• WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I mean, they have to sign some paperwork to make it an official act, but otherwise what’s the difference? They don’t have to arrest anyone according to this ruling, if I’m reading this correctly. Sure, us normal citizens probably do, but according to the court, presidents don’t have to follow the law if it’s an official act. That’s kind of the basis of the dissent. It separates the rules we follow and our leaders have to follow.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can’t. About halfway down pg 4.

      • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        The syllabus only says that SCOTUS can’t decide the line between official and unofficial acts because it’s a court of final review, and they offered a list of guidance to lower courts who they charged with making the distinction. They point to pp 16-32 for more detail on that guidance.

        The guidance says:

        1. Courts cannot consider motive

        2. An act is not unofficial simply because it violates a law

        3. Courts cannot consider negotiations with DoJ

        4. Courts cannot consider negotiations with or influence of the VP if the VP is serving an executive branch function, but may consider influence of the VP if the VP is serving a legislative branch function (i.e. supervising the Senate)

        5. Engagement with private parties is not an official act

        6. Public communication of the person serving in the role of President is official, but public communication of the President serving in another role is not

        7. Prosecutors cannot use a jury to indirectly infringe on immunity unless a judge has already ruled that immunity does not exist

        So again, if a President sends a branch of the military to a) assassinate a terrorist or b) recover national security secrets, none of the allowable court considerations above come into play. Nor do they if the assassinated individual is a SCOTUS justice or a political rival. The executive branch and military are the only entities involved, no public communication happens, murder is OK if it’s done in an official capacity, and planning records are inadmissible. A prosecutor would have no authority to bring a case, and a court would have no precedent to allow consideration of the charge even if they were brought.

        That’s a loophole the size of the Hoover Dam.