Supreme Court (finally) takes up Presidential Immunity

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2024, 01:53 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: People expecting this to be a quick or simple matter aren't comprehending the unbelievably complex and seriousness of the key question.  I think most people would agree the POTUS has some degree of LIMITED immunity, particularly as commander-in-chief (and this question arises primarily from Trump's actions, IMO, as a campaigner/candidate).  And then the more nuanced issue is precisely what role & responsibility the SCOTUS has in defining this, and what role the legislative body holds.

Yeah, I don't think most people understand the complexity of this. What we are going to see out of this most likely is a remand to Chutkin with as test to apply with regard to whether the actions in the indictment were official or not and how to handle that. Of course, there even seems to be some skepticism about ALL official actions being immune among the Justices. There was a lot of discussion about the relation to the "core executive powers" as expressed in Article II.

(04-26-2024, 01:53 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And correct me if I'm wrong, but military have a DUTY not to follow an unlawful order.  So while POTUS might theoretically have immunity, the person pulling the trigger would not.  And since the state could also charge them with murder, POTUS can't keep them out of jail with a pardon.

They actually talked about this in the court and how that interplay worked. Discussing how members of the military would be liable if they followed an unlawful order but POTUS would not be liable for giving such an order. That discussion was never really resolved (at least to the point I have listened) but I am going to guess it will be used in at least one of the opinions we see from this case.