I would say government officials have powers or authorities, as defined by the constitution and legislation. People have rights; governments have powers.
It's not possible to exercise duties without commensurate rights or powers. Police cannot keep the peace without the unusual authority to arrest people.
@@broark88 But much like police, powers come with accountability when they are abused. And we all know how crooked the Police Departments and Police Unions can be. The President, as a civil servant, is no different.
@@gasad01374 exactly… I mean, seriously. This is a terrible ruling all around. I would LOVE to see what the Trump supporters who are celebrating this ruling say if Biden uses the military to take out Trump with zero consequences and full immunity. Like… you guys asked for this. 🙄
@kfizz21 first, get a proper legal review of this. Immunity exists for tons of government employees, you for example can't charge a police officer with kidnapping for arresting you. This ruling changed absolutely NOTHING, all it did is codified what everyone with half a brain already new. So just like all the rest of government employees, the President cannot be prosecuted for doing what he is legally required and capable of doing because they are the president. For a prosecution of president's actions to happen you must prove it to be NOT a legal duty or act of the president. Even if it was a legal official act, congress can still impeach and convict him which would effectively strip him of his immunity. So again get some real legal analysis of this, not the god awful crap that comes out of legaleagle.
@@kfizz21 The ruling does not grant the president the authority / ability to take out political rivals. To do so falls explicitly outside of their authority (as shown with Richard Nixon, who resigned after failing to simply dig up dirt on political rivals when his defense of "for the president it is not illegal" failed). It has no justification on military nor law enforcement terms. What it does is ensure that acts that do fall under those responsibilities are granted immunity even in the event that they are poorly or improperly acted (or in other words, requiring both Congress & the Supreme Court to agree to make an exception in order to prosecute for such malpractice, if such occurred) - and those acts that Trump is currently being tried for (that he is not otherwise innocent of, in what is meant to be an "innocent until proven guilty" system) largely fall under presidential immunity.
@@DBArtsCreatorsThe supreme court pretty much said Nixon was right. Under this ruling he would not have had to resign and if he did, the president who replaced him would not have had to pardon him to prevent him being charged with a criminal offence.
As a Brit. I can't understand why you'd give temporary leaders any kind of immunity from prosecution, you're basically setting up mini dictators and it seems incredibly un-democratic
I understand your view, but if a leader that's responsible for the national security of a nation is caught stealing an ice cream cone, then they could just be imprisoned and the next worse person is in charge, then they could be falsely charged as guilty for a crime (which happens a lot), then someone even worse has the job. This is the idea behind it, the president or acting president is too important to just get rid of because of some petty or unjust prosecution/imprisonment. If you don't have a president and war breaks out, then you have a bigger problem than whatever civil crime the imprisoned president committed. Additional note: The President's election (though very loosely) is dependent on the general population, so for a President to get into office in the first place, they must be good enough to be President (hypothetically, but not always in practice). Anyone can commit a crime, but not anyone can be a Commander in Chief in peace/wartime scenarios, a diplomat to insure the safety of millions of lives, a representative and figure of and pride to a nation.
@@R.W.Raegan why not just respect your political opponents? Seems to me the main problem here is respect. Look at our General election, on Friday when Rishi made his leaving speech he was very respectful of the winning party
@@R.W.Raeganthis is not about petty crime. The language of the ruling allows for a president to assassinate political opponents by claiming it is an official act. You seem to ignore the extreme scenarios that came up during the hearings and that 6 supreme justices voted for.
@@jordanhooper1527because the idea of respecting the opponent was thrown out the window the moment Trump announced his run. You have to remember everyone loved the guy until the moment he ran in 2016 and everybody turned on him on a dime
"Me-sa propose the senate give immediate emergency powers to the p̶r̶e̶s̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶ supreme chancellor" - Jar Jar Binks, but also Someone in senate probably.
And that's the whole point of Jar Jar. You watch him fail upwards into a small position of power where he's easily manipulated into helping destroy democracy. He's a commentary on actual politicians we have irl.
Not Really. That what a problem is. If you define the job then they are strictly in the lines. If you rule on what the President can't do is way easier, then listing what they can do.
@@ulyssesgrant4324 blacklist system are the dumbest most re*trded way to govern anything...here you cant nuke a city but in 5 years there is a new type of bomb so you can vaporize the city instead......GJ ...NOT
Considering that the Supreme Court overturned Amendment 14 clause 3 on the grounds of 'not clearly defined enough...' I think we can say the whole Constitution has this problem. To much 'poetic flow' and not enough 'technical document.' The twisted part, even if Congress attempted to fix it... what stops the next Supreme Court from still claiming ignorance as to what the congress desired? 'Not clear enough' is very abusable.
@@lostbutfreesoulexactly, just like the left constantly tries to claim "regulated" in the 2A means "we can deem what firearms you can have" even though that's not the context it was used back then.
Mr. Terry, I think that there's something incredibly important to keep in mind here that you missed. While it's true the video is one-sided and the justices may be being hyperbolic, these are supreme court justices putting these interpretations in official dissenting opinion statements, so this illustrates valid interpretation of the law at the highest level
Another issue with their ruling is it says that they can't even use evidence from official Acts to try him on the unofficial Acts. They can't even question his motive
Every Supreme Court justice is appointed to do the absolute most for the agendas of the appointee’s. Great for the president, bad for pretty much anyone else.
It's so bad that the dissenting justices didn't write "and on this matter I respectfully disagree" in their dissenting opinion, but just "and on this matter, I disagree". In an institution as old as the Supreme Court, this might as well be a bombshell. This might as well say "what are you even doing?"
@@bulletsandbracelets4140 And that was in writing. When reading it out loud, Sotomayor said "with fear for our democracy, I, and the founders, dissent."
I think Legal Eagle got into it, but as Commander-in-Chief has the official duty of commanding the entire military. So, he CAN order the SEALs to do what he wants. The Court has made it so lower courts cannot investigate the order, or hold the President to account for the results of that order. The only legal recourse is the Impeachment (which has not done much historically). Also, if an Impeachment is looming, the President can order Congress to get arrested by DoJ, FBI, or whomever.
Something I wish more would comment on. If the only legal recourse is Impeachment, but the President has authority to intimidate, imprison, and/or murder those who would vote on impeachment without repercussion - then how is that a recourse?
33:00 Yes, they were trying to address a historical problem - that being the problem of Nixon needing to resign after it was discovered how dirty he was. Under this ruling, Nixon would never have resigned. No president will ever resign now as a result of this ruling, because there will never be a danger of prosecution for committed crimes.
As a student of law, i think i can do some translating into what this means. So, basically, SCOTUS' position is that any president (namely trump) has to make difficult decisions, and the argument is that if the president is able to be litigated into the ground, they wont be making the correct ones in favor of their political safety. Therefore, in the due course, for the president to execute their duties efficiently, they are to have absolute immunity from both civil and criminal law (despite the grounds for impeachment being a thing). Because in law, you have 2 sections: actus reas (the physical act of breaking the law) and mens rea (the guilty mind, or the motive). According to SCOTUS, neither the public nor courts can look into motives because *presumably* the motives that led to an action *could* and *in theory* *possibly* be in line or on the fringes of the president's duties. As an example: if trump called kim jong un short and fat again in a public address. Based on the loose wording of a president's role, speaking on behalf of americans is a fringe duty of the president because he represents 100% of americans, even if only 51% voted for him. Not only would he be exempt from prosecution, but we wouldn't even be able to determine if it was his intent to start a war with N. Korea because it is assumed to all be for the execution of his duties as president.
The HUGE problem with this is that the majority opinion seems to either a) not consider the most extreme misuse of the presidential powers or b) worse, they did consider it and made this ruling anyway. One extreme scenario is this; The president could order the military, while the senate is in session or before, to assissinate/detain politically opposed senators (since commanding the military is a core defined power). He then could appoint Senators in the vacant seats until the end of the next Senate session (one of the core powers) so that the Senate is lopsidedly in one political parties favor, thus passing whatever laws they wish realistically. Then, even if the president can't be held criminally liable for murder (because he used his core powers and is absolutely immune according to this ruling), he could then pardon anyone who WOULD be charged for crimes under his orders, because this is another core power of the presidency that is absolutely immune. The only refute against the president is an impeachment vote and conviction. Which, again, use the above scenario to prevent from ever successfully happening. This ruling is scary because it depends on the President to not be a tryant, an authoritatian, or an egomaniac who would want to keep power indefinitely for whatever reason. And, very unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Your desire to see what the majority opinion said about limits and what is allowed was sadly impossible. The majority danced around it and didn’t set proper limits. He references the minority opinions so many times because they were the only ones to actually delve into what the decision means for the President now and in the future.
@alexandergilles8583 because that standard is already well established, in relation to presidential Civil immunity, that has always existed. You can't sue the president, and never have been able to sue the president, except for unofficial acts. This decision just applies the exact same logic to crimes too.
@@SirxekoWhat problem is this ruling solving then? Something Mr. Terry asked multiple times. There is NO PROBLEM. This ruling corrects NOTHING but it does open the door to unchecked presidential power.
Point Blank, The Supreme Court is sick of false arrests on trump. This prevents it now and against future presidents. Kinda silly people assume the SUPREME COURT didnt have a plan. @alexwisniewski2309
@alexwisniewski2309 first, the problem is pretty obvious, just look at what's happening right now. False and/or minor charges are being levied against a president by the other political party to prevent that president from being able to run for reelection. I'm about to list a lot of reasons why one particular case is nonsense, if you don't want that break down, and only care about the immunity argument, skip the next chunk of text, I'll return to immunity at the bottom. Consider the manhatten case, 34 felony counts. But the crime in question a) was past the statute of limitations, New York state temporarily extended the statute of limitations, which is the only reason this case was allowed to proceed. Officially it was for covid related reasons, but considering they only lifted the statute on this crime, specifically, it's clear this was targeted. And b) the falsifying business records Trump was accused of is a misdemeanor. The charges were artificially upgraded to felonies. And c) 34 counts? Signing the check, stamping the envelope, depositing it in a mailbox, reporting it on business tax forms, reporting it on personal tax forms. 5 felonies, for one action, the action of sending a check to someone. Which, if a crime at all (it isnt) should only be considered one crime, not 5. They're pulling out all the stops to maliciously prosecute. Oh, and d) in order for falsifying business documents to be a felony, it must be done to hide some other crime. Trump was not charged with any other crime in that case thoifg, and the judge instructed the jury that they need not agree on what that crime was. However, Supreme Court already ruled in Johnson vs USA 1998 that the underlying crime DOES need to be unanimously agreed upon in a falsifying business records case. There is an absolute ZERO percent chance that this case isn't appealed. But that's fine. The judge and prosecution doesn't care. It isn't about holding Trump accountable, it's about keeping him from the presidency. He'll win on appeal, in a year or two, after the election. That's what they really want. And that is the case for all of the Trump trials, and one of the two problems the immunity decision addresses. The process itself is the punishment. They don't care if the charges stick or not, they want him wrapped up in legal issues all election season. That's why they didn't bring these cases 3 to 7 years ago, when the events allegedly occurred. And that's why they are willing to cut corners now. Because it's not about winning in court. It's about winning in the ballot box. And that is an underhanded tactic that the immunity decision prevents. The second issue is admittedly hypothetical. But only in that it hadn't happened, not in that it couldn't have happened. A local prosecutor, of a small town in deeply red or deeply blue territory, could levy charges against a sitting president. And it could be anything. Jay walking. Speeding. Whatever. There is enough evidence in Ashley Biden's diary and her own testimony to suggest that Joe did indeed molest his daughter. Likely not enough evidence to convict, but certainly enough to indict, if you live in a red state. What's stopping Missouri from arresting Joe Biden, right now, today? The answer is most Republicans believed in presidential immunity long before this decision. But if they didn't. What would happen if a state arrested a president? Would that not bypass the will of the people to elect a president? If 49 states go one way, 1 state goes the other way, and then that 1 state arrests the president, how would the other 49 states react? How would the citizens react? You ask what problem the immunity decision addresses. I'd say preventing potential civil war is a pretty big one. And also, this does not open the door to unchecked presidential power. Because there is still a very big check. The same check that has always existed on presidential power. Impeachment. And you CAN impeach a former president, by the way. If a president is successfully impeached, by both houses, that removes their immunity. Or did you not actually read the decision?
Hey Mr Terry, I just wanted to let you know that what the majority opinion is is what legal eagle was saying when quoting the majority opinion. Only rarely does the majority release a statement adding to the majority opinion (the last one i can think of was Thomas's added opinion to overturning RvW). A decenting opinion is usually an explanation as to why a justice objects.
US politics always baffles me. From the weird ways of how supreme court memebers are selected by political parties for their biases. To politicians being fairly untouchable unless they have an afair, because obviously that is way more important than being corrupt. To parties not just kicking out politicians if they are unfit to act in the best interest of the country and people. There doesn't even seem to be safeguard on the party or national level to not have people run for president if they are mentally not capable to do so.
To be fair, the US was the first constitutional republic in the world, to the best of our knowledge. Most other modern liberal democracies developed republican institutions from constitutional monarchies in a much more fluid way.
@@broark88yeah the US constitution is old and is hard to change much in the constitution. Creating a situation where a few people can stop things from ever being implemented in a very undemocratic way. What sucks about the U.S. being one of the first to take out the monarchy is that there is a good chunk of people that believe the U.S. has reached the most democratic possible stage even tho we are far from it and should be pushing for a more democratic republic at least.
@@raemmio2761the constitution has been amended 27 times so it’s not that hard to change it…the problem is the founding fathers never expected the moral downfall of the nation…the US has legalised corruption and nobody bats an eye
The 25th amendment is what that is for, it just hasn’t been used on Biden because even the democrats know that Harris would be worse than Biden and they don’t have anyone good to offer up to the people as a replacement
Lawyer here and I finished reading the majority opinion last night. The key takeaways for me were: 1. Presidential Actions fall into one of three categories; Exclusive actions such as decisions made as commander and chief of the military which are entitled to absolute immunity. Then are "official acts" which are entitled to a presumption of immunity and "unofficial acts" where there are no immunity. 2. The court provided virtually no guidance as to what constitutes an official act vs. an unofficial act 3. The presumption of immunity for official acts can only be overcome if prosecutors can demonstrate there is no "danger of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch." 4. The intent of the President can not be used to determine whether an act was official or unofficial; and 5. Official actions can not be used as evidence in prosecuting the President. I have heard people throwing around the idea that this ruling is saying that a President could order Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent and be immune from prosecution. This is true based on the language of the opinion. Another thing the President could do is order the Department of Justice to begin selectively prosecuting individuals and groups that are politically opposed to him. Were he to engage in such behavior, we would have to hope that those in the chain of command would refuse to obey his orders due to their illegality and that Congress would remove the President from power. However, he would be immune from prosecution. I do want draw attention for the standard for overcoming the presumption of immunity of official acts I mentioned in Item 3. That burden of proof appears to be higher than beyond a reasonable doubt, in other words, prosecutors looking just to prosecute the President for their acts while in office is higher than the burden of proof they would fact to convict you of murder. At this point, I am not sure it is even possible for a prosecutor to ever meet that burden given how entwined everything the President says and does is with his position. Item 5 is also rather alarming because normally legally acts are normally vital for prosecuting criminals. For example, buying guns in of itself is perfectly legal on its own. However, if you bought those guns as part of a plot to shoot a school, then that is evidence of attempted/conspiracy to commit murder. Criminals who obtain office are very likely to use the power of their office to further their illegal schemes so not allowing these acts to even be used as evidence is devastating if you want to hold a President criminally accountable. I want to see what the courts have to say about what constitutes an "official act" as opposed to an "unofficial act". But as it stands right now, the Supreme Court appears to have created a situation in where 99% of the actions a President takes while in office is entitled absolutely immune from any potential criminal liability or the standard set is so impossible he may as well enjoy absolute immunity. I hope I will be proven wrong, but this ruling in my opinion has the potential of being worse than the Dred Scott Decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Koramatsu.
