Asklemmy

42510 readers

1392 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone

AdaShovelace@lemmy.ml

200

What is the functional difference between the President having immunity for “official acts” and the powers granted to the German President under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution? (lemm.ee)

submitted 3 days ago by BmeBenji@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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."

[–] johant@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

“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?

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 2 days ago

You aren't missing anything. Our Supreme Court is supposed to look at each case and make sure that the law was applied correctly according to the constitution and case law, but has now become an extension of Trump's legal counsel doing backflips to bend (and inow seems also rewrite) the law to his benefit.

[–] oxjox@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] ondoyant@beehaw.org 5 points 2 days 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.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 2 days ago

My understanding is that a President from founding until now has been afforded immunity from civil lawsuits for official duties, but it was never intended to shield a President against criminal prosecution. That is why Nixon stepped down, because he had crossed that line and was going to be criminally charged/prosecuted.

The court has now taken and re-written the law for Trump, knowing that Biden (or any Dem) President will not abuse this new King power that the Court put themselves in charge of determining what applies and what doesn't. They have opened Pandora's box thinking they can control this new power, but if a dictator wants to be a dictator, they will find a way around the Court. This is going to have long term major repercussions for generations.