For reference: Article 48 Wikipedia I’m trying to understand how anyone with any knowledge of the history of dictators could possibly justify granting a president unchecked “official” power so if anyone has any actual theories I am ALL ears.

  • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.socialEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    This is from snippets of Justice Sotomayer’s disent I found here.

    Sotomayor said that the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, invents “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.” Their ruling, she went on, makes three moves that she said “completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability.” Sotomayor said the court creates absolute immunity for the president’s exercise of “core constitutional powers,” creates “expansive immunity for all ‘official acts,’” and “declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him.”

    • oxjox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      the court creates absolute immunity for the president’s exercise of “core constitutional powers

      Right here is where she’s losing me. It’s The Constitution. It is very much The Law above all laws. By definition, these acts, as defined in Article II, are immune from prosecution.

      Roberts was very clear that the charges against Trump need to be reviewed to determine if they’re “core” official acts or “perimeter” official acts. As I interpreted what Roberts said, there’s no way Trump is getting away with everything.

      • adderaline@beehaw.orgEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        listen. even if we disregard the fact that lots of legal experts, including the peers of the people who put this ruling in place, believe this is an existential threat to democracy, in practice, the ruling puts the authority for determining what is an official act into the hands of the judiciary. the supreme court is the ultimate authority in making these determinations. its a power grab, plain and simple, which grants the president immunity for “official acts”, and places the authority to determine what is and isn’t an “official act” in the hands of the same people who granted him that immunity.

        the fact that Roberts is making vague gestures towards some kind of accountability means less than nothing. considering how Trump is behaving, what he and his crowd seem to believe about the breadth of this decision, we should not assume that a room full of people Trump put into power have any interest in ensuring Trump doesn’t “get away with everything”, and we shouldn’t assume that these people are even nominally interested in telling the truth about their intentions, considering just how much of their personal comfort is guaranteed by the institutions that Trump represents, and how resistant they are to accountability for their extremely well documented lies.

        your personal confidence in Trump’s eventual, eternally forthcoming guilt relies on the trustworthiness of liars and the moral fiber of bigots. good luck with that.

    • johant@lemmy.ml
      0·
      4 months ago

      “declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him.”

      To me (as a non-US citizen and outside observer) this seems to be the real problem. Seems to present a catch-22 to me. What am I missing?