We still have a method for removing a president going Rogue... Impeachment. Presidents should be immune from legal prosecution to keep the power Solely within the House and Senate to evict a president. The whole population of the country elects the president, that means only the whole of the country's representatives should be able to remove them.
Isn’t that the point of impeachment. If you’re impeached for something it wasn’t an official act and you can be prosecuted for it, at least that’s how I understood the system. Also from what I understand this same Supreme Court is neutering a lot of the three letter agencies, which have power from the executive branch. Effectively removing executive power.
Even worse than fear - the desire to run with the big boys, to be a "strongman." Look at who Trump idolizes: - Putin who chucks his opponents out of windows or off roofs or else poisons them with nerve agents, even sending assassins into other countries do so. - Kim Jong Un who murdered his own family members to secure his position as President of North Korea. - Mohammed bin Salman al Saud, President of Saudi Arabia, who had a journalist - who was a US citizen, btw - murdered and gruesomely disposed of in Turkey because the journalist was critical of him. With a guy who thinks outright murder is a great way to run a country currently running for to be US President, now is not the time to be tearing down checks on Presidential power or handing out criminal immunity.
Because when fired, you get a bunch of people that start talking to the media about how you are out of the spotlight/shed incriminating information. Look at the majority of people Trump fired as president, almost all of them have talked about him afterwards in a negative light. Biden's staffers are talking about Biden right now after the debate about how his condition. It would be convenient once you realize nothing will stop you, to just make that negative light go away. That's how it has been done historically, and just because this is America doesn't mean that sort of thing is impossible. It sends fear to the populace to oppose them, and fear to the underlings to do anything about it. We see this in countries today unfortunately.
For an example of an official act that would be immune from criminal prosecution for a Dem. President I would present the following example: Would Obama be able to be charged with the murder of 4 US Citizens in a drone strike? US Citizens are supposed to have the Right to Due Process.
No, you would not be able to sue(charge) Obama as an individual. You could attempt to sue the US government for wrongful death and damages, but Obama as an individual would be immune. (Technically only the state and federal governments can prosecute people in criminal court)
As a leftist, I have always wanted Obama to be tried for those drone strikes. I was hoping that if anything this would be the start of holding large businesses and political personnel accountable, but it appears it will only be harder, at least for politicians/presidents.
Nope. Would not be able to be charged. Hell he could have done it on US Soil to Civilians. As long as it is a military order. Its immune from ALL prosecution. As Full Control of the Military is with in presidential scope. Even if those orders Break the Law. it would at best be the soldiers who could be prosecuted.
@@nunyabiz7699isn’t it a new thing that he can’t be prosecuted for any military action with this new court decision? Previously I thought it was only to help the president do what he needs/wants without being caught up in legal battles mid presidency.
5:29 No, ArtII.S4.1 of the Constitution “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Unless, of course, they decide the President is a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory". Then, of course, no one cares about criminal activity.
@@Choalith_Ikanthe That’s the DOJ, they’re a separate entity, the clause only regards Congressional prosecutions, though the DOJ does some shady things
And how are you going to prosecute them for such things? Remember, now they have immunity for anything that is defined as a Core Power, most things that are Official Acts (even if they could be considered Treason, Bribery, or some other High Crime and Misdemeanor), any act that they have immunity for can't be used as evidence when being prosecuted for things they don't have immunity for, AND we're not allowed to call they're motives into play, which is a critical aspect of establishing Mens Rea in a criminal trial, and civil judgements (which typically don't have as strict requirements) are neither a crime nor a misdemeanor so they can't be used as the basis for an Impeachment. There is some hyperbole involved, as @taiwandxt6493 stats in their comment, but not very much as this judgement allows a President who has a sufficiently loyal group of supporters to effectively do anything, with almost no fear of criminal prosecution, and civil prosecution is unlikely to slow them down, much less stop them, when they can freely use criminal acts to 'convince' the other side to drop their case.
the biggest issue BY FAR is that the political leanings of the person watching is going to color this. now, Ive seen this video and I agree with his take (mainly because he's a literal lawyer and Im not) but he's clearly left biased (as am I) and that will lead right leaning people to dismiss this or hand wave this away. we need to be clear: NO ONE WANTS THIS. this is BAD for all sides. Yes, the current focus is on Trump abusing this, but if my man Sanders had won, I want every Trump supporter to think of what he could get away with. this is universally bad.
He's not a very good lawyer though, and he's completely hysterical about the situation. Feel free to watch Good Lawgic for a response take. Presidents have always had immunity. Obama drone striked an american with no due proccess. Where is the procecution? They let Nixon step down, and gave him a pardon to prevent this question being taken to the Supreme Court. It was a good old boy's club where everyone was protecting each other because if they don't that means that procecution could turn on them later on. Trump could have gone after Hilary for her actions but he choose to not rock the boat. The people that didn't think about what would happen was the Democrats that decided to engage in lawfare to take down Trump, upending centuries of precedent. All these court cases are only around because he decided to run again. If that had succeeded then it would have devolved into a tit for tat attacks because, news flash, all these people are corrupt. None of this means that there are no concequences for actions. When the Japanese were sent to enternment camps during WW2, that was a terrible crime, and just because the president was not procecuted for ordering that didn't mean that there were no concequences. You can still sue the government, even if you can't sue the president, who gave the orders, and obeying orders doesn't not grant immunity soldiers that commit murder. This ruling restores the status quo, and removes an area of massive conflict. Joe Biden is a fruitcake, who forced everyone out of the primaries in a horribly undemocratic way, and they have done sustained disinformation of the American people by hiding this for so long, who is being punished for that? No one.
Right leaning people aren't worried because they know the ruling actually didn't change anything, just codified it (AKA they just pointed to the sign that already said these things), as lawyers that are much better than Legal Eagle and less biased have stated. Let's say for example the extreme left hypothetical of Seal Team 6. Let's say Biden today ordered Seal Team 6 to go kill Trump. Let's say actually go do it, they have the firefight with the Secret Service, they win because they went there prepared with all sorts of explosives and superior firepower and brought another Seal Team to boot, let's say they get to Trump and kill him. What happens then? Do you really think Congress is gonna let that be? No way. Congress would immediately and faster than anything done before, and probably completely unanimously, impeach and remove Biden. THEN Biden loses all immunity and can be tried and prosecuted, probably for 1st degree homicide and maybe even terrorism charges. Then he gets the chair. And then all SEALs that did the act would get court martialed and get the chair too. Simple as that.
24:06 Amy Coney Barrett apparently had statements about it, and they were that she effectively thought the definition of official acts were too broad despite voting for it
Yes, she wrote a “concurring” opinion. In legal parlance, saying, “I concur” does not mean the same thing as saying, “I agree.” It is saying, “I agree with you on the outcome here, but I disagree with (some or all) of your reasons for reaching that outcome.” So she agreed with the majority that there is an immunity, but she disagreed with some of them at the majority said about what may or may not be covered by it. Also, majority opinions are usually broken up into different sections, and it may say which justices join in the opinion with respect to that section. So ACB voted with the majority as to the holding, but she likely opted out of one or more sections of the opinion (and therefore wrote her concurrence to explain her reasoning).
@@brendancurtin679 Specifically, she disagreed with the idea that official acts could not be used as evidence in prosecutions. She points out the legal absurdity created by such a rule, where someone could bribe the President for a pardon but because pardoning is an official act, it couldn't be used as evidence of the bribe. The prosecutor would have a quid pro quo (something-for-something) where they were only allowed to show the jury the quo (money paid to the president) but not the quid (the pardon). And this is not for prosecuting the president, but the person bribing the president. The president would be completely immune because the pardon is considered a core power.
Like, you asked "what problem does this solve?" There hasn't been a situation where over a period of some years that multiple presidents have been charged left and right for crimes. It's a solution in search of a problem, and that is the issue. If there was at least a decade or more of abuse of the criminal justice system in regard to charging a president(s), then that's one thing - and while I still don't think that this is the proper solution, I would at the very least be more open to a debate on this. But there hasn't been, and this decision will create many more problems (and more serious problems) than it solves.
What problem does this solve? The problem of those who wanted America to be a dictatorship, now get what they want. They don't have to pretend America is a democracy anymore.
@@BlueWoWTaylan first off America is not a democracy it is a Republic on a technical basis and the problem it does solve is you can't prosecute the president for any little thing you want however this does open a hole can of worms and adds the question what is the duty of the president and a question we have avoided for to long time this can be dangerous but it can also provide a safety net for those who wish to remove the president on the basis of i don't like you and will find anything to get rid of you
Descriptors of our country are Constitutional, Democratic, and Republic. We have a constitution, we vote for our leaders/representatives making us Democratic, and a Republic in that we have representatives who make policy decisions. Yes we are a Democracy by brute fact of the general populace voting.
@@alexanderyoung7364 on paper yes in practice sure but until the US population understands that putting our faith in reps who could care less about us but yet we give them more and more power each year the democracy is becoming a smaller factor in US politics and practices our government makes laws without voting by the people instead by our reps like a Republic with all do respect the US population is to stubborn and stupid to take action and demand changes we are only naw seeing something but as we can see the government is instead of listening to the people they do as they please to prop themselves up as a American and a Christian I can say if something radical doesn't change the US will claps due to rebellion or outside intervention
@alexanderyoung7364 these dunces always try to ignore the democratic process so that they can just dismantle it. They always justify the consolidation of power in the government while they simultaneously complain about it turning autocratic and yet here we are. Conservatives are the largest oxymoron possible
It occurs to me that the answer to the question of why the president would use the military on American soil to remove someone from office is that certain offices are lifetime appointments according to the Constitution. So if use of the military is an official act and cannot be persecuted then the president could use the military as the one way to remove judges from the supreme court. I wonder if the supreme court justices would still think thats something the president should have the power to do especially since he would then have the right to appoint their replacements
Roberts said regarding seal team six that his colleagues were enganging in "extreme hypotheticals," which is essentially saying "come on, that'll never happen!"
11:29 In Brazil, pardons have to be approved by the legislative, if I'm not mistaken. I think the way it works in the US is strange for me, it seems to lack a limiting organ that can stop the misuse of that power.
What nuance do you expect if one of the arguments made in front of the supreme court is literally "the president can order the assassination of his rivals and be immune" and the court agrees? What nuance is there left to give if that's the state of the rule of law? There was no exaggeration by Sotomayor that was the literal argument made by the lawyers that the majority agreed with. At some point one has to drop the pretense of equivalency or risk looking like a fool.
That’s kind of what I was thinking. Legal Eagle presented the majority opinion and then the dissent in every section. It also made me wonder if he was just completely unaware of the actual case in front of the Supreme Court.
He said, "They've organized things so that the executive is unchecked by either other branch of government," but that's not true; the entire point, here, is that the proper check on official executive actions is the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, and Congress has basically no rules, at all, for whether and how to impeach a president.
On the topic of "If my guy is protected, I don't care about your guy" isn't necessarily the rational. If we take an extremely pessimistic view and assume that most of the motivation behind the decision is to preserve and expand the power of their preferred power, which isn't a huge stretch considering the divide is perfectly on party lines, its an option, but I'm afraid I don't see it as the most likely option. If I were to play a strategy game and was considering an action that would have benefits to both myself and my opponents, I may choose to take that action under 3 circumstances. First: There is a possibility for allegiance or non-aggression. The nature of our political system makes this appear highly unlikely. In a two-party system, there isn't really much of a way for two parties to not be opponents. Second: I am in a situation where I have no choice but to take this action regardless of how much it benefits my opponent. This is pretty much what you described. Finally, if I thought that, despite the opponent getting some benefit, I believe I would get a greater benefit. Immunity to criminal prosecution is only a benefit for somebody who would be criminally prosecuted. If, lets say, I happened to support a political candidate that was likely to be found guilty for criminal acts, and I believed that the politician that I didn't support, who is currently in power, was unlikely to ever be found guilty for criminal acts with or without immunity, then I would see my guy having greater benefit from immunity even if both people technically get it. Whether you believe Trump and Biden have or haven't committed criminal acts, the current situation is that Trump is far more likely to be found guilty if not immune than Biden is. Trump is currently charged with many crimes, while Biden has not been. One party has a very real benefit, while the opposing party may hypothetically get benefit from it too, or might just never benefit from it. Additionally, looking at historical data, it is just a fact that there is an imbalance between the two parties in the number of politicians and staff of politicians that are charged, or charged and convicted with felonies.
@@GerdTerd apparently not bc all these videos all have “Trump is immune wtf” and stuff like that and the comments lol. i was just letting people know they shouldnt be scared bc its been a law since like ever
doesn't matter, still bad. Would you want Obama to have this immunity? Or Regan? Or FDR? Or Nixon? Or Wilson? Or whatever lizard makes it to the top in the future? Uh... no
Because Trump and Nixon are the only two presidents who have exercised the powers of the presidency as if they were above the law. No president should be immune from prosecution for their misdeeds.
@tylercamp6244 The reason why people are freaking out is because Trump, aka a president known for just blatant corruption and a cult of personality surrounding him, is a front runner for the Presidency in 2024. Obviously the fear does extend to other future president's however when it comes to this ruling, Trump is the immediate threat, especially with Project 2025.
@@SomeOrdinaryJanitorthey should, because the president of the US should not be above the law no matter who it is, but nobody going after the others doesn't excuse Trump
SEAL Team 6, now known as Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU, was named when there were only 3 teams, with the idea that it would fool enemies into thinking there were many more teams than previously thought
"Is that actually what this ruling grants?" Yes and no. No in the sense that it is a little hyperbolic because Seal Team Six or whatever is not like obligated to listen to the president when he gives the order to assassinate or arrest a political rival, or do anything else that is just blatant executive overreach. Like, if the president gives this order, Seal Team Six or the Justice Department can simply just refuse to execute it. But, this ruling basically means that he can't be prosecuted for an abuse of power like this, when he otherwise should for giving this order in the first place. There isn't any accountability for presidents abusing their power anymore outside of like whatever the president orders just not being executed. The issue is, and what Justice Sotomayor and a lot of the criticisms being levied against this ruling are kinda getting at here is that this basically hands the President the keys to dictatorship. This is because these abuses of power will likely get executed because either people worry about their job security, or like in the case of Donald Trump or any other future president that has a cult of personality surrounding them, the president's orders will be blindly followed by those loyal to him that he puts into positions of power. And the President can get away with it scott free. This ruling is an evisceration of checks and balances in this country as it pertains to the executive branch, as it allows the president to do whatever so long as he has the loyalty behind him to do it. On the surface, this ruling makes sense because why should someone be prosecuted for simply doing their job? But more significantly this just opens up pandora's box for the president to abuse their power with no accountability whatsoever. The best partallel that I can make with this is just like if SCOTUS ruled that surgeons in the United States were immune from prosecution for anything that happens while performing suegery. Thats a terrible idea because it opens the door for so much medical malpractice. A surgeon can murder someone during surgery and theyd get away scott free.
On top of this, the Constitution would still require Congress to convict the President for illegally using SEAL Team Six to persecute or assassinate a political opponent
Never underestimate the power of bureaucracy. All a person has to do is come up with the "official" reason for any act. Then it can be called official, and it will take forever to argue that it is not official. Especially if we cannot examine motivation
None of what he said in this video, nor anything the dissenting opinion, is hyperbolic. The reason it sounds hyperbolic to you is because you’re (presumably) a law abiding citizen who wouldn’t even think of doing most or any of the things that SCOTUS has now said POTUS can do with impunity. And because, well, you don’t have that immunity. This is a purely hypothetical exercise for us all because we aren’t the ones who have just been given carte blanche to do whatever we want. Make no mistake. The fact that there is now someone who can do whatever they want, and who by the way controls the military and has his finger on the big red button, is terrifying.
SCOTUS giving it official judicial approval changes the game. Before the decision we didn’t know whether or not presidents had the sort of immunity that has been conferred because it was never brought before SCOTUS. Now we know.
