Hacker News Reader

Comment by boole1854 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Show the part of the constitution that mentions immunity for presidents. I read it again this morning after the decision and found nothing.

The US Constitution does not discuss to what extent, if any, a President has immunity from criminal prosecution.

How is eradicating stare decisis considered "solid legal and philosophical principles"?

Where does the Supreme Court get it's power? In practice, it's from the people - nor from constitution or constitutional experts.

There may come a point where some quarters of the public will willingly accept some governor, attorney general or president ignoring a supreme court ruling: then what will they do? As Andrew Jackson apocryphally noted, the supreme court has no enforcement arm.

>There may come a point where some quarters of the public will willingly accept some governor, attorney general or president ignoring a supreme court ruling

This already happened with Joe Biden ignoring the Supreme Court on abolishing student debt.

He did not ignore the Supreme Court, he got a court decision and modified the orders according to it.

This is disinformation. There are multiple instruments for students debt forgiveness - he is using workarounds that SCOTUS did not rule against to achieve the same policy result.

The supreme court shouldn't rule on policy like you suggest, but on the law.

This is not misinformation. I look forward to you providing a source that outlines the "legal" way he did it.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is on you: happy readings, and good day.

Since a not-small portion of the US constitutional law community does feel this way and you're playing the "cite your sources" card, cite some sources.

> you're playing the "cite your sources" card

But I did not request any sources. A substantive argument is excellent its own right, even if citation-free.

Philosophical arguments aside, the fact that three justices appointed by Trump are then ruling on whether he should be granted immunity is in itself a conflict of interest that would not be allowed on any lesser court.

That is a good one and in better times might have seen them recuse themselves? Justices have recused themselves in the past for apparent possible economic conflict of interest - don't know about political conflict of interest.

"shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" is probably what's meant to address political conflict with a specific person: They nominally can't be removed by the person who nominated them.

Alito, Thomas nor any of Trump's appointees have the scruples or decency to recuse themselves.

It actually would be allowed. I agree it's a questionable practice but it's long standing precedent that judges can hear cases which involve the party that appointed them, e.g. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/769025/in-re-executive...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com