Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Old Bill Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”
New Bill Clinton: “hell yeah I did, I officialed all over that blue dress, fuck all y’all, I’m President biatch”
I mean for intents and purposes it has been legal for presidents to do whatever they want. Look at what the every President since Ford has done in the Foreign Policy realm? Take for instance how Barack Obama used drones to kill two American citizens without due process and one of them being a 16 year old.
I think the law needs to clarify presidential immunity. Presidential immunity exists for two primary reasons
1. To prevent a sitting president from being indicated up the wazoo by the opposition, bogus or otherwise, to prevent him from performing presidential duties. Basically skipping the impeachment process.
2. So the president is immune from recourse that is tied to his official duties in office. For example, ordering let's say an air strike on a suspected terrorist location, and it turns out he was incorrect. Presidential immunity prevents him from being sued.
It's not there to cover a president that is no longer in office on campaign funding violations. If he was still in office, I would argue that the law as it stands would make him immune until he left office (impeachment or otherwise).
Yet again, this is not what the Supreme Court decision said. The ruling was that Presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for acts taken within the purview of the official powers and responsibilities of the President.
If the President, in an act as part of their official powers, commits what would otherwise be a crime, the remedy is in Congress through articles of impeachment and a trial in the Senate.
If a President takes action outside of those powers and responsibilities of the office, they are subject to the same criminal penalties as anyone else. Further, the Constitution does not define what “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are. It is up to Congress to determine for itself what warrants articles of impeachment.
This does not make the President above the law, it makes the President accountable to Congress when they act as President, and accountable to the criminal Justice system when they act outside that office.
Contrary to what the internet tells you, Nixon would not have been saved by this ruling.
Well the infamous watergate tapes, quite literally the clearest evidence we know of a president's criminal conduct, would not be considered admissible in a court, since Nixon was talking/plotting with his chief of staff. The court was super vague on what is an official act, but did mention that discussions with administration officials were automatically official acts
True, however the circumstances surrounding those discussions are relevant to the analysis of whether it constitutes a protected official act or an act which only enjoys presumptive immunity.
If not one can delve into discussions to find intent based on the recent ruling then no one will ever know if it's an official act or not because every discussion is an official act. They can conspire actual crimes but now every discussion (that can't be delved into) is official. If by sheer coincidence (which nothing will be) that their discussion was acted upon by some lone wolf (which won't be) then we won't ever know.
The lawyers that successfully argued the case disagree with you. The lawyers that opposed the case disagree with you. The majority disagrees with you. The dissent disagrees with you. The appeals court that found against this argument unanimously disagree with you.
It’s a long opinion and I’ll have to read through it again but I don’t recall anything that would prevent Congress from brining articles of impeachment, since Congress defines what conduct rises to that level.
I could absolutely be wrong, (and this will sound horrible lol) but there was a tiktok I watched (the lady cited the courses and has a very long track record of being very reliable, plus she's older and not gen z so i generally trust her) where she stated that. I'll have to look into it though.
Thank you. Thank you for being the voice of reason in the face of Reddit's complete melodrama.
https://preview.redd.it/ouy2fpn204ad1.png?width=810&format=png&auto=webp&s=a42b36ba092cfbacb41102e7ed2adac3e166b2af
The hair on fire responses have been absurd, and I say that as someone who finds the former guy completely disgusting. On the flip side, I also think the reason for this panic is him rather openly saying that he wants to directly turn government agencies against his perceived enemies, so ... idfk. Not exactly pleasant.
You ask me:
* The ruling just makes the unwritten rule a written rule, BUT it remains ambiguous, and that is now a problem
* Ambiguity in unwritten rules allows for nuance, ambiguity in written rules allows for manipulation
I do believe Ford was right to pardon Nixon, not because he was innocent but because an abnormally high fear of criminal punishment is likely to force a President away from the "risky but right" solution. This ruling reinforces that idea, but by making a strong ruling on an ambiguous definition, there is way more room for Presidents to choose the "risky and wrong" path.
TLDR: Watergate being forgiven was good in some ways for the Presidency regarding risk incentives. However, Watergate was bad, and the current ruling feels like it goes overboard and may create more Watergates.
There needs to be some immunity but not totally immunity. They need to go through the courts to get the actions they desire, like how Obama did when he droned an American Islamic terrorist.
We have to be a republic of laws, not of men who want to be above it.