So you have a person who can pardon whoever they want AND they are personally above the law. Sounds like an absolute monarchy to me. As for term limits, as an 'official act', a president can make that go away, and when you can officially deny the validity of any election = absolute monarch for life.
Compared to the tame king-model they wanted away from and which they still refer to as tyrannical ... yes, it's quite ironic that they wanted to get away from one only to have another one with way more power.
Noticing way too many people commenting that Impeachment is still a solution. All a president needs to avoid conviction via Impeachment is 34 Sentors to avoid the 2/3 threshold. With how politically entreched this country is and the extent of polarization, due you really think that a future president wouldn't be able to keep 34 Sentors on their side.
@@justincredubil The point being made is if party loyalty overrides everything else, then impeachment as a concept fundamentally doesn't work. It relies on senators/house members being relatively unbiased/objective and putting party over country, if that's not the case (which it isn't, we're hyper polarized) then impeachment as a tool is no longer a check in any practical sense of the term.
Very few impeachments have succeeded, and no president has even been removed from office because of it. The framers of the Constitution envisioned members of Congress putting country before party. This has not been the case on either side.
To me, I read through most of the dissertation and as a non-law person, it reads very much like it was worded in a very clever way. It almost feels like they took what they wanted out of the Trump immunity, and wrote it backwards to set on the ruling, instead of the other way around. Like it pretty much makes it so if it is an official act(such as talking with the VP, other cabinet members) it can't be used as evidence in a trial that is criminally prosecuting a non-official act/crime. So in Trumps case his telephone calls with various governors/attorney generals can't be used as evidence for conspiracy or attempting to overthrow an American election. Under these circumstances I feel like Watergate WOULD have been deemed legal, since Nixon personally didn't set up bugs/spied on political opponents but ordered his men to. It opens up a can of worms in terms of what "an official action" is and makes it vague so the lower courts have to decide on it for any trial, which could make court proceedings even more delayed, and infinitely harder to get justice no matter the future president. It has stripped accountability from any potential future wannabe dictators.
You are saying that LE presented it in terms of the dissenting justices but I don't think that's really true. He is saying that he presented the rules that the majority made--which were in fact vague--and then the criticisms of it. The criticisms naturally raised questions unaddressed by the majority because the existence of those questions being unaddressed IS the problem. They made a nearly blanket rule and where reasonable minds think there MUST be some clear limit, there is none.
You say it may take years and years to change…but a president could always “help” supreme court justices “retire” early. I mean, drones don’t mind who they strike really. I think a few justices getting “whoopsied” by “errant drones” might get the current ones to start thinking differently about immunity. If they don’t, a few drones here and there and you get an entirely new court, legislature, business leadership, etc.
Your idea at 15:40 is correct. The reason Devon isn't really going into the nuances of the case is because the HIGHLY partisan Supreme Court established that at the end of the day, they have the authority to determine whether a president can be charged with a crime and even if a president can be charged, what evidence against them is permissible because any evidence created as part of an official presidential act is privileged and inadmissible.
This dude is straight up being hyperbolic you cannot drone strike a political opponent that is not an official Act I am so tired of the people on here with two brain cells fighting for third place
With a stacked court like this the worst case scenario i can see is where SC deems everything a republican president does as an official act, but be a lot more lenient with democrat presidents. That woud result in presidents working with different rules depending on which they are affiliated with. Seems like a huge potential power-grab from the courts
Some seriously necessary debunking: "Official acts are just decided by the lower court, though.": Let's pose this hypothetical scenario. Let's say Trump becomes President again, commits an openly criminal act, and he is charged for it after leaving office. If a lower court rules against Trump, he can just appeal it to the Supreme Court again who will more than likely rule in his favor. The reason Trump's supporters even should be against this ruling? Replace "Trump" with "Biden" in that scenario, and assume we have a liberal court in the future. It could just as easily go the other way, in other words. The lower courts' power is not protection against absolute immunity. "Impeachment and conviction still holds the President accountable.": No. No, it just it doesn't. Have you looked at Congress lately? They can't agree on how to write their own names. There is no way in this political climate you will get the 67 votes in the Senate needed to convict any president no matter what party is in control of Congress and the Executive Branch. Impeachment is therefore a non-starter, and the law must still always apply regardless. For fun, see Article III, Section II, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution. This clearly outlines that Congress has the authority to regulate SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction powers. Congress can singlehandedly say that SCOTUS can't review a law just by writing it into the law -- and Congress can decide which cases SCOTUS can rule on. This "jurisdiction stripping" has been done at the state level many times. That being said, Congress could probably pass a law to reverse this ruling (or any ruling for that matter) and say that the court can't review it. In the 1980s, this very power was supported by a young lawyer working for the Reagan Administration who wanted to get around a liberal court and reverse a bunch of landmark rulings. The lawyer's name? John Roberts -- the current chief justice. So don't take it like I, a non-legal expert, am arguing this -- the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court came up with this idea!!!
Mr. Terry, this is the American version of the Enabling Act. When you hand someone incredible power and tell him he doesn't need to fear legal repercussions for anything he does, it seldom ends well.
I’m not sure I’d go quite that far just yet, because any future court can - and as we’ve see, will - strike down prior decisions. But barring that, I could see history seeing this as a similar turning point in history, although I personally don’t see America and Americans in particular putting up with actual populist nonsense for too long. The damage will be in the blood spilled and lives ruined, although hopefully not in that order.
@@yashjoseph3544 immunity to civil prosecution, because any joe could theoretically sue the president for any perceived damage because of his actions in his role. It would allow for a sitting president to be swamped in legal cases otherwise. Criminal prosecution is whole other matter and is the entire point of this supreme court decision, to discuss whether this civil immunity extends to the criminal realm.
At least a third of the video is talking about the opinion of justice Roberts. I think you missed it because even when described by the architects of the decision it still sounds like a charicature
hahah, I noticed that too. Even the own words of the majority sounds literally like a caricature of an evil takeover of a country in a movie or something....but it's not a movie and it's in our country :/
I believe the ruling was intentionally broad, so it could be interpreted by the courts that they know is conservative in nature and will be for a long time.
34:53, as you say in a second, that’s not gonna happen. The current Supreme Court just said it’s okay to bribe someone for their official actions in government, as long as it’s done after the fact. These are the same justices that have taken lavish private trips and gifts from organizations and individuals who have brought cases before the Supreme Court and which these Justices have not refused themselves of when this has happened. It’s gonna take “extreme” action by the executive branch either adding justices to balance out the court better, or, the legislative branch is gonna have to enforce(legislate) a code of conduct upon the Supreme Court. Either way, they’ll be screwing up as much of the law and precedent as they can in the meantime.
if they don't understand what the core power of the president is because it's not stated in the constitution, then I guess those people in Congress should get up off their asses and get to work and create laws that says what the power of the president isbut instead of doing that, these Congress people just give the president more power with their defenseauthorization Actbut they don't want to do that because they're too freaking lazythe Supreme Court is not supposed to create lawthe Supreme Court is there just to make sure those laws don't violate the constitution of the United States of america.
They literally can't. Congress can't define or enumerate the powers of the executive branch - only the supreme court is allowed to *interpret* those powers from the constitution. If you want to define, or limit, the powers of the executive branch beyond the scope of the supreme court's interpretation you need an amendment to the constitution to do so. Good luck.
@@jiiaga5017that is what they are arguing for, a constitutional amendment is the only way for the legislative branch to check this (which in today's political climate is impossible)
4:20 In the ruling they explicitly state that speaking to an attorney general is a presidential act and gets absolute immunity, which means nothing said to an attorney general can be used in court under any circumstances, so I'd assume the same would apply to orders to the DOJ. 5:30 As I understand it if a President were to do any of those things they would be completely immune from criminal prosectution. There are other possible consequences like the people being order not following them, the people carrying out them being prosecutred(of course the president can pardon), thee President can be impeached so that he can't do any more damage but even after being impeached he can't be prosecuted for any of it. IT is also possible those specific actions could be argued as not official acts of the president, but that requires limiting the President's power in some way which could mean that you actually can't argue against it. Part of the problem is how vague the court was and yet specific in a few cases that just so happen to help Trump immensely at the moment. Regardless of which what is undeniable is that the Courts just granted themselves an insane amount of power over determining the authority of the President, since they will be the ones that have to decide all of this. I do recommend everyone to read it themselves, there is one (to be fair controversial) streamer names Destiny that read the whole thing out loud on stream and gave is commentary so you can use that as a sort of audiobook version of the ruling, made it way easier for me to read it personally. One of the things that stood out most to me was the lack of consideration to the other side so to speak. The majority just keeps talking about how important it is that the Prsident not be cowed in his dutires by the threat of persectiuon, but they never take any time at all to go into how important it might be for the people to have a president that doesn't commit crimes. They just say it hasn't happened yet and probably won't happen so there. But literally the whole point of the case is because a President committed crimes. 10:45 No it is not a case by case for each, that section was referring to acts that only have presumptive immunity, but they also said that many President acts have absolute immunity which means you are not allowed to take them to court at all, or even use those acts as evidence to pursue charges related to other acts. Pardoning is a political tool that gives those offices leverage they can use for political ends. It in effect gives them a carrot to use rather than only sticks for enforcing the laws, so I'm fine with it, we just have to be wary of corruption in it's use. 12:38 From what I understand and have seen others yeah the burden of proof is on the prosectution, which is pretty hard thing to prove when the courts provided no test with which to do it yet. 13:42 I love this question. The majority themselves recognize that this has never been a problem in the past, the only reason we are even having this conversation is because Trump is the first president to be criminally prosecuted. 24:00 Their silence was truly deafening. In the majority they actually respond to several points raised in the sideent, but for some odd reason they chose not to respond to possibly the most concerning parts, that being the President could murder people officially and not be criminally charged or held responsible in any meaningful way. I would love to hear their arguments and perspectives too but they failed to provide them, which is the most worrying part of it all, all they did was falisouly accuse the dissent of 'fear-mongering' but did not engage in any fact based or logic based analysis, diagreement, or explanation of any kind for these concerns. Litterally all they said is that it is less liekyly for the concerns of the dissent to occur than the concerns of the majority, purely vibes. In fact here is the quote: " The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next." 27:20 The chart is basically exactly what the majority said in their decision, they majority were pretty clear about it all, it's just really bad. 28:42 Exactly, that was the other side of this that was given no consideration by the majority. They have this strange fixation and axiomatic assumptions all throughout the ruling that the most important thing in existence is that the President can take "bold and unhesitating action". I definitely hear you about being concerned about being in a media bubble, it is genuinely hard thing to know, which is why I strongly encourage everyone to go read the primary source. It is genuinely unhinged by the majority. There are ways to mitigate this ruling in the future and we can hope that stricter definitions are decided on, but right now I don't think I've actually seen any hyperbole about the consequences at all. Whether or not anyone will actually use the power is another question, but I don't think any of us have faith that a politician will simply choose not to use absolute power. The logic used to justify this ruling in the first place was shaky and honestly a little embarrassing to see form the Supreme Court. Thankfully this is a situation where it is relatively easy to check the primary source, just read the ruling, it's not too bad a read and even if it is boring, this is some of the most important stuff possible. Would love for you to make a video reading it yourself and reacting
The problem solves was Nixon and it is currently Trump. Under this ruling, Nixon wouldn't have been forced to resign. And Trump will basically walk free from any of his crimes during and after office as long as he can come up with some excuse how not doing it would have made his executive weaker. Pathetic.
The largest problem is that ordering a military action can only really be deemed a core presidential function, it's actually a foundational tennant of the constitution that the military serves a civilian authority, in the form of the president. Now, the issue is that the war powers resolution allows the president to send armed forces into action abroad, but not necesarily at home. But it's unlikely that that distinction would matter, since the entirety of the action would still fall under a core presidential function, (and all core presidential functions have absolute immunity.) the only reaction that might have an effect would be impeachment. That still wouldn't open the door for criminal prosecution, because you can't use any information that pertains to a core funciton of the presidency as evidence in a criminal prosecution even if an argument could be made that the military action somehow didn't fall under a core presidential function. Now, to make things even more muddled, ordinarily US military units can't be deployed on US soil, at least not as an attack force to combat US residents. However, there is still a method by which posse cumitatus (posse cumitatus is basically the fancy name for the military not being deployed against it's citizens.) in the way of the insurrection act. They can be deployed to assist civilian authorities for the purpose of law enforcement. The worst case scenario is the one about using the military to remove a political rival. If the insurrection act were enacted first, and then the military was used by way of a civilian authority to remove a political rival, it would most likely be deemed, under the current case law, to be a lawful function.
Why would that necessarily make it bad. It's bad because the outcome of the decision is bad, not because the structure is bad, though the structure is also bad, this is just a terrible argument.
11:20 I don't know, this should be a case-by-case basis. I enjoy watching true crime content, so all I can say is some people deserve pardons, and some don't. 37:40 Ground News is good if you want to know the bias or factual accuracy of some news regarding politics, foreign policies, and international conflicts. It's not that good for cases like murder, missing person, kidnapping, or sexual assault.
This should have been the easiest decision ever: NO! I can't think of any official action a president may need to do that would require criminal immunity to accomplish.
Or vice-versa (as they have tended to do. See the number of killings directed/allowed by Obama during his presidency on civilians in other countries, as well as his spying on the Trump campaign and assistance to both Hillary & Biden on their campaigns, which he has thus far been found as allowed to do regardless).
That's what I think also. The only obvious solution I can think of is for Biden to become as unscrupulous as Trump and use his new power to get rid of some Supreme Court justices before the election. Not a terribly great solution for anybody.
32:57 The problem that they're trying to fix is that they lost a war in the 1860's. We let them, not only live, but retain office and power. Those mistakes have festered and the inevitable result has been revealing itself for at least the last decade.
I only have on thing to say to your reaction Mr. Terry, you started to react way to early in the video. As you probably noticed, everything you were asking about in those first couple of minutes Devin did eventually cover, you just needed to give him a chance to get to them instead of going into a near rant at the thought of it.
The example of using the SEALs to kill political rivals seems somewhat flawed because that would be an unlawful order and the SEALs would have an obligation and duty to disobey that order. Granted, there is plenty of cases of people following unlawful orders. I think this may be a case where we will see a constitutional amendment added to limit the president’s authority.
A Pardon should rather be to order the trial re-opened, there are lots of cases where the judgement have been unecesarly harsh, or innocent people being sentenced. A governor or President should have the power to order re-opening of a trial, i.e., where new evidence have emerged, or presedence have changed. A Pardon doesn't aquitt the charges, and for those innocently convicted, an aquittal is the only just outcome.
I used to watch Legal Eagle, but he just can't help himself from being partisan, because the law isnt supposed to be, though we've seen partisan law in our faces for a decade now.
Buddy this isn't a partisan issue... no one should have the power of a king in America under ANY circumstances. People would and should pick up guns at the near mention of such at our founding. Allow yourself to be rilled up because of personal feelings is being blind to the truth. I wish you and anyone else well in the future regardless of the outcomes.
I've used the free version of ground news in the past, really interesting. You can select topics that interest you so it will keep you updated on news related to those topics too.
I refuse to take any lawyer seriously that watched the captain marvel biker scene and tried justifying her blatant assault on the dude for lightly brush down her map, and asking her to smile 😂
Mrr. Terry, you seem to be failing to grasp the full implications here. Under this ruling, ANY president would be immune from the law for ordering an USAF airstrike on their political enemies on American soil in broad daylight. Using the Army Core of Engineers to construct political propaganda monuments or demolish senators' homes would be legal for the president. Ordering the use of weapons of mass destruction on American law enforcement would fall under the new presidential immunity. An executive order directing cops to attack college campuses could be issued without resulting prosecution. Ordering the national guard to stand down in the face of a coup would be immune to the law. There is no safety mechanism here. No release valve, no emergency brake. Just one giant goose step to a brave new world of American Dictators with absolute authority and zero restraints. This may well be the worst ruling in the history of the Supreme Court.
