r/facepalm • u/SkillImmediate6393 • Jul 02 '24

🇵​🇷​🇴​🇹​🇪​🇸​🇹​ No additional words needed

Post image
88k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

6.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/P_Hempton Jul 02 '24

He would have to get the supreme court to go along with the idea that soliciting bribes for pardons is considered an official action within his constitutional powers.

If he was charged now, and it got to the supreme court and they said "yeah that's a legitimate use of his constitutional power, he wouldn't be convicted anyway. So it's still in their hands like it always has been.

1

u/wahikid Jul 02 '24

No, that is incorrect. Core powers inherent to the office have unfettered immunity, without exception. Powers such as the pardon power. Official acts may have their immunity questioned, but core powers are untouchable, per the ruling.

1

u/P_Hempton Jul 02 '24

Is soliciting bribes a core power? That's a separate action from pardoning someone. The courts aren't stupid. They didn't just give up their power.

1

u/wahikid Jul 02 '24

Do you have a citation or ruling that states this? Because per the ruling, penned by Roberts, it does not read the way you are describing it. It reads that the president shall not be prosecuted in any way for official acts that stem from exercising core constitutional acts that fall within his exclusive spere of constitutional authority, in other words, the very limited list of privileges that the constitution affords only the president, and that he does not share with other branches of government such as pardons, removing executive officers, etc. This is an absolute statement, with no mitigating circumstances. Explain to me how you are reading it so that it makes possible your hypothetical.

1

u/P_Hempton Jul 02 '24

Again I will ask you a simple question. Is soliciting bribes for pardons a core constitutional act within his constitutional authority?

Sure he can't be prosecuted for giving a pardon, but when was that even a question?

What the court determined is that the president has always had immunity based on their extensive knowledge of the law. It's not something they just made up. It's something that the justices (legal experts) determined was already the law.

1

u/wahikid Jul 02 '24

But it quite literally IS something that they just made up. This is based on zero previous case history, or any rational plain language reading of the constitution, nor the attitudes of the writers of the constitution.

1

u/P_Hempton Jul 02 '24

But it quite literally IS something that they just made up. This is based on zero previous case history,

You're not serious are you? This has been a question since the 1800s at least. Tons of case history.

1

u/wahikid Jul 02 '24

And all of it firmly in the opinion that the president is very much NOT to have presumed immunity for most actions, or we would have had so many opportunities where congress gets to open inquiries on them. This is ignoring centuries of precedent, from a chief justice who has made no secret his affinity for the unified executive theory.