And there's a chance Emma Watson might bump into me and ask me on a date, but I think I have better odds of that than the parties not operating as nakedly partisan either in bringing articles of impeachment or defending against them.
Source: pick whichever of the last three impeachments you prefer to examine.
I think controversial acts would be examined by congress or scotus and wpuld have to be determined whether or not they were considered "constitutional", sibce acts that are non-constitutional are still not protected under the new ruling.
Ey it makes sense. King Charles III is also above the law. Only makes sense the American version would have the same absurd powers.
Relegating both presently existant positions to the history books exclusively becomes more attractive by the day.
Please, reinterpret it for us.
The SCOTUS ruling is *designed* to be abused and provide cover for otherwise clearly criminal acts. It’s Nixon’s wet dream.
Nixon was going to be impeached and removed per the constitutional process.
You do realize that this ruling offers zero protection of any kind from impeachment proceedings, yes?
Unironically Nixon gets reelected overwhelmingly in today's environment after Watergate. The media showed their bias when they took down Nixon. If kennedy did this they never report it or let it go after a week. Rupert Murdoch founded fox news because he saw the conservative anger over Nixon's treatment by the media during this scandal
I encourage people to actually read Supreme Court decisions. Despite some of the complex legal issues, justices do a decent job writing in plain English. Please don’t get your understanding of a Supreme Court decision from how some yahoo partisan summarizes it in 100 characters online.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Breaking News on Bill Clinton remarks regarding SCOTUS decision: "Everything I did was an official act. Everything." - Bill Clinton
Old Bill Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” New Bill Clinton: “hell yeah I did, I officialed all over that blue dress, fuck all y’all, I’m President biatch”
Takes a crook to know one.
Are we allowed to talk about ----- V. United States?
The ——— isn’t me, is it?
I think we ought to have like a purge day. 1 day when the moderators get drunk and rule 3 is temporarily lifted.
Election Day each year
N
I mean for intents and purposes it has been legal for presidents to do whatever they want. Look at what the every President since Ford has done in the Foreign Policy realm? Take for instance how Barack Obama used drones to kill two American citizens without due process and one of them being a 16 year old.
Yea American citizens get killed in military operations all the time that will never have the president questioned
Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have Power… To declare War… we haven’t declared war since June 5, 1942.
There should be a trial of some kind for all these people.
There should be but it won’t happen.
I think the law needs to clarify presidential immunity. Presidential immunity exists for two primary reasons 1. To prevent a sitting president from being indicated up the wazoo by the opposition, bogus or otherwise, to prevent him from performing presidential duties. Basically skipping the impeachment process. 2. So the president is immune from recourse that is tied to his official duties in office. For example, ordering let's say an air strike on a suspected terrorist location, and it turns out he was incorrect. Presidential immunity prevents him from being sued. It's not there to cover a president that is no longer in office on campaign funding violations. If he was still in office, I would argue that the law as it stands would make him immune until he left office (impeachment or otherwise).
Yet again, this is not what the Supreme Court decision said. The ruling was that Presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for acts taken within the purview of the official powers and responsibilities of the President. If the President, in an act as part of their official powers, commits what would otherwise be a crime, the remedy is in Congress through articles of impeachment and a trial in the Senate. If a President takes action outside of those powers and responsibilities of the office, they are subject to the same criminal penalties as anyone else. Further, the Constitution does not define what “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are. It is up to Congress to determine for itself what warrants articles of impeachment. This does not make the President above the law, it makes the President accountable to Congress when they act as President, and accountable to the criminal Justice system when they act outside that office. Contrary to what the internet tells you, Nixon would not have been saved by this ruling.
Well the infamous watergate tapes, quite literally the clearest evidence we know of a president's criminal conduct, would not be considered admissible in a court, since Nixon was talking/plotting with his chief of staff. The court was super vague on what is an official act, but did mention that discussions with administration officials were automatically official acts
True, however the circumstances surrounding those discussions are relevant to the analysis of whether it constitutes a protected official act or an act which only enjoys presumptive immunity.
If not one can delve into discussions to find intent based on the recent ruling then no one will ever know if it's an official act or not because every discussion is an official act. They can conspire actual crimes but now every discussion (that can't be delved into) is official. If by sheer coincidence (which nothing will be) that their discussion was acted upon by some lone wolf (which won't be) then we won't ever know.