Are we being disingenuous or obtuse? Pick one. Trump isn't the only president this affects, but it does affect his political rivals who have already shown they are not afraid to use the legislative branch against him. I don't plan on voting for him, but who I do vote for will support checks and balances used as the Constitution intended, not as weaponized politics.
The majority intentionally did not outline what is official or unofficial so they can pick and choose later. It's obvious what the message is. If you're someone the conservative supreme court likes your crimes are official actions if you're not then they're not. Also Trump would've been black bagged or executed if he were anyone else. Stealing those documents, something we know for a fact he did, was treason. People have literally gone to jail their entire lives for less than that one act.
I wonder when people disagreeing with Trump are going to start flying out of windows. Maybe the US will also add the word "democratic" into their country's name, like Democratic People's Republic of Korea and everyone knows how democratic every country is with the word "democratic" in their name.
You really need to re-read the US Constitution. It is very clear what duties and restrictions it gives to the President. Everything else is law passed by our Legislative Branch, yes? If it is an official duty, like say, operating as Commander-in-Chief, or enforcing Federal law, then he has immunity to laws below the Constitution.
As Devin pointed out: One duty is that the president can remove cabinet members. It would be a crime to remove them via murder.... This is the issue: Article 2 has a very tiny list that is very open to interpretation, it isn't a technical document listing everything in detail but vague 'mays and cans.' The only thing preventing previous presidents from abusing it was the criminal code itself. They could act out their Duties, but had to do so in a manor that did not violate said Criminal Code or upset Congress. Now they no longer have to worry about Criminal prosecution... and congress is a gridlock political mess... so what next? Of course: How does this sit with the duty to *Take Care* to *Faithfully* execute the laws? If said president don't need to care, period, about the Criminal Code...? In any case, as Devin explained: The courts didn't limit it to Constitutional Duties, but to all "offical" acts. So pointing to Article 2 doesn't help, if immunity is also granted to acts not listed within!
Im not really that worried about this ruling, it feels like theyre putting on paper whats been in practice for at least decades, probably longer. The problem with this ruleing specificly is that they left what counts as a president act and not. Which is gonna inevitably cause issues with anyone who tires to use this as a defence or prosecution.
In what way has this been in practice for "at least decades" Why did ford pardon nixon if he was immune ? No, it has not been precedent that you could not even bring as evidence, acts made in the presidents official capacity, to support conviction of a crime.
this whole law thing is about what's explicitly stated or not, which is why generally courts are very specific, so even if presidents have been behaving this way, having it be explicitly stated, and be as vague as it is, changes a lot. especially the parts about the president's motive being unquestionable, and that any official acts can't be used as a part of the prosecution
I personally see this as a reality check. If this ruling is all that they're saying it is, then we better be really damn sure about the person that we vote for. Do your research and do not vote by whim.
You’re asking a H* of a lot of the average voter. The average voter casts their ballot based either entirely on the letter of the party attached to the candidates name or based on inane perceptions like whose smile they like better, or similar.
Where I'm from, our Prime Minister can be charged with crimes. Like, for example, he can be caught speeding and get a speeding ticket, and if he drives well over the speed limit, lose his driver's license and be charged with reckliess driving which can lead to a prison sentence if it could have resulted in someone's injury or death. And we don't have a bail system here so if you get sentenced to prison, you have to serve time in prison no matter how much money you have. However, if the unlawful act has a connection to his duties as a Prime Minister, it would have to be a very serious crime for there to be any real consequences other than dropping voter support. Though unlike in the US, our Prime Minister holds no real power other than a seat in the parliament and can put forward suggestions and changes that the government first has to agree on, and then the majority of the parliament will have to vote in favor. He can't veto anything because it is his party and the other parties in his coalition that has the respoinsibility to put forward said bills. If the parties in the government can't agree on it, it won't get to the parliament. To put it more simply: If one of the smaller parties wants to change something but the other parties in the government isn't in agreement with it, then it won't be put forward to the parliament. If the parties in the government CAN agree, however, they just need to get the parliament's support. And to even be able to form a government you and your coalition need AT LEAST 175/349 seats in the parliament. And to even get a seat in the parliament your party need at least 4% of the votes. So basically, if your party get 3.9%, you still won't be in the parliament. Our king, and no one else, is immune to criminal charges, however. Though I doubt he'd go and have someone killed because that would be a good way for the people to revolt against you and force you to abdicate. Though he holds no real power other than being an admiral in the navy as well as general in the air force and army.
LE is incredibly biased. He previously dismissed the idea that ex-President Barak Obama could be charged with murder for ordering the killing 4 American citizens in a drone strike. I don't think I've ever heard him make an opinion that ran counter to his political belief. The criticism that "official acts" need to be better defined is fine, but that's also within the scope of a court. But Democrats had already said it was fine for a sitting president to dismiss 5th Amendment protections and order an American citizen killed through a secret and classified tribunal. US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was targeted multiple times before finally being killed by a drone strike in 2009, without ever being charged with a crime, much less convicted. The 5th Amendment prevents anyone, including the President from ordering a killing of non-military personel.. Specifically: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” So the argument is stupid and wrong. The real problem is the President is already barred from ordering specific targeting (except in specific cases) and we've been quietly ignoring it for decades.
They left it intentionally general so Congress still has a chance to weigh in. Congress COULD pass a law defining what constitutes a non-Presidential actions. Congress trying to define Presidential acts would almost guaranteed get struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of the Constitutional Separation of Powers doctrine. The issue would be that the law as a whole and/or each listed action could be separately challenged, and/or struck down and even one action being ruled against could, depending on how the ruling is worded, strike down the whole law. Generalizations in law are great at covering many possibilities and allowing for flexibility in prosecutorial discretion (e.g. father stole the loaf of bread to feed his starving child, then went to the store as soon as he had the money to pay it off: it is still theft, but most would agree is justified, then the perp voluntarily attempted to atone so few people would expect prosecution), but they are incredibly susceptible to challenge and abuse.
That would take Congress to do. Now if he wanted to abuse his commander-in-chief of the military power to ensure there were vacancies on the Supreme Court to fill... Well, he'd probably be immune, according to this Supreme Court.
That would require all three branches to agree to such a change. The president / executive branch does not have the authority to change the number of supreme court justices, nor does the Legislative branch. (They've both tried multiple times over the past few centuries, and the supreme court was overall put its foot down and stopped both).
I'm gonna be honest here... I believe literally nothing Legal Eagle says about anything ever anymore. Because not only has he shown that he is more than willing to twist and distort (hell, outright lie about even) facts and the law to be able to outrage-farm his viewers for their political opinion, he has also shown a shocking lack of understanding of any area of the law he is not specifically engaged in (i.e. civil contracts and that sort of thing... stuff people aren't generally thrilled about, thus him talking about cases he doesn't really understand, but which are trending), most glaringly criminal and constitutional law. The saddest and most pitiful instance of this was the "Kyle" case, wherein he proclaimed he was guilty as anything while completely misstating the relevant law, and after the verdict was out, he made a video omitting literally half the relevant facts to make it seem like it was some sort of thing you can read basically anything into, trying to suggest the verdict was a political thing, when it was the most clear-cut self-defence case that ever made it to the public discussion sphere in the last 30 years. Anything Legal Eagle says about the law, about the facts of a case or about any other part of IRAC (for those who don't know: Issue, Rule, Analysis / Application, Conclusion, the basic structure a legal case is looked at through by law students) is by default suspect to me.
@@gregweatherup9596 Then I can't take you seriously because you clearly didn't see any of the trial. Remember where Grosskreutz sat on the stand and outright admitted advancing on him while pointing his gun right at his head, and then the prosecutors LITERALLY facepalmed because they just catastrophically lost the entire case? Yeah, that was a REALLY unclear situation right there.
@@DeReAntiqua I didn’t watch the trial- I had better things to do with my time and don’t have cable so I couldn’t have watched it even if I had had an interest in doing so. I read up on it after the fact because I suspected the media coverage was, shall we say “subpar”. He provoked the situation, so initially had no right of self defense, but then retreated so technically he regained the right of self defense when they then perused; but that caused others to understandably mistake him for an active shooter. So it was self defense, but not by any definition “clear cut” and the end result was bullets flying near a crowd- it was luck there weren’t more casualties. I’m not convinced about the reckless endangerment charge that he was cleared on, and I’m rather appalled by his actions since the trial, but those later points are neither here nor there for the point of trying to label it “clear-cut”.
@@gregweatherup9596 He provoked nothing. What did he "provoke", eh? How did he do it? You have no idea, it's just some talking point some zombie on MSNBC spat at you, and you swallowed it up like a hungry little duckling. And "provocation" is not part of any legal statute anyway. Plus, you certainly can't just forfeit your right to self-defence. That's not a thing that exists in the real world. What kinda fantasy land do you live in? He was hunted and assaulted by a half-undressed meth-addled chomo for telling them to stop setting things on fire, then a guy tried to wrestle his gun from him, then while he was running to the police, another hit him in the head with a skateboard which is grievous bodily harm, then another tried to swing him in the head with his foot, and then Grosskreutz ran at him, gun pointed at him. There was literally nothing ambiguous or doubt-inducing in any of that. And yes, it's clear you didn't watch the trial, because you know absolutely nothing about the case and are just regurgitating whatever propaganda you picked up.
what I take from this is that so long as you have a body be it paliament or supreme court that sing on it, a president can expand its authority indefenitly and legally.
I feel people may be overreacting to this ruling. It’s already been like this for the entire history of our nation, just not explicitly stated, and now it is. I understood it to mean an act performed by a President during the performance of his duties that may be later determined to have been illegal may be deemed immune to prosecution. Because those actions would be a “Presidential Act” decided upon for what they deem to be necessary. And an act that clearly falls within personal decision, would not be classified as a “presidential act”. So if let’s say the President is told a high level terrorist is in a certain building and he orders the building to be flattened to help ensure the safety of future Americans. but then they discover the terrorist was not there and a family was killed by accident, then that president would be immune to charges stemming from that decision. As has been the case all along anyways. Now, if a president ordered the arrest of his political opponents and there’s absolutely no evidence for the reason behind that arrest such as an eminent threat to the wellbeing of the nation, then that action would not be considered a presidential act, and immunity would not apply.
That’s more or less how it was prior to this ruling. Now if a president does something for even obviously personal reasons it is “presumptively” an official act and “presumptive immunity” applies and that presumption is basically impossible to rebut so in effect a president acting solely for personal gain is immune. We also can’t even inquire as to the president’s motive/intent now. Further, nothing the president does as an “official act” (which is presumptively EVERYTHING) can be used as evidence anywhere. President enters into a conspiracy with his staff? can’t introduce those conversations into evidence. President grants a pardon in exchange for a bribe - you can’t introduce the pardon into evidence to prove the quid pro quo by the briber. Edited due to an unintended double negative.
As far as I can tell they have not ruled on what actually qualifies as a presidential act. I agree it was already like this, but now I think it’s official as there’s been a ruling on it.
@@gregweatherup9596 Not only that, but they also said that you can't use anything the president did as evidence against him later. This is what Amy Coney Barrett dissented from.
In the majority opinion, speaking with the Vice-President, speaking with the Attorney General, speaing with the Joint Cheifs are all part of core official acts. The why of the conversation doesn't matter. The official act, even if not charged, cannot be used as evidence of motive.
Do you think this will be seen as a good or bad ruling?
I think it will be seen as bad
ok
Bad is an understatement.
worst rulling in the modern times
@@rico6546real dude
Government officials have duties, not rights.
I would say government officials have powers or authorities, as defined by the constitution and legislation. People have rights; governments have powers.
The power comes from the governed, so they have a duty to the governed aka the people.
It's not possible to exercise duties without commensurate rights or powers. Police cannot keep the peace without the unusual authority to arrest people.
@@broark88 But much like police, powers come with accountability when they are abused. And we all know how crooked the Police Departments and Police Unions can be. The President, as a civil servant, is no different.
@@robsquared2 I think public servant needs to be reinstated as part of the title for working in the government.
nobody should be immune. not trump, not biden, not anybody.
@@gasad01374 exactly… I mean, seriously. This is a terrible ruling all around. I would LOVE to see what the Trump supporters who are celebrating this ruling say if Biden uses the military to take out Trump with zero consequences and full immunity. Like… you guys asked for this. 🙄
@kfizz21 first, get a proper legal review of this. Immunity exists for tons of government employees, you for example can't charge a police officer with kidnapping for arresting you. This ruling changed absolutely NOTHING, all it did is codified what everyone with half a brain already new.
So just like all the rest of government employees, the President cannot be prosecuted for doing what he is legally required and capable of doing because they are the president. For a prosecution of president's actions to happen you must prove it to be NOT a legal duty or act of the president. Even if it was a legal official act, congress can still impeach and convict him which would effectively strip him of his immunity.
So again get some real legal analysis of this, not the god awful crap that comes out of legaleagle.
@@kfizz21
The ruling does not grant the president the authority / ability to take out political rivals. To do so falls explicitly outside of their authority (as shown with Richard Nixon, who resigned after failing to simply dig up dirt on political rivals when his defense of "for the president it is not illegal" failed). It has no justification on military nor law enforcement terms.
What it does is ensure that acts that do fall under those responsibilities are granted immunity even in the event that they are poorly or improperly acted (or in other words, requiring both Congress & the Supreme Court to agree to make an exception in order to prosecute for such malpractice, if such occurred) - and those acts that Trump is currently being tried for (that he is not otherwise innocent of, in what is meant to be an "innocent until proven guilty" system) largely fall under presidential immunity.
@@DBArtsCreators Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion disagrees with your assessment of the ruling.
@@DBArtsCreatorsThe supreme court pretty much said Nixon was right. Under this ruling he would not have had to resign and if he did, the president who replaced him would not have had to pardon him to prevent him being charged with a criminal offence.
As a Brit. I can't understand why you'd give temporary leaders any kind of immunity from prosecution, you're basically setting up mini dictators and it seems incredibly un-democratic
I understand your view, but if a leader that's responsible for the national security of a nation is caught stealing an ice cream cone, then they could just be imprisoned and the next worse person is in charge, then they could be falsely charged as guilty for a crime (which happens a lot), then someone even worse has the job. This is the idea behind it, the president or acting president is too important to just get rid of because of some petty or unjust prosecution/imprisonment.
If you don't have a president and war breaks out, then you have a bigger problem than whatever civil crime the imprisoned president committed.
Additional note: The President's election (though very loosely) is dependent on the general population, so for a President to get into office in the first place, they must be good enough to be President (hypothetically, but not always in practice).
Anyone can commit a crime, but not anyone can be a Commander in Chief in peace/wartime scenarios, a diplomat to insure the safety of millions of lives, a representative and figure of and pride to a nation.
@@R.W.Raegan why not just respect your political opponents?
Seems to me the main problem here is respect.
Look at our General election, on Friday when Rishi made his leaving speech he was very respectful of the winning party
@@R.W.Raeganthis is not about petty crime. The language of the ruling allows for a president to assassinate political opponents by claiming it is an official act. You seem to ignore the extreme scenarios that came up during the hearings and that 6 supreme justices voted for.
Obama ordering the extra-judicial assassinations of American Citizens, including an American teenager.
@@jordanhooper1527because the idea of respecting the opponent was thrown out the window the moment Trump announced his run. You have to remember everyone loved the guy until the moment he ran in 2016 and everybody turned on him on a dime
"Me-sa propose the senate give immediate emergency powers to the p̶r̶e̶s̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶ supreme chancellor" - Jar Jar Binks, but also Someone in senate probably.
And that's the whole point of Jar Jar. You watch him fail upwards into a small position of power where he's easily manipulated into helping destroy democracy. He's a commentary on actual politicians we have irl.
@@sloganwade4994 wasn’t there a whole thing where Jar Jar Binks was supposed to be the sith version of Yoda, only to be changed after media backlash?
No that was a troll@@Zandofle
@@dipflop5530 and yet darth jar jar is going to have an official lego figure, its funny how things happen
@@pixelfille3130 yes theyre using fan fiction for their toys and thats great its hilarious
If there is anything that I have learned the past 8 years, that rules for the executive branch need to be "clearly defined".
