I need some examples of what the majority of the court had in mind, if >anything, wrt so-called immunity.
I listen to and read the news a lot, and lately, as much as I can
tolerate it (which is less and less), but I still don't know of any
examples of things a president could do that would be illegal that
shouldn't stay illegal. It seems to me the the USSCSC's decision to
give immunity only offers immunity for things only a criminal would do.
For a counter-example, if the president ordered the army to attack a
military target and in the process, the soldiers negligently or >intentionally killed those who were not only civilians but who really
weren't assisting the enemy military, truly innocent people, the
president was never liable for that, only those soldiers who
purposesfully, knowingly fired the shots that killed those innocent
people. And in fact these things have happened several/many times and
no one except powerless demonstrators ever suggested charging the
president. What do they have in mind for which he is currently liable
but shouldn't be?
What does the new decision permit that can reasonably be permitted. Did
the majority opinion give any examples?
As an aside, I understand that trump might be power hungry, and even
though he's old and won't live to enjoy any extra power he might
acquire, he wants power for its own sake. (and to punish people who have >annoyed him) But what does the majority of the SCSC court get out of
this? Were they bribed, threatened, drugged, do they seriously think
making the prez into a king is a good idea? Do they know anything about
what led up to the American Revolution? Do they think it's originalism.
Were their families threatened?
...if the president tried to order such an assassination by, say, theIn practice, doesn't this interpretation render the president immune
CIA or Navy Seals or whatever example they use, he would likely
immediately be impeached and removed from office, if the order would
even be carried out. Once removed from office, the president would
likely be indicted and tried for murder as would be appropriate. Even
if he claimed at that point that he was immune to the assassination
order being an official act, no court is going to buy that.
Rick wrote:
...if the president tried to order such an assassination by, say, the CIAIn practice, doesn't this interpretation render the president immune from >prosecution for illegal acts committed near the end of their term? For >example, what if, during their last week in office, they accept bribes to >perform the official act of commuting the sentences of convicted federal >felons? And what if the bribery is not even discovered until after they've >left office? In your view, can those official commutations be nullified and >the ex-president prosecuted?
or Navy Seals or whatever example they use, he would likely immediately
be impeached and removed from office, if the order would even be carried
out. Once removed from office, the president would likely be indicted
and tried for murder as would be appropriate. Even if he claimed at that
point that he was immune to the assassination order being an official
act, no court is going to buy that.
I think a key word here is "presumptive". Sotomayor and the minority
claim that the ruling could lead the president to order an
assassination on political enemies or something equally wrong. But
the likelihood is that if the president tried to order such an
assassination by, say, the CIA or Navy Seals or whatever example they
use, he would likely immediately be impeached and removed from office,
if the order would even be carried out. Once removed from office, the president would likely be indicted and tried for murder as would be appropriate. Even if he claimed at that point that he was immune to
the assassination order being an official act, no court is going to
buy that.
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:v66bva$2q1j4$1@dont-email.me:
... if the president tried to order such an
assassination by, say, the CIA or Navy Seals or whatever example they
use, he would likely immediately be impeached and removed from office,
if the order would even be carried out. Once removed from office, the president would likely be indicted and tried for murder as would be appropriate. Even if he claimed at that point that he was immune to
the assassination order being an official act, no court is going to
buy that.
It would be nice to think that. But with this Republican party, they have shown that no conduct is enough for them to go along with an impeachment of
a Republican President. And under the express language of the Supreme Court's opinion, the conduct may still be illegal, but no evidence would be allowed to show it.
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:v66bva$2q1j4$1@dont-email.me:
... if the president tried to order such an
assassination by, say, the CIA or Navy Seals or whatever example they
use, he would likely immediately be impeached and removed from office,
if the order would even be carried out. Once removed from office, the
president would likely be indicted and tried for murder as would be
appropriate. Even if he claimed at that point that he was immune to
the assassination order being an official act, no court is going to
buy that.
It would be nice to think that. But with this Republican party, they
have
shown that no conduct is enough for them to go along with an impeachment
of
a Republican President. And under the express language of the Supreme
Court's opinion, the conduct may still be illegal, but no evidence would
be
allowed to show it.
