Hacker News Reader

Comment by danielmarkbruce | Hacker News Reader

It's worth reading the actual ruling rather than the reporting on it, which is downright awful.

Here's a sample of Sotomayor's dissent:

> The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

> Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Serious question: how is assassination an official act? Asked another way, under what constitutional authority is the president charged with assassinating political leaders inside the United States?

I'm not saying a president couldn't try. I can imagine that. I cannot understand how it would be an official act. If the president runs out of Kleenex and opts for toilet paper instead, that is not an official act merely because he is president.

> how is assassination an official act?

In the majority's opinion they stated that any act carved out by the constitution for the president is an official one.

The constitution establishes the president as the commander in chief of the armed forces. If the president orders a member of the military to assassinate an individual, he's exercising his role as the commander in chief, an official act, and is thus criminally immune.

The slightly longer form also includes that the majority held that for official acts, a president's motives can't be probed by the courts, so whether the president ordered Seal Team 6 to murder a political rival for self-interested reasons, that it was an official act is the only thing that need be considered.

If Lincoln had a Seal Team Six, and ordered said team to take out Jefferson Davis, would Lincoln have been open to prosecution, or immune as he had been undertaking an official act as commander in chief?

That's the problem. The ruling provides no guidance whatsoever, so as long as a President can make the case, it's an official act.

No, that's not right. The court will decide, and they do give some thoughts/guidance.

The Courts are dumb and often change their minds on appeal. All of this ends up at the Supreme Court where the clerics now rule.

Anything which reaches the supreme court is complicated, by definition. On top of that the world changes and the people sitting on the bench change. So yeah, the court changes it's "mind" from time to time.

The idea that they are "clerics" because they make a decision you disagree with is nonsensical.

Complicated by definition means absolutely nothing. Most cases are not complex but were decided on political ideology. This is why they tend to flip decisions. Anyway the current crop are indeed clerics.

https://verdict.justia.com/2023/05/03/how-did-six-conservati...

Well no, you’re making an assumption with how a court would rule in this situation.

There is nothing mandating that a court has to put careful consideration between what is and isn’t official business.

No, wrong. The comment says the court will rule, not how they'll rule. How on earth do you read that comment and think it says how they'll rule?

> Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.

There is no way that Sotomayor genuinely believes this. If Trump becomes president and is prosecuted again, I guarantee she'll argue that his crimes don't fall under the President's official duties.

I don't understand how you could not believe this under the majority opinion. The constitution is very clear that supreme command of the armed forces falls to the Commander-in-Chief. The President. It must follow that when the president directs the armed forces he is performing an official action that is exclusively given to him via the constitution. If that is not an official action, then what is? There is nothing in the constitution directing how the president should direct the armed forces. And it follows from that if its an official action then he is immune.

If Donald Trump ordered the military to manicure the lawn at Mar-a-Lago, would that be considered an official act? Obviously not. The Emoluments Clause dictates that all federal officeholders cannot benefit from their positions besides their direct compensation.

I don't think that the Domestic Emoluments Clause's concept of "Emolument" goes so far as to apply to the death of a political opponent. Suppose that I'm a manager at a corporate job and the second-most likely candidate for a promotion. If I order a subordinate to kill the most likely candidate and I get promoted, I don't think that the prosecutor would think to add a "prohibited employment compensation" charge on top of the inevitable "conspiracy" and "first degree murder" charges.

(In a previous version of my comment, I thought that the previous commenter was referring to the Foreign Emoluments Clause and cluelessly asked whether there was a domestic version.)

> If I order a subordinate to kill the most likely candidate and I get promoted, I don't think that the prosecutor would think to add a "prohibited employment compensation" charge

They would if you had used your company credit card to pay a hitman though. Perhaps this isn't the strongest argument for why the military for a political assassination isn't an official act. My point still stands though that all limitations of the powers of the President are still there, so not everything they do will be considered an official act.

Different emoluments clause: "he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

My bad. I have now edited my comment accordingly.

And she'll be on the minority side. Case decided, six to three, and she gets to write another dissent that will be ignored.

A president who is willing to do those things, and has a military willing to carry those orders out, isn't likely to be stopped by the court telling them it's illegal.

Bad logic.

Is someone more or less likely to perform such an act if there's a possibility of legal consequences? If not, then we don't really need courts at all, do we?

The fact that the courts have explicitly legalized these blatantly criminal acts is what gives the military the cover and the imperative to dutifully carry them out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com