Always need this.
Not Really. That what a problem is. If you define the job then they are strictly in the lines. If you rule on what the President can't do is way easier, then listing what they can do.
@@ulyssesgrant4324 blacklist system are the dumbest most re*trded way to govern anything...here you cant nuke a city but in 5 years there is a new type of bomb so you can vaporize the city instead......GJ ...NOT
Considering that the Supreme Court overturned Amendment 14 clause 3 on the grounds of 'not clearly defined enough...' I think we can say the whole Constitution has this problem. To much 'poetic flow' and not enough 'technical document.' The twisted part, even if Congress attempted to fix it... what stops the next Supreme Court from still claiming ignorance as to what the congress desired?
'Not clear enough' is very abusable.
@@lostbutfreesoulexactly, just like the left constantly tries to claim "regulated" in the 2A means "we can deem what firearms you can have" even though that's not the context it was used back then.
RIP AP GOV students who will have to learn this in the future
and to think, they aren't even done yet.
This decade alone changed a lot.
Mr. Terry, I think that there's something incredibly important to keep in mind here that you missed. While it's true the video is one-sided and the justices may be being hyperbolic, these are supreme court justices putting these interpretations in official dissenting opinion statements, so this illustrates valid interpretation of the law at the highest level
Additionally, all of these examples were posed to Trump's attorneys during oral arguments and they confirmed that these situations could be possible.
Another issue with their ruling is it says that they can't even use evidence from official Acts to try him on the unofficial Acts. They can't even question his motive
Why would a President poison a staffer instead of just firing them? That would depend on why they are being fired and what info that staffer may have.
@wizarddragon presidents cannot poison staffers.
Don't know but ask the Clintons what the logic would be
@@bigbromikeify They can now.
@@ben1l752 lol that's an old conspiracy theory. Going deep cut eh.
@wizarddragon thats literally not true at all. Either youre fear mongering or bought the false narrative whole
Man these Justices will carry this stain WELL beyond their grave. Possibly one of the worst we've had in office.
It's neck and neck with Dred Scott. If our democracy survives this, I have no doubt it will be viewed with the same level of horror in 100 years
Every Supreme Court justice is appointed to do the absolute most for the agendas of the appointee’s. Great for the president, bad for pretty much anyone else.
It's so bad that the dissenting justices didn't write "and on this matter I respectfully disagree" in their dissenting opinion, but just "and on this matter, I disagree". In an institution as old as the Supreme Court, this might as well be a bombshell. This might as well say "what are you even doing?"
Sotomayer went even further - "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
@@bulletsandbracelets4140 And that was in writing. When reading it out loud, Sotomayor said "with fear for our democracy, I, and the founders, dissent."
The way they parade around "our democracy" is disgusting considering she's a member of one of our branches of government, ya know, a Republic.
I think Legal Eagle got into it, but as Commander-in-Chief has the official duty of commanding the entire military. So, he CAN order the SEALs to do what he wants. The Court has made it so lower courts cannot investigate the order, or hold the President to account for the results of that order.
The only legal recourse is the Impeachment (which has not done much historically). Also, if an Impeachment is looming, the President can order Congress to get arrested by DoJ, FBI, or whomever.
Something I wish more would comment on. If the only legal recourse is Impeachment, but the President has authority to intimidate, imprison, and/or murder those who would vote on impeachment without repercussion - then how is that a recourse?
@@Charon85Onozuka It's a rough situation.
33:00 Yes, they were trying to address a historical problem - that being the problem of Nixon needing to resign after it was discovered how dirty he was. Under this ruling, Nixon would never have resigned. No president will ever resign now as a result of this ruling, because there will never be a danger of prosecution for committed crimes.
And that’s super dangerous.
As a student of law, i think i can do some translating into what this means.
So, basically, SCOTUS' position is that any president (namely trump) has to make difficult decisions, and the argument is that if the president is able to be litigated into the ground, they wont be making the correct ones in favor of their political safety. Therefore, in the due course, for the president to execute their duties efficiently, they are to have absolute immunity from both civil and criminal law (despite the grounds for impeachment being a thing). Because in law, you have 2 sections: actus reas (the physical act of breaking the law) and mens rea (the guilty mind, or the motive).
According to SCOTUS, neither the public nor courts can look into motives because *presumably* the motives that led to an action *could* and *in theory* *possibly* be in line or on the fringes of the president's duties.
As an example: if trump called kim jong un short and fat again in a public address. Based on the loose wording of a president's role, speaking on behalf of americans is a fringe duty of the president because he represents 100% of americans, even if only 51% voted for him. Not only would he be exempt from prosecution, but we wouldn't even be able to determine if it was his intent to start a war with N. Korea because it is assumed to all be for the execution of his duties as president.
But he IS short and fat. He's stating facts.
The HUGE problem with this is that the majority opinion seems to either a) not consider the most extreme misuse of the presidential powers or b) worse, they did consider it and made this ruling anyway.
One extreme scenario is this; The president could order the military, while the senate is in session or before, to assissinate/detain politically opposed senators (since commanding the military is a core defined power). He then could appoint Senators in the vacant seats until the end of the next Senate session (one of the core powers) so that the Senate is lopsidedly in one political parties favor, thus passing whatever laws they wish realistically. Then, even if the president can't be held criminally liable for murder (because he used his core powers and is absolutely immune according to this ruling), he could then pardon anyone who WOULD be charged for crimes under his orders, because this is another core power of the presidency that is absolutely immune.
The only refute against the president is an impeachment vote and conviction. Which, again, use the above scenario to prevent from ever successfully happening.
This ruling is scary because it depends on the President to not be a tryant, an authoritatian, or an egomaniac who would want to keep power indefinitely for whatever reason. And, very unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Your desire to see what the majority opinion said about limits and what is allowed was sadly impossible. The majority danced around it and didn’t set proper limits. He references the minority opinions so many times because they were the only ones to actually delve into what the decision means for the President now and in the future.
yeah, the majority spent almost no time discussing unofficial acts
@alexandergilles8583 because that standard is already well established, in relation to presidential Civil immunity, that has always existed. You can't sue the president, and never have been able to sue the president, except for unofficial acts. This decision just applies the exact same logic to crimes too.
@@SirxekoWhat problem is this ruling solving then? Something Mr. Terry asked multiple times. There is NO PROBLEM. This ruling corrects NOTHING but it does open the door to unchecked presidential power.
Point Blank, The Supreme Court is sick of false arrests on trump. This prevents it now and against future presidents. Kinda silly people assume the SUPREME COURT didnt have a plan. @alexwisniewski2309
@alexwisniewski2309 first, the problem is pretty obvious, just look at what's happening right now. False and/or minor charges are being levied against a president by the other political party to prevent that president from being able to run for reelection. I'm about to list a lot of reasons why one particular case is nonsense, if you don't want that break down, and only care about the immunity argument, skip the next chunk of text, I'll return to immunity at the bottom.
Consider the manhatten case, 34 felony counts. But the crime in question a) was past the statute of limitations, New York state temporarily extended the statute of limitations, which is the only reason this case was allowed to proceed. Officially it was for covid related reasons, but considering they only lifted the statute on this crime, specifically, it's clear this was targeted. And b) the falsifying business records Trump was accused of is a misdemeanor. The charges were artificially upgraded to felonies. And c) 34 counts? Signing the check, stamping the envelope, depositing it in a mailbox, reporting it on business tax forms, reporting it on personal tax forms. 5 felonies, for one action, the action of sending a check to someone. Which, if a crime at all (it isnt) should only be considered one crime, not 5. They're pulling out all the stops to maliciously prosecute. Oh, and d) in order for falsifying business documents to be a felony, it must be done to hide some other crime. Trump was not charged with any other crime in that case thoifg, and the judge instructed the jury that they need not agree on what that crime was. However, Supreme Court already ruled in Johnson vs USA 1998 that the underlying crime DOES need to be unanimously agreed upon in a falsifying business records case. There is an absolute ZERO percent chance that this case isn't appealed. But that's fine. The judge and prosecution doesn't care. It isn't about holding Trump accountable, it's about keeping him from the presidency. He'll win on appeal, in a year or two, after the election. That's what they really want.
And that is the case for all of the Trump trials, and one of the two problems the immunity decision addresses. The process itself is the punishment. They don't care if the charges stick or not, they want him wrapped up in legal issues all election season. That's why they didn't bring these cases 3 to 7 years ago, when the events allegedly occurred. And that's why they are willing to cut corners now. Because it's not about winning in court. It's about winning in the ballot box. And that is an underhanded tactic that the immunity decision prevents. The second issue is admittedly hypothetical. But only in that it hadn't happened, not in that it couldn't have happened. A local prosecutor, of a small town in deeply red or deeply blue territory, could levy charges against a sitting president. And it could be anything. Jay walking. Speeding. Whatever. There is enough evidence in Ashley Biden's diary and her own testimony to suggest that Joe did indeed molest his daughter. Likely not enough evidence to convict, but certainly enough to indict, if you live in a red state. What's stopping Missouri from arresting Joe Biden, right now, today? The answer is most Republicans believed in presidential immunity long before this decision. But if they didn't. What would happen if a state arrested a president? Would that not bypass the will of the people to elect a president? If 49 states go one way, 1 state goes the other way, and then that 1 state arrests the president, how would the other 49 states react? How would the citizens react? You ask what problem the immunity decision addresses. I'd say preventing potential civil war is a pretty big one.
And also, this does not open the door to unchecked presidential power. Because there is still a very big check. The same check that has always existed on presidential power. Impeachment. And you CAN impeach a former president, by the way. If a president is successfully impeached, by both houses, that removes their immunity. Or did you not actually read the decision?
Hey Mr Terry, I just wanted to let you know that what the majority opinion is is what legal eagle was saying when quoting the majority opinion. Only rarely does the majority release a statement adding to the majority opinion (the last one i can think of was Thomas's added opinion to overturning RvW). A decenting opinion is usually an explanation as to why a justice objects.
US politics always baffles me. From the weird ways of how supreme court memebers are selected by political parties for their biases. To politicians being fairly untouchable unless they have an afair, because obviously that is way more important than being corrupt. To parties not just kicking out politicians if they are unfit to act in the best interest of the country and people. There doesn't even seem to be safeguard on the party or national level to not have people run for president if they are mentally not capable to do so.
To be fair, the US was the first constitutional republic in the world, to the best of our knowledge. Most other modern liberal democracies developed republican institutions from constitutional monarchies in a much more fluid way.
@@broark88yeah the US constitution is old and is hard to change much in the constitution. Creating a situation where a few people can stop things from ever being implemented in a very undemocratic way. What sucks about the U.S. being one of the first to take out the monarchy is that there is a good chunk of people that believe the U.S. has reached the most democratic possible stage even tho we are far from it and should be pushing for a more democratic republic at least.
@@raemmio2761the constitution has been amended 27 times so it’s not that hard to change it…the problem is the founding fathers never expected the moral downfall of the nation…the US has legalised corruption and nobody bats an eye
@raemmio2761 On the other hand, we have seen and witnessing what happens when the minority doesnt have power.
The 25th amendment is what that is for, it just hasn’t been used on Biden because even the democrats know that Harris would be worse than Biden and they don’t have anyone good to offer up to the people as a replacement
This is how dictators take power. They make rules to protect themselves .
Lawyer here and I finished reading the majority opinion last night. The key takeaways for me were:
1. Presidential Actions fall into one of three categories; Exclusive actions such as decisions made as commander and chief of the military which are entitled to absolute immunity. Then are "official acts" which are entitled to a presumption of immunity and "unofficial acts" where there are no immunity.
2. The court provided virtually no guidance as to what constitutes an official act vs. an unofficial act
3. The presumption of immunity for official acts can only be overcome if prosecutors can demonstrate there is no "danger of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch."
4. The intent of the President can not be used to determine whether an act was official or unofficial; and
5. Official actions can not be used as evidence in prosecuting the President.
I have heard people throwing around the idea that this ruling is saying that a President could order Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent and be immune from prosecution. This is true based on the language of the opinion. Another thing the President could do is order the Department of Justice to begin selectively prosecuting individuals and groups that are politically opposed to him. Were he to engage in such behavior, we would have to hope that those in the chain of command would refuse to obey his orders due to their illegality and that Congress would remove the President from power. However, he would be immune from prosecution.
I do want draw attention for the standard for overcoming the presumption of immunity of official acts I mentioned in Item 3. That burden of proof appears to be higher than beyond a reasonable doubt, in other words, prosecutors looking just to prosecute the President for their acts while in office is higher than the burden of proof they would fact to convict you of murder. At this point, I am not sure it is even possible for a prosecutor to ever meet that burden given how entwined everything the President says and does is with his position.
Item 5 is also rather alarming because normally legally acts are normally vital for prosecuting criminals. For example, buying guns in of itself is perfectly legal on its own. However, if you bought those guns as part of a plot to shoot a school, then that is evidence of attempted/conspiracy to commit murder. Criminals who obtain office are very likely to use the power of their office to further their illegal schemes so not allowing these acts to even be used as evidence is devastating if you want to hold a President criminally accountable.
I want to see what the courts have to say about what constitutes an "official act" as opposed to an "unofficial act". But as it stands right now, the Supreme Court appears to have created a situation in where 99% of the actions a President takes while in office is entitled absolutely immune from any potential criminal liability or the standard set is so impossible he may as well enjoy absolute immunity.
I hope I will be proven wrong, but this ruling in my opinion has the potential of being worse than the Dred Scott Decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Koramatsu.
Thank you for the breakdown, that’s a good summary!
You know it's a real lawyer, because they double-space their sentences, heh. Thank you for your summary 🫡.
We still have a method for removing a president going Rogue... Impeachment.
Presidents should be immune from legal prosecution to keep the power Solely within the House and Senate to evict a president. The whole population of the country elects the president, that means only the whole of the country's representatives should be able to remove them.
Isn’t that the point of impeachment. If you’re impeached for something it wasn’t an official act and you can be prosecuted for it, at least that’s how I understood the system.
Also from what I understand this same Supreme Court is neutering a lot of the three letter agencies, which have power from the executive branch. Effectively removing executive power.
Bahahahahhahahhahahhahahahahahahhahaahhahahahhahahaha. Lawyer here as well you need to study harder and read more rulings.
"Why would you want to kill rather than fire to remove" - Fear....
yea, anybody asking that hasn't been watching Putin.
Even worse than fear - the desire to run with the big boys, to be a "strongman." Look at who Trump idolizes:
- Putin who chucks his opponents out of windows or off roofs or else poisons them with nerve agents, even sending assassins into other countries do so.
- Kim Jong Un who murdered his own family members to secure his position as President of North Korea.
- Mohammed bin Salman al Saud, President of Saudi Arabia, who had a journalist - who was a US citizen, btw - murdered and gruesomely disposed of in Turkey because the journalist was critical of him.
With a guy who thinks outright murder is a great way to run a country currently running for to be US President, now is not the time to be tearing down checks on Presidential power or handing out criminal immunity.
Because when fired, you get a bunch of people that start talking to the media about how you are out of the spotlight/shed incriminating information. Look at the majority of people Trump fired as president, almost all of them have talked about him afterwards in a negative light. Biden's staffers are talking about Biden right now after the debate about how his condition. It would be convenient once you realize nothing will stop you, to just make that negative light go away. That's how it has been done historically, and just because this is America doesn't mean that sort of thing is impossible. It sends fear to the populace to oppose them, and fear to the underlings to do anything about it. We see this in countries today unfortunately.
For an example of an official act that would be immune from criminal prosecution for a Dem. President I would present the following example: Would Obama be able to be charged with the murder of 4 US Citizens in a drone strike? US Citizens are supposed to have the Right to Due Process.
No, you would not be able to sue(charge) Obama as an individual. You could attempt to sue the US government for wrongful death and damages, but Obama as an individual would be immune. (Technically only the state and federal governments can prosecute people in criminal court)
Yeah, I don’t have any objections to that. Rule of law ought to be preserved though, so let’s convict Trump of whatever crimes he’s committed.
