Frankly, this is terrifying. The decision gives complete criminal immunity from any "official acts" as President. It goes on to define that term so broadly as to include any conversation with Justice department officials. Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible. Soliciting bribes to not prosecute is now fair game.
I find it particularly concerning regarding the military. The President is Commander in Chief, and thus any orders he gives or attempts to give to the military would be undeniably official acts. This was even brought up in oral arguments, where it was asked of Trump's council "if the President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, would that be considered an official act?" I find it absolutely terrifying that this possibility was brought up, and any mention of the military is conspicuously absent from the majority decision, even in passing (though Sotomayor explicitly brings it up in her dissent).
The most concerning part is how this decision is being made entirely on constitutional grounds. At least in the case of Rowe v Wade being overturned, we have the possible remedy of Congress passing a law enshrining the right to an abortion. But here, there is no legislation Congress could pass to create criminal liability for the President, no executive action. The only option would be a constitutional amendment.
> Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible.
I think we have fundamentally different views of the Executive's role. We have 3 branches of government, and the President is the guy who enforces the law. The Justice department is not a 4th branch of government.
The Executive branch does have the authority to enforce laws, but that authority is not absolute. The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "hey, that guy who committed murder, don't prosecute him, because he promised to pay me a lot of money if I let him off". The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "stop investigating me and my political allies or I'll fire you". That second one is what led to Nixon having to resign.
At least, that's what I think should be the case. The majority in this case disagree. They seem to think that any usage of the powers of President is free from any criminal liability.
> The President cannot go to the Justice department and say "stop investigating me and my political allies or I'll fire you". That second one is what led to Nixon having to resign.
There’s definitely nothing legally stopping the president from doing this. This was the Saturday Night Massacre.
The only thing that can stop this is public perception and the threat of impeachment then removal by the Senate.
> There’s definitely nothing legally stopping the president from doing this.
Ford famously pardoned Nixon, which would imply he believed Nixon would be subject to potential criminal liability. And I believe that should be the case.
> The only thing that can stop this is public perception and the threat of impeachment then removal by the Senate.
That’s certainly what the Supreme Court majority believes. I think that is woefully insufficient. You can abuse the powers of the President all you like, and the worst thing that can happen to you is you don’t get to be President anymore. If that’s the case, on the last day of their term, a President can simply say “selling pardons, $1M each”. The president will walk away rich, those pardons can’t be overturned by a future president, and Congress wouldn’t be able to impeach and remove them in enough time for it to matter.
I find it particularly concerning regarding the military. The President is Commander in Chief, and thus any orders he gives or attempts to give to the military would be undeniably official acts. This was even brought up in oral arguments, where it was asked of Trump's council "if the President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, would that be considered an official act?" I find it absolutely terrifying that this possibility was brought up, and any mention of the military is conspicuously absent from the majority decision, even in passing (though Sotomayor explicitly brings it up in her dissent).
The most concerning part is how this decision is being made entirely on constitutional grounds. At least in the case of Rowe v Wade being overturned, we have the possible remedy of Congress passing a law enshrining the right to an abortion. But here, there is no legislation Congress could pass to create criminal liability for the President, no executive action. The only option would be a constitutional amendment.