I could wish that President Biden were not a fundamentally decent
man. He now has the power to put out a hit on would-be dictator
Trump, without facing any consequences, and I think a case could be
made that it was all that would save constitutional government. But
he's too decent to do that. (I suppose an impeachment is
"consequences", but I really doubt that enough Democratic senators
would vote to convict.)
There are plenty of other unconstitutional things he could now do to
ensure that Trump does not take office, but I don't think he would
choose to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.
"Stan Brown" wrote in message news:MPG.40f5eb21d335f1de990307@news.individual.net...
I suspect you’re engaging in a bit of hyperbole here, but I seriously
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:v66bva$2q1j4$1@dont-email.me:
... if the president tried to order such an assassination by, say,
the CIA or Navy Seals or whatever example they use, he would likely
immediately be impeached and removed from office,
if the order would even be carried out. Once removed from office,
the president would likely be indicted and tried for murder as would
be appropriate. Even if he claimed at that point that he was immune
to the assassination order being an official act, no court is going
to buy that.
It would be nice to think that. But with this Republican party, they
have shown that no conduct is enough for them to go along with an
impeachment of a Republican President. And under the express language
of the Supreme Court's opinion, the conduct may still be illegal, but
no evidence would be allowed to show it.
I could wish that President Biden were not a fundamentally decent man.
He now has the power to put out a hit on would-be dictator Trump,
without facing any consequences, and I think a case could be made that
it was all that would save constitutional government. But he's too
decent to do that. (I suppose an impeachment is "consequences", but I >>really doubt that enough Democratic senators would vote to convict.)
There are plenty of other unconstitutional things he could now do to
ensure that Trump does not take office, but I don't think he would
choose to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.
don't see any world where Biden would order a hit on Trump. And it's
not just because he is a fundamentally decent person, but he also
believes in the Constitution and in the right of the people to choose
who they want as their president. And the fact is that Trump is
supported by half the country, which Biden surely realizes. If he
ordered any kind of hit on Trump and it actually happened (and I have
doubts that it would be carried out, even if the shooter were a
consummate Trump-hater), there would be a revolt in this country the
likes of which have probably never been seen. Biden would surely be impeached and removed from office - not only because Republicans would
demand it, but so would his own party. The US is not a banana republic,
and members of both parties would never allow this act to stand. Biden
would be removed from office and he would be tried as a private citizen
for murder. And yes, I heard Sotomayor engage on her own hyperbole by suggesting that the Court's ruling would grant the president a license
to kill his enemies, but that's nonsense. The Court made a specific
point of saying that the trial judge would have to decide which
presidential acts are official and which are personal, and I do not
believe any American Judge would agree that the assassination of a
political rival was even remotely an official act.
The best way for Biden to deal with Trump is to beat him at the polls in November. And if he can't do that, then step aside and let someone else
try. You may think that Trump is a would-be dictator and you may be
right, but the only way he will be re-elected is by actually winning the election.
And yes, I heard Sotomayor engage on her own hyperbole
by suggesting that the Court's ruling would grant the president a
license to kill his enemies, but that's nonsense. The Court made a
specific point of saying that the trial judge would have to decide
which presidential acts are official and which are personal, and I do
not believe any American Judge would agree that the assassination of a political rival was even remotely an official act.
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:v6hquj$12alh$1@dont-email.me:
And yes, I heard Sotomayor engage on her own hyperbole
by suggesting that the Court's ruling would grant the president a
license to kill his enemies, but that's nonsense. The Court made a
specific point of saying that the trial judge would have to decide
which presidential acts are official and which are personal, and I do
not believe any American Judge would agree that the assassination of a
political rival was even remotely an official act.
It's not hyperbole. Yes, the trial court determines which acts are
official. But the Court's opinion specifically said that a President >conferring with other officials in his administration is, by definition, >official, and that evidence of what went on in that meeting can't even be >presented to the trial court. So yes, if a President told the head of
the FBI to murder someone, and then pardoned whoever carried that murder
out, there is complete immunity for the President and nobody would ever
be punished for that.
The immunity decision was very poorly thought out, goes way too far in >allowing a President to do illegal things, but they're not taking it
back. It's a horrible decision. And thinking that is hyperbole is just >sticking your head in the sand, because Trump, as President, won't feel >constrained and will use that opinion for all it's worth.
presented to the trial court. So yes, if a President told the head of
the FBI to murder someone, and then pardoned whoever carried that murder
out, there is complete immunity for the President and nobody would ever
be punished for that.