As a leftist, I have always wanted Obama to be tried for those drone strikes. I was hoping that if anything this would be the start of holding large businesses and political personnel accountable, but it appears it will only be harder, at least for politicians/presidents.
Nope. Would not be able to be charged. Hell he could have done it on US Soil to Civilians. As long as it is a military order. Its immune from ALL prosecution. As Full Control of the Military is with in presidential scope. Even if those orders Break the Law. it would at best be the soldiers who could be prosecuted.
@@nunyabiz7699isn’t it a new thing that he can’t be prosecuted for any military action with this new court decision? Previously I thought it was only to help the president do what he needs/wants without being caught up in legal battles mid presidency.
5:29 No, ArtII.S4.1 of the Constitution “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
What if Congress can't find the "political will"
Seems an injustice to let a criminal hide behind a superminority.
So, Joe Biden right?
Unless, of course, they decide the President is a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory". Then, of course, no one cares about criminal activity.
@@Choalith_Ikanthe That’s the DOJ, they’re a separate entity, the clause only regards Congressional prosecutions, though the DOJ does some shady things
And how are you going to prosecute them for such things? Remember, now they have immunity for anything that is defined as a Core Power, most things that are Official Acts (even if they could be considered Treason, Bribery, or some other High Crime and Misdemeanor), any act that they have immunity for can't be used as evidence when being prosecuted for things they don't have immunity for, AND we're not allowed to call they're motives into play, which is a critical aspect of establishing Mens Rea in a criminal trial, and civil judgements (which typically don't have as strict requirements) are neither a crime nor a misdemeanor so they can't be used as the basis for an Impeachment. There is some hyperbole involved, as @taiwandxt6493 stats in their comment, but not very much as this judgement allows a President who has a sufficiently loyal group of supporters to effectively do anything, with almost no fear of criminal prosecution, and civil prosecution is unlikely to slow them down, much less stop them, when they can freely use criminal acts to 'convince' the other side to drop their case.
the biggest issue BY FAR is that the political leanings of the person watching is going to color this. now, Ive seen this video and I agree with his take (mainly because he's a literal lawyer and Im not) but he's clearly left biased (as am I) and that will lead right leaning people to dismiss this or hand wave this away. we need to be clear: NO ONE WANTS THIS. this is BAD for all sides. Yes, the current focus is on Trump abusing this, but if my man Sanders had won, I want every Trump supporter to think of what he could get away with. this is universally bad.
This comments need to be pinned.
He's not a very good lawyer though, and he's completely hysterical about the situation. Feel free to watch Good Lawgic for a response take.
Presidents have always had immunity. Obama drone striked an american with no due proccess. Where is the procecution? They let Nixon step down, and gave him a pardon to prevent this question being taken to the Supreme Court. It was a good old boy's club where everyone was protecting each other because if they don't that means that procecution could turn on them later on. Trump could have gone after Hilary for her actions but he choose to not rock the boat. The people that didn't think about what would happen was the Democrats that decided to engage in lawfare to take down Trump, upending centuries of precedent. All these court cases are only around because he decided to run again. If that had succeeded then it would have devolved into a tit for tat attacks because, news flash, all these people are corrupt.
None of this means that there are no concequences for actions. When the Japanese were sent to enternment camps during WW2, that was a terrible crime, and just because the president was not procecuted for ordering that didn't mean that there were no concequences. You can still sue the government, even if you can't sue the president, who gave the orders, and obeying orders doesn't not grant immunity soldiers that commit murder.
This ruling restores the status quo, and removes an area of massive conflict. Joe Biden is a fruitcake, who forced everyone out of the primaries in a horribly undemocratic way, and they have done sustained disinformation of the American people by hiding this for so long, who is being punished for that? No one.
Agreed
Right leaning people aren't worried because they know the ruling actually didn't change anything, just codified it (AKA they just pointed to the sign that already said these things), as lawyers that are much better than Legal Eagle and less biased have stated. Let's say for example the extreme left hypothetical of Seal Team 6. Let's say Biden today ordered Seal Team 6 to go kill Trump. Let's say actually go do it, they have the firefight with the Secret Service, they win because they went there prepared with all sorts of explosives and superior firepower and brought another Seal Team to boot, let's say they get to Trump and kill him. What happens then? Do you really think Congress is gonna let that be? No way. Congress would immediately and faster than anything done before, and probably completely unanimously, impeach and remove Biden. THEN Biden loses all immunity and can be tried and prosecuted, probably for 1st degree homicide and maybe even terrorism charges. Then he gets the chair. And then all SEALs that did the act would get court martialed and get the chair too. Simple as that.
@@guyinreallife6035 Yeah, agreed.
24:06 Amy Coney Barrett apparently had statements about it, and they were that she effectively thought the definition of official acts were too broad despite voting for it
Yes, she wrote a “concurring” opinion.
In legal parlance, saying, “I concur” does not mean the same thing as saying, “I agree.” It is saying, “I agree with you on the outcome here, but I disagree with (some or all) of your reasons for reaching that outcome.” So she agreed with the majority that there is an immunity, but she disagreed with some of them at the majority said about what may or may not be covered by it.
Also, majority opinions are usually broken up into different sections, and it may say which justices join in the opinion with respect to that section. So ACB voted with the majority as to the holding, but she likely opted out of one or more sections of the opinion (and therefore wrote her concurrence to explain her reasoning).
@@brendancurtin679I concur means i agree lol.
Look it up.
@@brendancurtin679 Specifically, she disagreed with the idea that official acts could not be used as evidence in prosecutions. She points out the legal absurdity created by such a rule, where someone could bribe the President for a pardon but because pardoning is an official act, it couldn't be used as evidence of the bribe. The prosecutor would have a quid pro quo (something-for-something) where they were only allowed to show the jury the quo (money paid to the president) but not the quid (the pardon). And this is not for prosecuting the president, but the person bribing the president. The president would be completely immune because the pardon is considered a core power.
@@cenauge absolutely correct
@@cenauge Did she mention why she voted for it despite her concerns? I'm just curious because this seems like a pretty dangerous implication.
Like, you asked "what problem does this solve?" There hasn't been a situation where over a period of some years that multiple presidents have been charged left and right for crimes. It's a solution in search of a problem, and that is the issue. If there was at least a decade or more of abuse of the criminal justice system in regard to charging a president(s), then that's one thing - and while I still don't think that this is the proper solution, I would at the very least be more open to a debate on this. But there hasn't been, and this decision will create many more problems (and more serious problems) than it solves.
What problem does this solve? The problem of those who wanted America to be a dictatorship, now get what they want. They don't have to pretend America is a democracy anymore.
@@BlueWoWTaylan first off America is not a democracy it is a Republic on a technical basis and the problem it does solve is you can't prosecute the president for any little thing you want however this does open a hole can of worms and adds the question what is the duty of the president and a question we have avoided for to long time this can be dangerous but it can also provide a safety net for those who wish to remove the president on the basis of i don't like you and will find anything to get rid of you
Descriptors of our country are Constitutional, Democratic, and Republic. We have a constitution, we vote for our leaders/representatives making us Democratic, and a Republic in that we have representatives who make policy decisions.
Yes we are a Democracy by brute fact of the general populace voting.
@@alexanderyoung7364 on paper yes in practice sure but until the US population understands that putting our faith in reps who could care less about us but yet we give them more and more power each year the democracy is becoming a smaller factor in US politics and practices our government makes laws without voting by the people instead by our reps like a Republic with all do respect the US population is to stubborn and stupid to take action and demand changes we are only naw seeing something but as we can see the government is instead of listening to the people they do as they please to prop themselves up as a American and a Christian I can say if something radical doesn't change the US will claps due to rebellion or outside intervention
@alexanderyoung7364 these dunces always try to ignore the democratic process so that they can just dismantle it. They always justify the consolidation of power in the government while they simultaneously complain about it turning autocratic and yet here we are.
Conservatives are the largest oxymoron possible
It occurs to me that the answer to the question of why the president would use the military on American soil to remove someone from office is that certain offices are lifetime appointments according to the Constitution. So if use of the military is an official act and cannot be persecuted then the president could use the military as the one way to remove judges from the supreme court. I wonder if the supreme court justices would still think thats something the president should have the power to do especially since he would then have the right to appoint their replacements
I mean that's one way Biden could force this ruling to be repealed lol
Roberts said regarding seal team six that his colleagues were enganging in "extreme hypotheticals," which is essentially saying "come on, that'll never happen!"
11:29
In Brazil, pardons have to be approved by the legislative, if I'm not mistaken.
I think the way it works in the US is strange for me, it seems to lack a limiting organ that can stop the misuse of that power.
What nuance do you expect if one of the arguments made in front of the supreme court is literally "the president can order the assassination of his rivals and be immune" and the court agrees? What nuance is there left to give if that's the state of the rule of law?
There was no exaggeration by Sotomayor that was the literal argument made by the lawyers that the majority agreed with.
At some point one has to drop the pretense of equivalency or risk looking like a fool.
That’s kind of what I was thinking. Legal Eagle presented the majority opinion and then the dissent in every section. It also made me wonder if he was just completely unaware of the actual case in front of the Supreme Court.
He said, "They've organized things so that the executive is unchecked by either other branch of government," but that's not true; the entire point, here, is that the proper check on official executive actions is the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, and Congress has basically no rules, at all, for whether and how to impeach a president.
On the topic of "If my guy is protected, I don't care about your guy" isn't necessarily the rational. If we take an extremely pessimistic view and assume that most of the motivation behind the decision is to preserve and expand the power of their preferred power, which isn't a huge stretch considering the divide is perfectly on party lines, its an option, but I'm afraid I don't see it as the most likely option.
If I were to play a strategy game and was considering an action that would have benefits to both myself and my opponents, I may choose to take that action under 3 circumstances. First: There is a possibility for allegiance or non-aggression. The nature of our political system makes this appear highly unlikely. In a two-party system, there isn't really much of a way for two parties to not be opponents.
Second: I am in a situation where I have no choice but to take this action regardless of how much it benefits my opponent. This is pretty much what you described.
Finally, if I thought that, despite the opponent getting some benefit, I believe I would get a greater benefit. Immunity to criminal prosecution is only a benefit for somebody who would be criminally prosecuted. If, lets say, I happened to support a political candidate that was likely to be found guilty for criminal acts, and I believed that the politician that I didn't support, who is currently in power, was unlikely to ever be found guilty for criminal acts with or without immunity, then I would see my guy having greater benefit from immunity even if both people technically get it.
Whether you believe Trump and Biden have or haven't committed criminal acts, the current situation is that Trump is far more likely to be found guilty if not immune than Biden is. Trump is currently charged with many crimes, while Biden has not been. One party has a very real benefit, while the opposing party may hypothetically get benefit from it too, or might just never benefit from it. Additionally, looking at historical data, it is just a fact that there is an imbalance between the two parties in the number of politicians and staff of politicians that are charged, or charged and convicted with felonies.
Mr.Terry this law is for ALL presidents. not just for trump. they just had to do another ruling now bc of trump my friend
Yes, this is self evident
@@GerdTerd apparently not bc all these videos all have “Trump is immune wtf” and stuff like that and the comments lol. i was just letting people know they shouldnt be scared bc its been a law since like ever
doesn't matter, still bad. Would you want Obama to have this immunity? Or Regan? Or FDR? Or Nixon? Or Wilson? Or whatever lizard makes it to the top in the future? Uh... no
If this was true Nixon would not have needed a pardon.
@@sheldoninexile he wasnt going to prison. the presidential pardon was to get his record clean.
I’m not understanding why everyone is freaking out about just Trump. We don’t think it’s a problem for ANYONE?
right... why don't other presidents have a slew of people coming for them after their presidency.
Because Trump and Nixon are the only two presidents who have exercised the powers of the presidency as if they were above the law. No president should be immune from prosecution for their misdeeds.
@tylercamp6244 The reason why people are freaking out is because Trump, aka a president known for just blatant corruption and a cult of personality surrounding him, is a front runner for the Presidency in 2024. Obviously the fear does extend to other future president's however when it comes to this ruling, Trump is the immediate threat, especially with Project 2025.
@@SomeOrdinaryJanitorthey should, because the president of the US should not be above the law no matter who it is, but nobody going after the others doesn't excuse Trump
Because the powers at be do not like people they cannot make into a puppet, and they really don't like when that person hands them theirs for 8 years.
Giving complete immunity to the person who’s supposed to embody the will of the average American is the exact opposite of how things should be.
@@samhescott348 this law is complete immunity for official acts for ALL presidents. not just trump friend look it up
@@chrisvibz4753 when did I say I was talking about trump?
Everyone talks about SEAL team six, but what is the story with teams 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5?
Well, seal team 6 killed them.
SEAL Team 6, now known as Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU, was named when there were only 3 teams, with the idea that it would fool enemies into thinking there were many more teams than previously thought
And no one even mentions CAG.
@Kriegter isn't Combat Application Group actually The Unit, or Delta?
@@dannagy546 yes
"Is that actually what this ruling grants?"
Yes and no. No in the sense that it is a little hyperbolic because Seal Team Six or whatever is not like obligated to listen to the president when he gives the order to assassinate or arrest a political rival, or do anything else that is just blatant executive overreach. Like, if the president gives this order, Seal Team Six or the Justice Department can simply just refuse to execute it. But, this ruling basically means that he can't be prosecuted for an abuse of power like this, when he otherwise should for giving this order in the first place. There isn't any accountability for presidents abusing their power anymore outside of like whatever the president orders just not being executed.
The issue is, and what Justice Sotomayor and a lot of the criticisms being levied against this ruling are kinda getting at here is that this basically hands the President the keys to dictatorship. This is because these abuses of power will likely get executed because either people worry about their job security, or like in the case of Donald Trump or any other future president that has a cult of personality surrounding them, the president's orders will be blindly followed by those loyal to him that he puts into positions of power. And the President can get away with it scott free. This ruling is an evisceration of checks and balances in this country as it pertains to the executive branch, as it allows the president to do whatever so long as he has the loyalty behind him to do it.
On the surface, this ruling makes sense because why should someone be prosecuted for simply doing their job? But more significantly this just opens up pandora's box for the president to abuse their power with no accountability whatsoever. The best partallel that I can make with this is just like if SCOTUS ruled that surgeons in the United States were immune from prosecution for anything that happens while performing suegery. Thats a terrible idea because it opens the door for so much medical malpractice. A surgeon can murder someone during surgery and theyd get away scott free.
On top of this, the Constitution would still require Congress to convict the President for illegally using SEAL Team Six to persecute or assassinate a political opponent
Worry not, pardoning is one of the core Presidential powers! He can just pardon anyone who follow his ilegal orders if it break federal law 😅
Never underestimate the power of bureaucracy. All a person has to do is come up with the "official" reason for any act. Then it can be called official, and it will take forever to argue that it is not official. Especially if we cannot examine motivation
@taiwandxt6493 ok, but who appoints the commander of seal team six? If the only check is the conscience of the individuals, that is no check at all.
@@tomhathaway2556 Exactly. That's my point.
None of what he said in this video, nor anything the dissenting opinion, is hyperbolic.
The reason it sounds hyperbolic to you is because you’re (presumably) a law abiding citizen who wouldn’t even think of doing most or any of the things that SCOTUS has now said POTUS can do with impunity. And because, well, you don’t have that immunity. This is a purely hypothetical exercise for us all because we aren’t the ones who have just been given carte blanche to do whatever we want.
Make no mistake. The fact that there is now someone who can do whatever they want, and who by the way controls the military and has his finger on the big red button, is terrifying.
They always could do these things.
SCOTUS giving it official judicial approval changes the game. Before the decision we didn’t know whether or not presidents had the sort of immunity that has been conferred because it was never brought before SCOTUS. Now we know.
@@rhettboy1that's not how the SCOTUS works. They don't make laws they apply the constitution to other cases.
So you have a person who can pardon whoever they want AND they are personally above the law.
Sounds like an absolute monarchy to me.
