undefined | Better HN

0 pointsenragedcacti1y ago0 comments

You know the majority can read the dissent right? If they felt it so silly they could have addressed it. Rather than contesting the claim they dismiss it because they feel its not as likely as other (seemingly non-mutually exclusive) concerns:

> The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” [...] The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself...

Also important to note is that the hypothetical didn't sprout from thin air, Trump's lawyers (whose arguments SCOTUS in large part accepted) acknowledged that extrajudicial assassinations would fall under official acts.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-t...

0 comments

lolinder1y ago

That's not what they say, you cut off their actual response:

> The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. ... Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine.

Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.

lenerdenator1y ago

I wouldn't call that a failure mode.

The US has a long history of relying purely on executive latitude and good faith to get things done. We now have a bad faith actor who wants back in the Oval Office with far fewer restrictions on his power. A lawsuit or criminal charge would absolutely be a good remedy in that situation.

Furthermore, it's the implementation of a system. What the justices of the majority said today is "there is no system". When there is no system to deal with problems, then humans make them up ad-hoc, which usually results in violence, if history is any indicator - and it is.

enragedcactiOP1y ago

That's a lot of words to not contest that political assassinations are covered under this framework of immunity.

> Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.

I know its hard to imagine, but I strongly feel there is some amount of presidential immunity that mitigates what they are worried about without also enabling political assassination.

KoolKat231y ago

Deleted

lolinder1y ago

You're misreading the text. It's not saying "if presidents assassinated their rivals they'd cannibalize themselves", it's saying "if executive branches got in the habit of prosecuting past presidents for official acts we'd be in a load of trouble, and that's a more likely scenario than assassinations."

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

lolinder1y ago

That's not what they say, you cut off their actual response:

Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.

lenerdenator1y ago

I wouldn't call that a failure mode.

enragedcactiOP1y ago

That's a lot of words to not contest that political assassinations are covered under this framework of immunity.

> Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.

I know its hard to imagine, but I strongly feel there is some amount of presidential immunity that mitigates what they are worried about without also enabling political assassination.

KoolKat231y ago

Deleted

lolinder1y ago

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse