314
US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
314 points (98.5% liked)
News
23659 readers
3273 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This ruling sounds good on its face, but it's mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.
It doesn't define what is or isn't an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it's up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn't on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can't be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I'm sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!
It also says it is the government's burden to prove an act isn't official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.
It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn't absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn't clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.
Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.
It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don't do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person's job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.
Read the dissents, they're very clear in this not being only somewhat bad.