As for term limits, as an 'official act', a president can make that go away, and when you can officially deny the validity of any election = absolute monarch for life.
Compared to the tame king-model they wanted away from and which they still refer to as tyrannical ... yes, it's quite ironic that they wanted to get away from one only to have another one with way more power.
Noticing way too many people commenting that Impeachment is still a solution. All a president needs to avoid conviction via Impeachment is 34 Sentors to avoid the 2/3 threshold. With how politically entreched this country is and the extent of polarization, due you really think that a future president wouldn't be able to keep 34 Sentors on their side.
Yes, that's exactly how impeachment is supposed to work. You don't get to upend the system because it might not work out how you want.
@@justincredubil The point being made is if party loyalty overrides everything else, then impeachment as a concept fundamentally doesn't work. It relies on senators/house members being relatively unbiased/objective and putting party over country, if that's not the case (which it isn't, we're hyper polarized) then impeachment as a tool is no longer a check in any practical sense of the term.
@justincredubil Amazing insight Matt Walsh.
Who would vote to impeach when they know that if the president knows beforehand they can "disappear". All of them are disposable according to it.
Very few impeachments have succeeded, and no president has even been removed from office because of it. The framers of the Constitution envisioned members of Congress putting country before party. This has not been the case on either side.
Sotomayor's dissent is not hyperbolic.
It is a logical evaluation of the court's decision.
This is the first time in my 40 years on planet Earth as an American that I feel truly hopeless to stop the death of our democracy.
"I'm literally shaking right now"
Vote
This country has never been a democracy
America has always been a republic.
@@aidandavis1648A democratic republic. They're not exclusive and the party names don't mean anything, they could as well be X and y.
To me, I read through most of the dissertation and as a non-law person, it reads very much like it was worded in a very clever way. It almost feels like they took what they wanted out of the Trump immunity, and wrote it backwards to set on the ruling, instead of the other way around. Like it pretty much makes it so if it is an official act(such as talking with the VP, other cabinet members) it can't be used as evidence in a trial that is criminally prosecuting a non-official act/crime. So in Trumps case his telephone calls with various governors/attorney generals can't be used as evidence for conspiracy or attempting to overthrow an American election.
Under these circumstances I feel like Watergate WOULD have been deemed legal, since Nixon personally didn't set up bugs/spied on political opponents but ordered his men to. It opens up a can of worms in terms of what "an official action" is and makes it vague so the lower courts have to decide on it for any trial, which could make court proceedings even more delayed, and infinitely harder to get justice no matter the future president. It has stripped accountability from any potential future wannabe dictators.
You are saying that LE presented it in terms of the dissenting justices but I don't think that's really true.
He is saying that he presented the rules that the majority made--which were in fact vague--and then the criticisms of it. The criticisms naturally raised questions unaddressed by the majority because the existence of those questions being unaddressed IS the problem. They made a nearly blanket rule and where reasonable minds think there MUST be some clear limit, there is none.
Did the majority have their own justifications behind their reasonings?
@@adamhymas4620 their justifications are 'we're corrupt and also we believe the powers of the office shouldn't be impeded in any way'.
@@Ventira_Aqanin It's a yes or no question.
Someone making an honest argument can provide a direct answer.
@@adamhymas4620 If by 'their own justifications' you mean 'justifications beyond what ones they stated in their opinion' there's no way to know.
@@Ventira_AqaninThis argument is so fragile it can't sustain one yes or no question.
You say it may take years and years to change…but a president could always “help” supreme court justices “retire” early. I mean, drones don’t mind who they strike really. I think a few justices getting “whoopsied” by “errant drones” might get the current ones to start thinking differently about immunity. If they don’t, a few drones here and there and you get an entirely new court, legislature, business leadership, etc.
Your idea at 15:40 is correct. The reason Devon isn't really going into the nuances of the case is because the HIGHLY partisan Supreme Court established that at the end of the day, they have the authority to determine whether a president can be charged with a crime and even if a president can be charged, what evidence against them is permissible because any evidence created as part of an official presidential act is privileged and inadmissible.
A core ability a Pre4sident has is to issue pardons and order subordinates. So they can issue any illegal act, and it comes with blanket immunity.
It’s not hyperbolic - the President is essentially an elected king from here on out
This dude is straight up being hyperbolic you cannot drone strike a political opponent that is not an official Act I am so tired of the people on here with two brain cells fighting for third place
Not quite, a king is not limited to two terms, and is hereditary it all real life situations i can think of.
@@Glittersword hence “elected”
@@kfizz21 Until he can't get elected. Very short reign and no continuity of purpose carried forward.
@@Glittersword King in the coloquial sense. What is meant here is a tyrant. No reins to stop breaches of power.
With a stacked court like this the worst case scenario i can see is where SC deems everything a republican president does as an official act, but be a lot more lenient with democrat presidents. That woud result in presidents working with different rules depending on which they are affiliated with.
Seems like a huge potential power-grab from the courts
Some seriously necessary debunking:
"Official acts are just decided by the lower court, though.": Let's pose this hypothetical scenario. Let's say Trump becomes President again, commits an openly criminal act, and he is charged for it after leaving office. If a lower court rules against Trump, he can just appeal it to the Supreme Court again who will more than likely rule in his favor. The reason Trump's supporters even should be against this ruling? Replace "Trump" with "Biden" in that scenario, and assume we have a liberal court in the future. It could just as easily go the other way, in other words. The lower courts' power is not protection against absolute immunity.
"Impeachment and conviction still holds the President accountable.": No. No, it just it doesn't. Have you looked at Congress lately? They can't agree on how to write their own names. There is no way in this political climate you will get the 67 votes in the Senate needed to convict any president no matter what party is in control of Congress and the Executive Branch. Impeachment is therefore a non-starter, and the law must still always apply regardless.
For fun, see Article III, Section II, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution. This clearly outlines that Congress has the authority to regulate SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction powers. Congress can singlehandedly say that SCOTUS can't review a law just by writing it into the law -- and Congress can decide which cases SCOTUS can rule on. This "jurisdiction stripping" has been done at the state level many times. That being said, Congress could probably pass a law to reverse this ruling (or any ruling for that matter) and say that the court can't review it. In the 1980s, this very power was supported by a young lawyer working for the Reagan Administration who wanted to get around a liberal court and reverse a bunch of landmark rulings. The lawyer's name? John Roberts -- the current chief justice. So don't take it like I, a non-legal expert, am arguing this -- the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court came up with this idea!!!
Only a judge/court should have the right to pardon someone.
Many people have "limited liability" against lawsuits. No one , until now, is immune to criminal prosecution.
This is terribly bad. It destroys the principle of checks and balances that the us system is built on and opens the doors wide to misuse of this rule.
Mr. Terry, this is the American version of the Enabling Act.
When you hand someone incredible power and tell him he doesn't need to fear legal repercussions for anything he does, it seldom ends well.
I’m not sure I’d go quite that far just yet, because any future court can - and as we’ve see, will - strike down prior decisions.
But barring that, I could see history seeing this as a similar turning point in history, although I personally don’t see America and Americans in particular putting up with actual populist nonsense for too long.
The damage will be in the blood spilled and lives ruined, although hopefully not in that order.
No, it isn't. The Constitution already says the President has immunity. They are just restating what the Constitution already says.
@@yashjoseph3544 If the constitution says the president has immunity, why did Ford pardon Nixon?
@@yashjoseph3544 immunity to civil prosecution, because any joe could theoretically sue the president for any perceived damage because of his actions in his role. It would allow for a sitting president to be swamped in legal cases otherwise. Criminal prosecution is whole other matter and is the entire point of this supreme court decision, to discuss whether this civil immunity extends to the criminal realm.
@@yashjoseph3544 nowhere in the constitution does it give the President immunity. You people can't read.
At least a third of the video is talking about the opinion of justice Roberts. I think you missed it because even when described by the architects of the decision it still sounds like a charicature
hahah, I noticed that too. Even the own words of the majority sounds literally like a caricature of an evil takeover of a country in a movie or something....but it's not a movie and it's in our country :/
If Legal Eagle says ANYTHING, you can safely assume that the opposite is correct!
I believe the ruling was intentionally broad, so it could be interpreted by the courts that they know is conservative in nature and will be for a long time.
America rethinking that whole monarch thing.
The pearl clutching hysteria around this decision is hysterical.
The problem is: the Court decided that lower courts are not allowed to probe anything that COULD be an official act.
34:53, as you say in a second, that’s not gonna happen. The current Supreme Court just said it’s okay to bribe someone for their official actions in government, as long as it’s done after the fact. These are the same justices that have taken lavish private trips and gifts from organizations and individuals who have brought cases before the Supreme Court and which these Justices have not refused themselves of when this has happened. It’s gonna take “extreme” action by the executive branch either adding justices to balance out the court better, or, the legislative branch is gonna have to enforce(legislate) a code of conduct upon the Supreme Court. Either way, they’ll be screwing up as much of the law and precedent as they can in the meantime.
if they don't understand what the core power of the president is because it's not stated in the constitution, then I guess those people in Congress should get up off their asses and get to work and create laws that says what the power of the president isbut instead of doing that, these Congress people just give the president more power with their defenseauthorization Actbut they don't want to do that because they're too freaking lazythe Supreme Court is not supposed to create lawthe Supreme Court is there just to make sure those laws don't violate the constitution of the United States of america.
They literally can't. Congress can't define or enumerate the powers of the executive branch - only the supreme court is allowed to *interpret* those powers from the constitution. If you want to define, or limit, the powers of the executive branch beyond the scope of the supreme court's interpretation you need an amendment to the constitution to do so. Good luck.
@@jiiaga5017that is what they are arguing for, a constitutional amendment is the only way for the legislative branch to check this (which in today's political climate is impossible)
He does show the majority's opinion. I literally read from Robert's pages as he represents the Majority opinion.
4:20 In the ruling they explicitly state that speaking to an attorney general is a presidential act and gets absolute immunity, which means nothing said to an attorney general can be used in court under any circumstances, so I'd assume the same would apply to orders to the DOJ.
5:30 As I understand it if a President were to do any of those things they would be completely immune from criminal prosectution. There are other possible consequences like the people being order not following them, the people carrying out them being prosecutred(of course the president can pardon), thee President can be impeached so that he can't do any more damage but even after being impeached he can't be prosecuted for any of it. IT is also possible those specific actions could be argued as not official acts of the president, but that requires limiting the President's power in some way which could mean that you actually can't argue against it. Part of the problem is how vague the court was and yet specific in a few cases that just so happen to help Trump immensely at the moment.
Regardless of which what is undeniable is that the Courts just granted themselves an insane amount of power over determining the authority of the President, since they will be the ones that have to decide all of this.
I do recommend everyone to read it themselves, there is one (to be fair controversial) streamer names Destiny that read the whole thing out loud on stream and gave is commentary so you can use that as a sort of audiobook version of the ruling, made it way easier for me to read it personally.
One of the things that stood out most to me was the lack of consideration to the other side so to speak. The majority just keeps talking about how important it is that the Prsident not be cowed in his dutires by the threat of persectiuon, but they never take any time at all to go into how important it might be for the people to have a president that doesn't commit crimes. They just say it hasn't happened yet and probably won't happen so there. But literally the whole point of the case is because a President committed crimes.
10:45 No it is not a case by case for each, that section was referring to acts that only have presumptive immunity, but they also said that many President acts have absolute immunity which means you are not allowed to take them to court at all, or even use those acts as evidence to pursue charges related to other acts.
Pardoning is a political tool that gives those offices leverage they can use for political ends. It in effect gives them a carrot to use rather than only sticks for enforcing the laws, so I'm fine with it, we just have to be wary of corruption in it's use.
12:38 From what I understand and have seen others yeah the burden of proof is on the prosectution, which is pretty hard thing to prove when the courts provided no test with which to do it yet.
13:42 I love this question. The majority themselves recognize that this has never been a problem in the past, the only reason we are even having this conversation is because Trump is the first president to be criminally prosecuted.
24:00 Their silence was truly deafening. In the majority they actually respond to several points raised in the sideent, but for some odd reason they chose not to respond to possibly the most concerning parts, that being the President could murder people officially and not be criminally charged or held responsible in any meaningful way.
I would love to hear their arguments and perspectives too but they failed to provide them, which is the most worrying part of it all, all they did was falisouly accuse the dissent of 'fear-mongering' but did not engage in any fact based or logic based analysis, diagreement, or explanation of any kind for these concerns. Litterally all they said is that it is less liekyly for the concerns of the dissent to occur than the concerns of the majority, purely vibes.
In fact here is the quote:
"
The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive
Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly
and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be
next."
27:20 The chart is basically exactly what the majority said in their decision, they majority were pretty clear about it all, it's just really bad.
28:42 Exactly, that was the other side of this that was given no consideration by the majority. They have this strange fixation and axiomatic assumptions all throughout the ruling that the most important thing in existence is that the President can take "bold and unhesitating action".
I definitely hear you about being concerned about being in a media bubble, it is genuinely hard thing to know, which is why I strongly encourage everyone to go read the primary source. It is genuinely unhinged by the majority. There are ways to mitigate this ruling in the future and we can hope that stricter definitions are decided on, but right now I don't think I've actually seen any hyperbole about the consequences at all. Whether or not anyone will actually use the power is another question, but I don't think any of us have faith that a politician will simply choose not to use absolute power.
The logic used to justify this ruling in the first place was shaky and honestly a little embarrassing to see form the Supreme Court.
Thankfully this is a situation where it is relatively easy to check the primary source, just read the ruling, it's not too bad a read and even if it is boring, this is some of the most important stuff possible.
Would love for you to make a video reading it yourself and reacting
The problem solves was Nixon and it is currently Trump. Under this ruling, Nixon wouldn't have been forced to resign. And Trump will basically walk free from any of his crimes during and after office as long as he can come up with some excuse how not doing it would have made his executive weaker. Pathetic.
Who was it that said "when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"?
The largest problem is that ordering a military action can only really be deemed a core presidential function, it's actually a foundational tennant of the constitution that the military serves a civilian authority, in the form of the president. Now, the issue is that the war powers resolution allows the president to send armed forces into action abroad, but not necesarily at home. But it's unlikely that that distinction would matter, since the entirety of the action would still fall under a core presidential function, (and all core presidential functions have absolute immunity.) the only reaction that might have an effect would be impeachment. That still wouldn't open the door for criminal prosecution, because you can't use any information that pertains to a core funciton of the presidency as evidence in a criminal prosecution even if an argument could be made that the military action somehow didn't fall under a core presidential function. Now, to make things even more muddled, ordinarily US military units can't be deployed on US soil, at least not as an attack force to combat US residents. However, there is still a method by which posse cumitatus (posse cumitatus is basically the fancy name for the military not being deployed against it's citizens.) in the way of the insurrection act. They can be deployed to assist civilian authorities for the purpose of law enforcement. The worst case scenario is the one about using the military to remove a political rival. If the insurrection act were enacted first, and then the military was used by way of a civilian authority to remove a political rival, it would most likely be deemed, under the current case law, to be a lawful function.
I think because it was decided on left/right lines, there are no happy endings.
There was in fact a happy ending: the SC actualy respecting the separation of powers and NOT making the president an effective king.
Why would that necessarily make it bad. It's bad because the outcome of the decision is bad, not because the structure is bad, though the structure is also bad, this is just a terrible argument.
11:20 I don't know, this should be a case-by-case basis. I enjoy watching true crime content, so all I can say is some people deserve pardons, and some don't.
37:40 Ground News is good if you want to know the bias or factual accuracy of some news regarding politics, foreign policies, and international conflicts. It's not that good for cases like murder, missing person, kidnapping, or sexual assault.
Well… Biden still has some time to make some moves with complete immunity…
He can barely walk, talk or think, he isn't in charge of crap lol.
they're a bunch of proceduralist liberals, they aren't going to use this opportunity.
@@seanhettenbach2101 how’s your washing machine hair lavender?
@@seanhettenbach2101 You need to stop talking about yourself my friend, we were talking about biden.