The immunity decision was very poorly thought out, goes way too far in >allowing a President to do illegal things, but they're not taking it
back. It's a horrible decision. ...
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>:
presented to the trial court. So yes, if a President told the head of
the FBI to murder someone, and then pardoned whoever carried that
murder out, there is complete immunity for the President and nobody
would ever be punished for that.
Murder is illegal in every state, and the President can't pardon state crimes, so the guy who did it could certainly be prosecuted under
state law. Perhaps a sufficiently clever prosecutor could flip people
up the chain to the FBI director, but then he couldn't talk about the
pres telling him to do it.
The immunity decision was very poorly thought out, goes way too far in >>allowing a President to do illegal things, but they're not taking it
back. It's a horrible decision. ...
Totally agree. It's a disaster for many reasons.
Murder is illegal in every state, and the President can't pardon state
crimes, so the guy who did it could certainly be prosecuted under
state law. Perhaps a sufficiently clever prosecutor could flip people
up the chain to the FBI director, but then he couldn't talk about the
pres telling him to do it.
I agree. However DC isn't a state, and is governed by the federal >government. Crimes committed there, even murder, can be pardoned by the >President.
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote in news:v6k7vt$30fn$1@gal.iecc.com:
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>:
presented to the trial court. So yes, if a President told the head of >>>the FBI to murder someone, and then pardoned whoever carried that
murder out, there is complete immunity for the President and nobody
would ever be punished for that.
Murder is illegal in every state, and the President can't pardon state
crimes, so the guy who did it could certainly be prosecuted under
state law. Perhaps a sufficiently clever prosecutor could flip people
up the chain to the FBI director, but then he couldn't talk about the
pres telling him to do it.
I agree. However DC isn't a state, and is governed by the federal >government. Crimes committed there, even murder, can be pardoned by the >President.
The immunity decision was very poorly thought out, goes way too far in >>>allowing a President to do illegal things, but they're not taking it >>>back. It's a horrible decision. ...
Totally agree. It's a disaster for many reasons.
It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court decision gives our >would-be fhrer a pass on state crimes. I believe his team have
already filed for a vacation of his 34 state felonies using that
decision as a basis.
According to Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>:
presented to the trial court. So yes, if a President told the head of
the FBI to murder someone, and then pardoned whoever carried that murder >out, there is complete immunity for the President and nobody would ever
be punished for that.
Murder is illegal in every state, and the President can't pardon state crimes, so the guy who did it could certainly be prosecuted under
state law.
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>:
presented to the trial court. So yes, if a President told the head
of the FBI to murder someone, and then pardoned whoever carried that >>>>murder out, there is complete immunity for the President and nobody >>>>would ever be punished for that.
Murder is illegal in every state, and the President can't pardon
state crimes, so the guy who did it could certainly be prosecuted
under state law. Perhaps a sufficiently clever prosecutor could flip
people up the chain to the FBI director, but then he couldn't talk
about the pres telling him to do it.
I agree. However DC isn't a state, and is governed by the federal >>government. Crimes committed there, even murder, can be pardoned by
the President.
That's a valid point. But the premise of the question was that the
president (in this case, Biden) orders an assassination on a political
enemy (e.g., Trump), which might and would probably happen outside of
the District. In the event the President did order a hit on a
political enemy and it happened to take place within the 69 square
miles of DC, and if the president then decided to pardon himself for
the crime, he could theoretically get away with it. But the ability
of a president to pardon him or herself has never been tested in the
courts, and there is no doubt this would elevate to the Supreme Court.
I'm honestly not sure how the Court would respond to that issue.
The immunity decision was very poorly thought out, goes way too far
in allowing a President to do illegal things, but they're not taking
it back. It's a horrible decision. ...
Totally agree. It's a disaster for many reasons.
--
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:v6mh64$20lth$1@dont-email.me:
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>:
presented to the trial court. So yes, if a President told the head >>>>>of the FBI to murder someone, and then pardoned whoever carried that >>>>>murder out, there is complete immunity for the President and nobody >>>>>would ever be punished for that.
Murder is illegal in every state, and the President can't pardon
state crimes, so the guy who did it could certainly be prosecuted
under state law. Perhaps a sufficiently clever prosecutor could flip
people up the chain to the FBI director, but then he couldn't talk
about the pres telling him to do it.
