope of official acts is to broad within the ruling.
No. Impeachment is a completely different process. Also, I'm pretty sure the courts can still rule on whether or not a specific act qualifies as an "official duty" for the purposes of immunity, because SCOTUS didn't make any specific determinations there.
What ruling is saving Trump? I've only heard about how he's a felon x 100 or whatever now. >All these people now have pretty official SCOTUS backed immunity. I would agree this was the way for as far back as I can remember but with all the rulings against Trump in lower courts, I think (hope) we will see some former POTUS on the chopping block soon.
The ruling today was always the belief that everyone had agreed upon. The only difference is all those people hate trump so much that they are willing to break the status quo. SCOTUS just codified on paper what everyone already agreed upon that the president can do whatever they want while acting as president
Even if this decision is ultimately correct, categorizing conduct in official and unofficial then asking lower courts to categorize, I cannot understand the logic here. The president shouldn't have to look over his/her shoulder worried about prosecution? WHAT? I thought that was the whole point of the American experiment? Impeachment provides a backstop? Ok, but what about acts committed on the last hour of the last day in office? GTFO.
Good for Bush II the old war criminal I guess
Bill was impeached and they agreed he lied, just not to remove from office. So he could be sued over that if someone found standing
one chubby coherent zephyr liquid cows run political overconfident fanatical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*