@@seanhettenbach2101 Who? Biden or Trump? Or both? They're not the same person you know.
This should have been the easiest decision ever: NO!
I can't think of any official action a president may need to do that would require criminal immunity to accomplish.
That's why the courts said it this way. The courts can find republican acts official and democrat acts unofficial.
Or vice-versa (as they have tended to do. See the number of killings directed/allowed by Obama during his presidency on civilians in other countries, as well as his spying on the Trump campaign and assistance to both Hillary & Biden on their campaigns, which he has thus far been found as allowed to do regardless).
That's what I think also. The only obvious solution I can think of is for Biden to become as unscrupulous as Trump and use his new power to get rid of some Supreme Court justices before the election. Not a terribly great solution for anybody.
32:57 The problem that they're trying to fix is that they lost a war in the 1860's. We let them, not only live, but retain office and power. Those mistakes have festered and the inevitable result has been revealing itself for at least the last decade.
38:51 "working to make sure the media landscape is more transparent"
Not by paywalling it, you're not
The idea that no order given to the military is a crime is an insane ruling
I only have on thing to say to your reaction Mr. Terry, you started to react way to early in the video. As you probably noticed, everything you were asking about in those first couple of minutes Devin did eventually cover, you just needed to give him a chance to get to them instead of going into a near rant at the thought of it.
The example of using the SEALs to kill political rivals seems somewhat flawed because that would be an unlawful order and the SEALs would have an obligation and duty to disobey that order. Granted, there is plenty of cases of people following unlawful orders. I think this may be a case where we will see a constitutional amendment added to limit the president’s authority.
LegalEagle is a joke. He ruined his credibility with his Captain Marvel video.
He is a Washington D.C. Lawyer. All you need to hear.
A Pardon should rather be to order the trial re-opened, there are lots of cases where the judgement have been unecesarly harsh, or innocent people being sentenced. A governor or President should have the power to order re-opening of a trial, i.e., where new evidence have emerged, or presedence have changed. A Pardon doesn't aquitt the charges, and for those innocently convicted, an aquittal is the only just outcome.
I used to watch Legal Eagle, but he just can't help himself from being partisan, because the law isnt supposed to be, though we've seen partisan law in our faces for a decade now.
Buddy this isn't a partisan issue... no one should have the power of a king in America under ANY circumstances. People would and should pick up guns at the near mention of such at our founding. Allow yourself to be rilled up because of personal feelings is being blind to the truth. I wish you and anyone else well in the future regardless of the outcomes.
@MasterofFates this ruling doesn't create kings. Only partisan hacks and people who haven't read the ruling think it does.
reality is partisan, right wingers live in a fantasy.
@@MasterofFatesyou didn't read the opinion, and no. Legal eagle has lied a lot
@@MasterofFates Legal Eagle is clearly Partisan. The Asshole comment next to the Nixon Clip is so unprofessional. Never trust a lawyer
I've used the free version of ground news in the past, really interesting. You can select topics that interest you so it will keep you updated on news related to those topics too.
I refuse to take any lawyer seriously that watched the captain marvel biker scene and tried justifying her blatant assault on the dude for lightly brush down her map, and asking her to smile 😂
Good lord, how many years has it been? Get over it.
@@Blackbaldrik
Ignore them, they doesn't understand History or Sociology.
Or else they would understood the whistle that scene was representing....
Mrr. Terry, you seem to be failing to grasp the full implications here. Under this ruling, ANY president would be immune from the law for ordering an USAF airstrike on their political enemies on American soil in broad daylight. Using the Army Core of Engineers to construct political propaganda monuments or demolish senators' homes would be legal for the president. Ordering the use of weapons of mass destruction on American law enforcement would fall under the new presidential immunity. An executive order directing cops to attack college campuses could be issued without resulting prosecution. Ordering the national guard to stand down in the face of a coup would be immune to the law.
There is no safety mechanism here. No release valve, no emergency brake. Just one giant goose step to a brave new world of American Dictators with absolute authority and zero restraints.
This may well be the worst ruling in the history of the Supreme Court.
Are we being disingenuous or obtuse? Pick one. Trump isn't the only president this affects, but it does affect his political rivals who have already shown they are not afraid to use the legislative branch against him. I don't plan on voting for him, but who I do vote for will support checks and balances used as the Constitution intended, not as weaponized politics.
The majority intentionally did not outline what is official or unofficial so they can pick and choose later. It's obvious what the message is. If you're someone the conservative supreme court likes your crimes are official actions if you're not then they're not.
Also Trump would've been black bagged or executed if he were anyone else. Stealing those documents, something we know for a fact he did, was treason. People have literally gone to jail their entire lives for less than that one act.
I wonder when people disagreeing with Trump are going to start flying out of windows.
Maybe the US will also add the word "democratic" into their country's name, like Democratic People's Republic of Korea and everyone knows how democratic every country is with the word "democratic" in their name.
You really need to re-read the US Constitution. It is very clear what duties and restrictions it gives to the President. Everything else is law passed by our Legislative Branch, yes?
If it is an official duty, like say, operating as Commander-in-Chief, or enforcing Federal law, then he has immunity to laws below the Constitution.
As Devin pointed out:
One duty is that the president can remove cabinet members.
It would be a crime to remove them via murder....
This is the issue:
Article 2 has a very tiny list that is very open to interpretation, it isn't a technical document listing everything in detail but vague 'mays and cans.' The only thing preventing previous presidents from abusing it was the criminal code itself. They could act out their Duties, but had to do so in a manor that did not violate said Criminal Code or upset Congress. Now they no longer have to worry about Criminal prosecution... and congress is a gridlock political mess... so what next?
Of course:
How does this sit with the duty to *Take Care* to *Faithfully* execute the laws?
If said president don't need to care, period, about the Criminal Code...?
In any case, as Devin explained:
The courts didn't limit it to Constitutional Duties, but to all "offical" acts.
So pointing to Article 2 doesn't help, if immunity is also granted to acts not listed within!
We are a constitutional republic, part of what that means is no one is immune to the law, not presidents not justices, no one.
Im not really that worried about this ruling, it feels like theyre putting on paper whats been in practice for at least decades, probably longer.
The problem with this ruleing specificly is that they left what counts as a president act and not. Which is gonna inevitably cause issues with anyone who tires to use this as a defence or prosecution.
In what way has this been in practice for "at least decades"
Why did ford pardon nixon if he was immune ? No, it has not been precedent that you could not even bring as evidence, acts made in the presidents official capacity, to support conviction of a crime.
this whole law thing is about what's explicitly stated or not, which is why generally courts are very specific, so even if presidents have been behaving this way, having it be explicitly stated, and be as vague as it is, changes a lot. especially the parts about the president's motive being unquestionable, and that any official acts can't be used as a part of the prosecution
23:00 That quote from Nixon is mind-blowing!
I personally see this as a reality check. If this ruling is all that they're saying it is, then we better be really damn sure about the person that we vote for. Do your research and do not vote by whim.
With the choices they give you? Good luck!
You’re asking a H* of a lot of the average voter. The average voter casts their ballot based either entirely on the letter of the party attached to the candidates name or based on inane perceptions like whose smile they like better, or similar.
Where I'm from, our Prime Minister can be charged with crimes. Like, for example, he can be caught speeding and get a speeding ticket, and if he drives well over the speed limit, lose his driver's license and be charged with reckliess driving which can lead to a prison sentence if it could have resulted in someone's injury or death. And we don't have a bail system here so if you get sentenced to prison, you have to serve time in prison no matter how much money you have. However, if the unlawful act has a connection to his duties as a Prime Minister, it would have to be a very serious crime for there to be any real consequences other than dropping voter support.
Though unlike in the US, our Prime Minister holds no real power other than a seat in the parliament and can put forward suggestions and changes that the government first has to agree on, and then the majority of the parliament will have to vote in favor. He can't veto anything because it is his party and the other parties in his coalition that has the respoinsibility to put forward said bills. If the parties in the government can't agree on it, it won't get to the parliament. To put it more simply: If one of the smaller parties wants to change something but the other parties in the government isn't in agreement with it, then it won't be put forward to the parliament. If the parties in the government CAN agree, however, they just need to get the parliament's support. And to even be able to form a government you and your coalition need AT LEAST 175/349 seats in the parliament. And to even get a seat in the parliament your party need at least 4% of the votes. So basically, if your party get 3.9%, you still won't be in the parliament.
Our king, and no one else, is immune to criminal charges, however. Though I doubt he'd go and have someone killed because that would be a good way for the people to revolt against you and force you to abdicate. Though he holds no real power other than being an admiral in the navy as well as general in the air force and army.
LE is incredibly biased. He previously dismissed the idea that ex-President Barak Obama could be charged with murder for ordering the killing 4 American citizens in a drone strike. I don't think I've ever heard him make an opinion that ran counter to his political belief. The criticism that "official acts" need to be better defined is fine, but that's also within the scope of a court. But Democrats had already said it was fine for a sitting president to dismiss 5th Amendment protections and order an American citizen killed through a secret and classified tribunal. US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was targeted multiple times before finally being killed by a drone strike in 2009, without ever being charged with a crime, much less convicted.
The 5th Amendment prevents anyone, including the President from ordering a killing of non-military personel.. Specifically: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” So the argument is stupid and wrong. The real problem is the President is already barred from ordering specific targeting (except in specific cases) and we've been quietly ignoring it for decades.
They left it intentionally general so Congress still has a chance to weigh in. Congress COULD pass a law defining what constitutes a non-Presidential actions. Congress trying to define Presidential acts would almost guaranteed get struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of the Constitutional Separation of Powers doctrine. The issue would be that the law as a whole and/or each listed action could be separately challenged, and/or struck down and even one action being ruled against could, depending on how the ruling is worded, strike down the whole law. Generalizations in law are great at covering many possibilities and allowing for flexibility in prosecutorial discretion (e.g. father stole the loaf of bread to feed his starving child, then went to the store as soon as he had the money to pay it off: it is still theft, but most would agree is justified, then the perp voluntarily attempted to atone so few people would expect prosecution), but they are incredibly susceptible to challenge and abuse.
Joe’s first and only official act as king should be to expand the court and get that ruling overturned.
"Destroy democracy to protect democracy." Yes that always bodes well.
Well, he can't.... so....
That would take Congress to do. Now if he wanted to abuse his commander-in-chief of the military power to ensure there were vacancies on the Supreme Court to fill... Well, he'd probably be immune, according to this Supreme Court.
@@DarthMalevolence66 "I Love Democracy"
That would require all three branches to agree to such a change. The president / executive branch does not have the authority to change the number of supreme court justices, nor does the Legislative branch. (They've both tried multiple times over the past few centuries, and the supreme court was overall put its foot down and stopped both).
Isn't the Supreme Court's ruling in violation of Article 1 Section 3 clause 7?
I'm gonna be honest here... I believe literally nothing Legal Eagle says about anything ever anymore. Because not only has he shown that he is more than willing to twist and distort (hell, outright lie about even) facts and the law to be able to outrage-farm his viewers for their political opinion, he has also shown a shocking lack of understanding of any area of the law he is not specifically engaged in (i.e. civil contracts and that sort of thing... stuff people aren't generally thrilled about, thus him talking about cases he doesn't really understand, but which are trending), most glaringly criminal and constitutional law.
The saddest and most pitiful instance of this was the "Kyle" case, wherein he proclaimed he was guilty as anything while completely misstating the relevant law, and after the verdict was out, he made a video omitting literally half the relevant facts to make it seem like it was some sort of thing you can read basically anything into, trying to suggest the verdict was a political thing, when it was the most clear-cut self-defence case that ever made it to the public discussion sphere in the last 30 years. Anything Legal Eagle says about the law, about the facts of a case or about any other part of IRAC (for those who don't know: Issue, Rule, Analysis / Application, Conclusion, the basic structure a legal case is looked at through by law students) is by default suspect to me.
He's a leftist who had let his politics interfere with his legal analysis
I think it was indeed self-defense, but I can’t take anyone seriously who claims it was “clear-cut”.
@@gregweatherup9596 Then I can't take you seriously because you clearly didn't see any of the trial. Remember where Grosskreutz sat on the stand and outright admitted advancing on him while pointing his gun right at his head, and then the prosecutors LITERALLY facepalmed because they just catastrophically lost the entire case? Yeah, that was a REALLY unclear situation right there.
@@DeReAntiqua I didn’t watch the trial- I had better things to do with my time and don’t have cable so I couldn’t have watched it even if I had had an interest in doing so. I read up on it after the fact because I suspected the media coverage was, shall we say “subpar”.
He provoked the situation, so initially had no right of self defense, but then retreated so technically he regained the right of self defense when they then perused; but that caused others to understandably mistake him for an active shooter. So it was self defense, but not by any definition “clear cut” and the end result was bullets flying near a crowd- it was luck there weren’t more casualties. I’m not convinced about the reckless endangerment charge that he was cleared on, and I’m rather appalled by his actions since the trial, but those later points are neither here nor there for the point of trying to label it “clear-cut”.
@@gregweatherup9596 He provoked nothing. What did he "provoke", eh? How did he do it? You have no idea, it's just some talking point some zombie on MSNBC spat at you, and you swallowed it up like a hungry little duckling. And "provocation" is not part of any legal statute anyway. Plus, you certainly can't just forfeit your right to self-defence. That's not a thing that exists in the real world. What kinda fantasy land do you live in?
He was hunted and assaulted by a half-undressed meth-addled chomo for telling them to stop setting things on fire, then a guy tried to wrestle his gun from him, then while he was running to the police, another hit him in the head with a skateboard which is grievous bodily harm, then another tried to swing him in the head with his foot, and then Grosskreutz ran at him, gun pointed at him. There was literally nothing ambiguous or doubt-inducing in any of that. And yes, it's clear you didn't watch the trial, because you know absolutely nothing about the case and are just regurgitating whatever propaganda you picked up.
what I take from this is that so long as you have a body be it paliament or supreme court that sing on it, a president can expand its authority indefenitly and legally.
I feel people may be overreacting to this ruling. It’s already been like this for the entire history of our nation, just not explicitly stated, and now it is. I understood it to mean an act performed by a President during the performance of his duties that may be later determined to have been illegal may be deemed immune to prosecution. Because those actions would be a “Presidential Act” decided upon for what they deem to be necessary. And an act that clearly falls within personal decision, would not be classified as a “presidential act”. So if let’s say the President is told a high level terrorist is in a certain building and he orders the building to be flattened to help ensure the safety of future Americans. but then they discover the terrorist was not there and a family was killed by accident, then that president would be immune to charges stemming from that decision. As has been the case all along anyways. Now, if a president ordered the arrest of his political opponents and there’s absolutely no evidence for the reason behind that arrest such as an eminent threat to the wellbeing of the nation, then that action would not be considered a presidential act, and immunity would not apply.
That’s more or less how it was prior to this ruling. Now if a president does something for even obviously personal reasons it is “presumptively” an official act and “presumptive immunity” applies and that presumption is basically impossible to rebut so in effect a president acting solely for personal gain is immune. We also can’t even inquire as to the president’s motive/intent now.
Further, nothing the president does as an “official act” (which is presumptively EVERYTHING) can be used as evidence anywhere. President enters into a conspiracy with his staff? can’t introduce those conversations into evidence. President grants a pardon in exchange for a bribe - you can’t introduce the pardon into evidence to prove the quid pro quo by the briber.
Edited due to an unintended double negative.
As far as I can tell they have not ruled on what actually qualifies as a presidential act. I agree it was already like this, but now I think it’s official as there’s been a ruling on it.
@@TheRollingTide point is, even when it’s clearly not, everything is “presumptively official” now and thus immune.
@@gregweatherup9596 Not only that, but they also said that you can't use anything the president did as evidence against him later. This is what Amy Coney Barrett dissented from.
In the majority opinion, speaking with the Vice-President, speaking with the Attorney General, speaing with the Joint Cheifs are all part of core official acts. The why of the conversation doesn't matter. The official act, even if not charged, cannot be used as evidence of motive.