I agree. However DC isn't a state, and is governed by the federal >>>government. Crimes committed there, even murder, can be pardoned by
the President.
That's a valid point. But the premise of the question was that the
president (in this case, Biden) orders an assassination on a political
enemy (e.g., Trump), which might and would probably happen outside of
the District. In the event the President did order a hit on a
political enemy and it happened to take place within the 69 square
miles of DC, and if the president then decided to pardon himself for
the crime, he could theoretically get away with it. But the ability
of a president to pardon him or herself has never been tested in the
courts, and there is no doubt this would elevate to the Supreme Court.
I'm honestly not sure how the Court would respond to that issue.
This has nothing to do with the President pardoning himself. I'm
thinking of a situation where the President were to meet with the head of
the FBI and tell that person to kill, say, a Supreme Court justice. If
the FBI head were to cause that to happen, the President could then
pardon the person who actually commits the murder. Under the Supreme
Court's immunity decision, since the conspiracy was done with the head of
the FBI, that was an official act, for which the decision makes him
immune. Not only would he be immune, but evidence of that meeting could
not be used in court for any purpose. He doesn't have to pardon himself.
The immunity decision was very poorly thought out, goes way too far >>>>>in allowing a President to do illegal things, but they're not taking >>>>>it back. It's a horrible decision. ...
Totally agree. It's a disaster for many reasons.
--
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:XnsB1AB8C1F82880spamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11...
In theory, all that you say is true, but in the real world it would not
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:v6mh64$20lth$1@dont-email.me:
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>:
presented to the trial court. So yes, if a President told the head >>>>>>of the FBI to murder someone, and then pardoned whoever carried that >>>>>>murder out, there is complete immunity for the President and nobody >>>>>>would ever be punished for that.
Murder is illegal in every state, and the President can't pardon
state crimes, so the guy who did it could certainly be prosecuted
under state law. Perhaps a sufficiently clever prosecutor could flip >>>>> people up the chain to the FBI director, but then he couldn't talk
about the pres telling him to do it.
I agree. However DC isn't a state, and is governed by the federal >>>>government. Crimes committed there, even murder, can be pardoned by >>>>the President.
That's a valid point. But the premise of the question was that the
president (in this case, Biden) orders an assassination on a political
enemy (e.g., Trump), which might and would probably happen outside of
the District. In the event the President did order a hit on a
political enemy and it happened to take place within the 69 square
miles of DC, and if the president then decided to pardon himself for
the crime, he could theoretically get away with it. But the ability
of a president to pardon him or herself has never been tested in the
courts, and there is no doubt this would elevate to the Supreme Court.
I'm honestly not sure how the Court would respond to that issue.
This has nothing to do with the President pardoning himself. I'm
thinking of a situation where the President were to meet with the head
of the FBI and tell that person to kill, say, a Supreme Court justice.
If the FBI head were to cause that to happen, the President could then >>pardon the person who actually commits the murder. Under the Supreme >>Court's immunity decision, since the conspiracy was done with the head
of the FBI, that was an official act, for which the decision makes him >>immune. Not only would he be immune, but evidence of that meeting could >>not be used in court for any purpose. He doesn't have to pardon
himself.
work that way. In the real world, there would be a massive, A-Bomb
like negative reaction that would transcend party affiliation if any
American president ordered an assassination of a political opponent or a Supreme Court justice with whom he disagreed. Despite what some people believe, we do not live in a banana republic and the public by
overwhelming margins would never accept an assassination such as what
you describe. Sure, the president could pardon everyone involved in
the action and they would escape federal punishment if the action took
place in DC or some other federal district. But the president himself
(or herself) would surely be impeached and removed from office, and it
would be overwhelming and non-partisan. Once the president is removed
from office he would no doubt be tried and convicted of murder. Yes, he could claim it was an official act, but any trial judge who understands public opinion would rule the action was personal and allow the evidence
in. Even if the matter is appealed and bounced back to the SC, I do
not believe he current court would overturn the trial judge's decision.
This has nothing to do with the President pardoning himself. I'm
thinking of a situation where the President were to meet with the head
of the FBI and tell that person to kill, say, a Supreme Court justice.