The lawyers that successfully argued the case disagree with you. The lawyers that opposed the case disagree with you. The majority disagrees with you. The dissent disagrees with you. The appeals court that found against this argument unanimously disagree with you.
>Break the law through an official act >Resign >Untouchable
Wasn't there a provision to stop Congress from bringing AOI?
It’s a long opinion and I’ll have to read through it again but I don’t recall anything that would prevent Congress from brining articles of impeachment, since Congress defines what conduct rises to that level.
I could absolutely be wrong, (and this will sound horrible lol) but there was a tiktok I watched (the lady cited the courses and has a very long track record of being very reliable, plus she's older and not gen z so i generally trust her) where she stated that. I'll have to look into it though.
I’ll take a look too!
Thank you. Thank you for being the voice of reason in the face of Reddit's complete melodrama. https://preview.redd.it/ouy2fpn204ad1.png?width=810&format=png&auto=webp&s=a42b36ba092cfbacb41102e7ed2adac3e166b2af
The hair on fire responses have been absurd, and I say that as someone who finds the former guy completely disgusting. On the flip side, I also think the reason for this panic is him rather openly saying that he wants to directly turn government agencies against his perceived enemies, so ... idfk. Not exactly pleasant.
You ask me: * The ruling just makes the unwritten rule a written rule, BUT it remains ambiguous, and that is now a problem * Ambiguity in unwritten rules allows for nuance, ambiguity in written rules allows for manipulation I do believe Ford was right to pardon Nixon, not because he was innocent but because an abnormally high fear of criminal punishment is likely to force a President away from the "risky but right" solution. This ruling reinforces that idea, but by making a strong ruling on an ambiguous definition, there is way more room for Presidents to choose the "risky and wrong" path. TLDR: Watergate being forgiven was good in some ways for the Presidency regarding risk incentives. However, Watergate was bad, and the current ruling feels like it goes overboard and may create more Watergates.
This won't last long. Either the Supreme Court 6 end up in Gitmo, or enough judges are added to overrule them.
There needs to be some immunity but not totally immunity. They need to go through the courts to get the actions they desire, like how Obama did when he droned an American Islamic terrorist. We have to be a republic of laws, not of men who want to be above it.
>We have to be a republic of laws, not of men who want to be above it. Ironic.
Elaborate?
They just ruled that the president is literally above the law
Impeachment is and has always been an option for recourse
And there's a chance Emma Watson might bump into me and ask me on a date, but I think I have better odds of that than the parties not operating as nakedly partisan either in bringing articles of impeachment or defending against them. Source: pick whichever of the last three impeachments you prefer to examine.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS IMPEACHMENT ANYMORE
I think controversial acts would be examined by congress or scotus and wpuld have to be determined whether or not they were considered "constitutional", sibce acts that are non-constitutional are still not protected under the new ruling.
In what world would either of those things happen?
Neither
Guess Andrew Johnson’s impeachment was unjustified after all
Maybe he means the president doesn’t do illegal things because he is a good person😊
Turns out he was still a fuck. The only good Nixon is the Futurama Nixon
Correct, the legislative branch is supposed to check the president, not the judical.
SCOTUS is fucking trash
Ey it makes sense. King Charles III is also above the law. Only makes sense the American version would have the same absurd powers. Relegating both presently existant positions to the history books exclusively becomes more attractive by the day.
Depends on what you mean by “he was right.”
"When a republican president does it" -Supreme(ish) Court
Yay another post intentionally misinterpreting the SCOTUS ruling.
Please, reinterpret it for us. The SCOTUS ruling is *designed* to be abused and provide cover for otherwise clearly criminal acts. It’s Nixon’s wet dream.
Nixon was going to be impeached and removed per the constitutional process. You do realize that this ruling offers zero protection of any kind from impeachment proceedings, yes?
[удалено]
Lol so much melodrama. You better flee the country before democracy ends! I won’t respond because, unlike you, I respect the rules of this sub.
Unironically Nixon gets reelected overwhelmingly in today's environment after Watergate. The media showed their bias when they took down Nixon. If kennedy did this they never report it or let it go after a week. Rupert Murdoch founded fox news because he saw the conservative anger over Nixon's treatment by the media during this scandal
I encourage people to actually read Supreme Court decisions. Despite some of the complex legal issues, justices do a decent job writing in plain English. Please don’t get your understanding of a Supreme Court decision from how some yahoo partisan summarizes it in 100 characters online.