Supreme Court (finally) takes up Presidential Immunity

[Luvnit2]

(04-26-2024, 01:53 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Not sure if that was the same exchange, but I thought I saw a response about Congress having to confirm appointees, servings as a checks-and-balance.

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.

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.

There's a reason the DOJ and courts have avoided weighing in on this for, well, a very long time.  But in the hyperbolic get-Trump media, these complexities are glossed over or ignored to impune the integrity of the SCOTUS.  Which I thought undermining the courts was undemocratic, but I guess only when Trump does it.

The check and balance are Congress. It is Congress's responsibility to prosecute a POTUS. 

The example brought up about murdering someone came from left field from the liberal justices. 

Our system of Congress over seeing the POTUS (constitution) has worked for 284 years. 

Again, we have an example of Obama ordering a drone strike and killing US citizens on foreign soil. Should he be prosecuted by a GOP controlled AG for murder?  If no immunity, it opens a huge can of worms.