If the FBI head were to cause that to happen, the President could then >>pardon the person who actually commits the murder. Under the Supreme >>Court's immunity decision, since the conspiracy was done with the head
of the FBI, that was an official act, for which the decision makes him >>immune. Not only would he be immune, but evidence of that meeting
could not be used in court for any purpose. He doesn't have to pardon >>himself.
In theory, all that you say is true, but in the real world it would
not work that way. In the real world, there would be a massive,
A-Bomb like negative reaction that would transcend party affiliation
if any American president ordered an assassination of a political
opponent or a Supreme Court justice with whom he disagreed. Despite
what some people believe, we do not live in a banana republic and the
public by overwhelming margins would never accept an assassination
such as what you describe. Sure, the president could pardon everyone involved in the action and they would escape federal punishment if the
action took place in DC or some other federal district. But the
president himself (or herself) would surely be impeached and removed
from office, and it would be overwhelming and non-partisan. Once the president is removed from office he would no doubt be tried and
convicted of murder. Yes, he could claim it was an official act, but
any trial judge who understands public opinion would rule the action
was personal and allow the evidence in. Even if the matter is
appealed and bounced back to the SC, I do not believe he current court
would overturn the trial judge's decision.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 21:48:30 -0700, Rick wrote:
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message
news:XnsB1AB8C1F82880spamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11...
In theory, all that you say is true, but in the real world it would not
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:v6mh64$20lth$1@dont-email.me:
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>:
presented to the trial court. So yes, if a President told the head >>>>>>>of the FBI to murder someone, and then pardoned whoever carried that >>>>>>>murder out, there is complete immunity for the President and nobody >>>>>>>would ever be punished for that.
Murder is illegal in every state, and the President can't pardon
state crimes, so the guy who did it could certainly be prosecuted
under state law. Perhaps a sufficiently clever prosecutor could flip >>>>>> people up the chain to the FBI director, but then he couldn't talk >>>>>> about the pres telling him to do it.
I agree. However DC isn't a state, and is governed by the federal >>>>>government. Crimes committed there, even murder, can be pardoned by >>>>>the President.
That's a valid point. But the premise of the question was that the
president (in this case, Biden) orders an assassination on a political >>>> enemy (e.g., Trump), which might and would probably happen outside of
the District. In the event the President did order a hit on a
political enemy and it happened to take place within the 69 square
miles of DC, and if the president then decided to pardon himself for
the crime, he could theoretically get away with it. But the ability
of a president to pardon him or herself has never been tested in the
courts, and there is no doubt this would elevate to the Supreme Court. >>>> I'm honestly not sure how the Court would respond to that issue.
This has nothing to do with the President pardoning himself. I'm >>>thinking of a situation where the President were to meet with the head
of the FBI and tell that person to kill, say, a Supreme Court justice.
If the FBI head were to cause that to happen, the President could then >>>pardon the person who actually commits the murder. Under the Supreme >>>Court's immunity decision, since the conspiracy was done with the head
of the FBI, that was an official act, for which the decision makes him >>>immune. Not only would he be immune, but evidence of that meeting could >>>not be used in court for any purpose. He doesn't have to pardon
himself.
work that way. In the real world, there would be a massive, A-Bomb
like negative reaction that would transcend party affiliation if any
American president ordered an assassination of a political opponent or a
Supreme Court justice with whom he disagreed. Despite what some people
believe, we do not live in a banana republic and the public by
overwhelming margins would never accept an assassination such as what
you describe. Sure, the president could pardon everyone involved in
the action and they would escape federal punishment if the action took
place in DC or some other federal district. But the president himself
(or herself) would surely be impeached and removed from office, and it
would be overwhelming and non-partisan. Once the president is removed
from office he would no doubt be tried and convicted of murder. Yes, he
could claim it was an official act, but any trial judge who understands
public opinion would rule the action was personal and allow the evidence
in. Even if the matter is appealed and bounced back to the SC, I do
not believe he current court would overturn the trial judge's decision.
As a rest of the worldian here, I havce little faith it would be that cut
and dried.
And shouldn't judges be applying *the law* not "public opinion" ?
Otherwise you may as well abolish them and have trial by plebiscite.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 339 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:12:51 |
| Calls: | 7,467 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,691 |
| Messages: | 5,628,213 |