I find this discussion of the court case to be strange. The majority opinion clearly articulated their position that official acts of the President cannot be used as evidence, and that motive is inconsequential. How then could one ever prosecute a President for any action taken as part of the office? If the Commander in Chief order the army to fire on protestors, that order is an official act and cannot be used as evidence. Even if the court did not intend to make the actions legal, the effect is that it will be effectively impossible to try a President for any action, no matter how illicit. Furthermore, in the opinion, the court stated bluntly that just because an order is illegal, that does not preclude it from being an official act. What legal scholars are arguing otherwise, and what arguments are they using to suggest that, contrary to the opinion of the majority, official acts can be used to prosecute?
exactly. It's a democracy-shattering decision. I'm in deep grief about it, and about Friday's anti-agency decision too. What a despicable Court. Remember when Roberts vowed he would only be there to "call balls and strikes"? What a contemptible, unscrupulous, lying moral coward of a human being.
***How then could one ever prosecute a President for any action taken as part of the office?*** CLEAR AS MUD! THEY ( DimokRats nor Republikans ) CANNOT prosecute thesitting President ! ... what's NOT clear to Bremmer !? The SCOTUS has spoken clearly !
When a majority is all one party rules against the constitution yah, the whole nation and world wakes. Get ready for oversight and 13 judges. No one is Above the Law for 200+ years is not overturned without rage and blow back.
I have been interested in your takes on issues. Your name seemed familiar but not sure why. After your hot take on the SCOTUS presidential immunity case, I see that you have no legal background, have not read, seem unable to understand the legal implications of this court and are thus a waste of time for anyone with more than a high school education. I block stupidity.
I like hearing Ian's takes but I'm not a fan of this format. The ticking sounds in the background and the artificial time limit are unnecessary and distracting.
2015: Trump would never be the Republican nominee 2016: Trump would never be the president 2021: Trump would never dispute the election 2023: Trump would never be again the Republican nominee 2024: Trump would never be protected by the Supreme Court 2025: Trump would never sell Ukrain to Russia 2028: Trump would never be a dictator 2030: Trump would never establish a special emergency government 2032: Trump Jr would never be the Republican nominee.
Thank you! Someone understands were this is leading to. I just can't understand why MAGA doesn't see that "their" dictator can become their enemy at a whim. It's so short sighted.
“Most jurists don’t accept that.” Can you please mention the names of those jurists? I’m a federal litigator and I agree with Sotomayor’s reading of the majority opinion.
If, indeed, democracy requires checks and balances (it surely does), where is the check and balance now on presidential action? Since SCOTUS seems to think check and balance does not apply to the presidential office, I'll ask a stupid question...who or what can check and balance the presidential office? Better yet, maybe we need a check and balance on SCOTUS?
Immunity means that you must have done something illegal. So we no longer have the rule of law for one special person. Therefore, that person is a threat to all of us. A threat in many states can be stopped with deadly force. I can stand my ground.
of course there is the rule of law. But importantly the guardrails put in place by the Founders, checks and balances, 3 equal branches of governments mean, quite simply, they need to do their job.
@@joe18750 Ha! Funny. So the President is immune, can do anything they want, the House of Rep. can block anything the Senate wants to do and the Supreme court can throw away precedent and just do what they want. Who's to say what their job was? Think about this. As an American, you don't have the right to be in America without seeking permission from some gov't body or from someone who has a conveyance with a gov't body. How do you exist in America as a natural born American without asking someone for permission?
SCOTUS should have a maximum amount of judges chosen by each party and independents chosen by both. They carry more power for longer than Presidents do. Current system is not impartial. Needs to be in order to uphold democratic values.
@@michaelroberts7770 Republicans repeat this catechism as brainwashing to normalize the overthrow of democracy. They know what democracy means; they only pretend to be stupid.
Can we tone down the hysteria? In effect what SCOTUS ruled was that a President has, in essence, 'Qualified Immunity', and that it is up to the lower Courts to define the extent and limits of those qualifications. 'Qualified Immunity' is long established in U.S. law and has shielded state and local government officials, such as mayors, governors and police officers, from being sued as long as they are acting within the scope of their office, in objective good faith, and their actions do not violate an established statutory or constitutional right of which a "reasonable person" would be aware. The 'reasonable person test' (which has been used in both Tort (civil) and Criminal law since the 1800s - over 100 years), means that a lower court would not give immunity to 'ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival' and was a ridiculous hypothetical to use. So tone down the hysteria and have an adult beverage to calm down. (And maybe read the actual ruling yourself, and not rely on, frequently political, descriptions of it).
I respectfully disagree, however, I'm always open minded. I truly hope I'm wrong, so please hear me out. Admittedly I didn't read all of the decision (I doubt many have) but I have read parts and numerous articles by legal scholars. My understanding is that any "official act" has "absolute immunity". At first I wasn't that concerned because I assumed the courts could decide what is an "official act" so clearly the Seal Team 6 example would result in an objective court ruling that is not an "official act." However, the critical part that has me terrified is that an "official act" can never become an unofficial act based on motive. If the President has the power to do something, then it's an "official act" and the President enjoys absolute immunity. For example, in Amy's opinion she states that the court can go after Trump for the fake electors since the President doesn't have any authority or constitutional rule regarding electors. What about things the President does have the constitutional authority over? The ruling explicitly says that anything related to the justice department is an official act and off limits. Moreover, it can't be used as evidence against unofficial acts. My honest understanding is that the President could order his justice department to arrest any citizen for whatever reason they want (e.g. bogus charges). That citizen will still have their rights and due process, however, their lives will be upended and it will be costly. Moreover they might lose their job or if they are running for office their election. No matter what, even if the President explicitly told his attorney general this was a bogus charge and he just didn't like the citizen or his opponent, doesn't matter, it's an official act and motive is irrelevant. Please tell me my interpretation is wrong.
@@MichaelHoose-i7j yes that is what legal analysts say. As long as he use regular government channels, any such communication can not be used as evidence against him at a later date. In your example, he can use official WH stationary to order STS to kill a business or political rival and he would be immune.
I don’t know if you are a lawyer, but you are arguing FROM an analogy-not from the facts. Because the Supreme Court is fully aware of qualified immunity and they did NOT call this qualified immunity. So the thing where you go on to argue about qualified immunity doesn’t apply. This is not that. They gave ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for all core Presidential acts, like pardons, running the Justice Department and prosecuting your political rivals, invoking the Insurrection Act and giving orders to the military.
@@MichaelHoose-i7j There is the 'Reasonable Person' component - an established part of U.S. law that goes all the way back to the 1800s. Courts have to apply the "Reasonable Person" test.
@@anthonyjdaquino5757 Reply to @Pnoydoc8. Would he, or would he not be immune if he ordered an assassination of a political rival under official pretense?
@@garyehlers4835 It does not allow the President to fire the Supreme Court. But it makes him immune if he orders the military to kill them. And then he appoints their successors.
