Seems crazy! But just logical. If a President cannot commit a crime in the course of an official act, like giving an order to the military, how can you prosecute the person who follows the order? There’s a whole code of military conduct about “illegal orders.” All orders are legal now.
There is also every reason to think that this court will expand Trump v. U.S in his second term to extend immunity to those doing his bidding. I.e., “Our holding in Trump v. U.S. demands that government officials be able to enact the will of the executive without fear of criminal proceedings.”
Steve Inskeep raised this very issue with one of Trump’s “victorious” lawyers this AM, and then pressed him on it. The answer was unconvincing: it won’t happen because it’s never happened, and it’s never happened because of “Constitutional checks and balances.” Which SCOTUS has now eviscerated.
His argument seems to be that no other former President has ever been prosecuted, because immunity from criminal prosecution has always been a part of Constitutional design, And they didn’t commit horrific crimes because they might be prosecuted, which is still true.
To be slightly more fair, he did say they “would be immediately impeached and removed from office,” not prosecuted, but that seems a little hollow as Trump’s own party refused to convict him for trying to overthrow the government.
They also didn’t convict him for trying to bribe and/or extort foreign government to slander his political opponent, so I don’t think he’d feel the need.
Or maybe there were also other reasons that they mostly (not entirely) didn't commit crimes while in office because they thought committing crimes was a bad thing to do? Wouldn't look good for them or the country? Maybe?
Also, lots of things that 'no other' has done are what tfg has already done.
I'm not American, but even I can see that committing a crime isn't something that Trump would balk at. He has done whatever he wants before, legal or not (Trump University), so he clearly doesn't care about the "optics".
I blame the Founding Fathers, who apparently never considered either the possibility of a presidential candidate or judges lacking honor and some sort of positive morality, or the people being nitwit enough to elect such a person.
They did, actually. The very separation of powers that the 6 justices used as an excuse to place the President above the law was meant to be a safeguard against any one branch acting badly.
The safeguard against a Supreme Court acting badly is the amendment process. Is that a possibility (constitutionally speaking, not "how many D's and R's are in the Senate" speaking) for the immunity ruling?
It was intentionally made very hard to amend the Constitution, 2/3rd of House and Senate, then 3/4 of state legislatures. Given polarization (which the Framers did not design for) it is essentially impossible if either party sees the change to their disadvantage.
If politics prevent legislation on any issue, then by definition the much more difficult Con amendment can never happen either. See: the silly regular calls for a “balanced budget amendment.” If you can’t get 50% + 1 votes in Congress to pass a balanced budget, how do you get 67% to require one?
Only takes 2/3 legislatures of states to call a constitutional convention in which they could just throw the whole thing out and start from scratch. Given the state of gerrymandering in states it's dangerously plausible given one or two bad cycles
In Federalist 76 Hamilton made his key misjudgements, writing that a President wouldn't make bad judicial appointments because he'd be able to feel something called "shame".
What the framers did NOT see was the concept of one of the two parties no longer wanting the basic concept of the government they were creating.
It’s really hard to plan a democracy with checks and balances, for a political party embedded in all three branches actively attempting to tear it down.
I’d be interested in polling Republicans on the question “Would you support having a functioning democracy with checks and balances if Democrats were in the majority, or would you prefer an authoritarian government with Republicans in the majority?”
This is it, this is where the wheels come off.
If there's an exception at the top, it becomes impossible for any other law to have meaning. If the president can extend immunity, at will and ad hoc, to parties under their command, there's effectively no enforceable law. Everything operates by fiat.
How much you want to bet that their reply would be "impeachment and removal" and when pressed that it doesn't effing work in a party context the reply amounts to "lol sux 2 b u".
Inskeep interviewed Trump's lawyer this morning who said no of course those orders are still illegal even though the President is immune from being prosecuted for ordering them. That's obviously nonsense because any such order would also be followed by a blanket pardon for anyone involved.
Amazingly that obvious nonsense received no pushback and the interview ended with a congratulations for the attorney responsible for one of the most damaging SCOTUS decisions in American history.
NPR stopped pushing back around 2012 for whatever reason.
Half of public radio stories anymore are of the format "Question? One person answers this way. This other person says the opposite. In conclusion, who can say what's real?"
Especially egregious on Marketplace.
Sure, they could still get hit with a civil judgment. Assuming the evidence isn't excluded and you have a judge willing to incur the wrath of a President who is above the law.
At the point that we're into that territory, we're past the point where the potential threat of personal criminal liability was ever going to be a deterrent, especially since it was already established that the President is immune from prosecution during their term in office.
The President can still commit a crime, he is just immune (or presumed to be immune) from being prosecuted for it unless the DOJ can prove that the act is in the outside perimeter of his official duties and prosecuting him won’t hinder future Presidents from doing that job legally without fear
I recommend reading Sotomayor’s dissent, in which she explains in clear language why this will in fact never happen, due to the practical impossibility of threading the needle through SCOTUS’s decision.
How can members of congress commit crimes doing official acts? Aren't they just the embodiment of the legislative branch?
What about judges? And cops, for that matter? Isn't every public worker a piece of a branch of government and therefore immune?
Who knows what the future holds, but SCOTUS’s grant of immunity applies only to the President, by virtue of the uniqueness of the office. Specifically, it holds that holding him to a criminal law (perforce passed by Congress) violates the separation of powers.
