- law dawg
- 8 Comments
- 1001 Views
Here’s your space to discuss the Supreme Court taking up the question of Trump’s immunity and the legal merits of any other topic of national interest. Please keep this discussion in the comment section of this post. We ask that you remain civil in your discussion and refrain from personal attacks on politicians or mere recitation of political rhetoric.
there is no reason the Supreme Court needs to weigh in on this. Why did Nixon need to be pardoned if this is the case?
My argument would be that Nixon didn’t need to be pardoned, but he was and the issue was moot and no litigation was filed as a result. The issue was never ripe until now.
It is time.
I read almost the entire opinion (last few sections finally put me to sleep). I thought the opinion, no matter what side of the political spectrum one is from, was well thought out and researched. There was surprisingly more precedent in the area than I was aware of. Presidential immunity is far from my practice area, so I have no idea what SCOTUS will do with it. Very interesting issue.
If you have never seen what one of these Miscellaneous Orders looks like, it is remarkably simple and right out of the 1970s. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022824zr3_febh.pdf
Can anyone point to a section in the Constitution that explicitly gives the President criminal immunity?
No?
I’m sure the textualists/originalists on the Court will swiftly affirm the DC Circuit then.
Except that the only provision for smacking a President for his actions is impeachment and removal. Seems to me that one reasonable implication is that there is immunity for official actions outside of this procedure.
It is short sighted to deny immunity to a President just because you dislike his politics. We are a large nation and the ability to launch a 1,000 lawsuits during office or after a President leaves office would be devastating to the function of the executive branch. Republicans will sue in Texas or Oklahoma, and Democrats in New York/California, unless you think current lawmakers could agree to only bring suits in D.C. (not likely). You would paralyze the Executive because their every action hurt some/help others. Bankrupting lawsuits would follow and make the Executive hesitant to act, or making a 1,000 mini-executives of the judicial branch.
Does it mean the President has immunity forever? No. The constitution provides a mechanism for removal which should be step one in taking away that immunity. Maybe if there was a conviction you could bring suit, but I think you have to use the current procedure built into the constitution before you even think about the next step.
How many recent presidents authorized drone strikes on US citizens that were overseas? Answer: more than 1. Could they be criminally charged for murder?
(Pretty much every modern president is a war criminal (by definition). Slippery slope indeed).