Is the presidential immunity ruling even worse than Dred Scott?

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

A judge cannot be prosecuted for reaching a particular verdict, in accordance with the principle of judicial immunity. He can still be prosecuted for accepting a bribe to reach that verdict. That is a completely real and legally relevant distinction.  

Nobody is talking about a judge, we're talking about the President of the United States with whom this ruling defacto says can not be charged for accepting a bribe.

Do you even believe this nonsense you're trying to fool me with?

[HisGrace]

Stop fearmongering. This ruling did nothing to change what was already the post 1974 status quo.

If the President could do what you claim, then the court's decision wouldnt matter to begin with.

Regardless of whether you think this has been the case since 1974 or this Monday - yes or no, would a President ordering an assassination of his political opponent be considered an "official act", and would the President be immune from being prosecuted for this?

No and No

Suppose the following scenario happened on January 19, 2021:

- Trump orders loyalist military members of the military to assassinate Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Leahy, and Mike Pence. They are successful.

- Mike Pompeo is elevated to the presidency at noon the following day, and subsequently pardons Trump and the military members who participated in this coup.

What, in your view, is the legal remedy to this situation?

Well few things :

1. That’s showing how pardon power can be abused not immunity power . That has nothing to do with this case

2. Murder is a crime at the state level too so you could still charge Trump with state level crimes here

3. The courts ruling another way would not provide remedy for Pompeo doing this . That would be a military coup effectively and if that happens then no court decision can save us

This ruling mentioned the President's pardon powers by making them absolute. Again, you really should learn about the ruling before commenting on it.

It mentioned the pardon power, but the pardon power being without limitation by the other branches was established by US v Klein (1872). Even the dissent admits this.

Except this is besides the point. The President has always had unlimited power to issue pardons, but they have not been free from being criminally charged previously for, in this case, offering a preemptive pardon to induce Seal Team 6 (or whoever else) from committing murder. 

I know there was the Mark Rich case with President Clinton, but he was, in fact, criminally investigated for issuing this pardon (by James Comey.)

Of course, that's slightly different in so far as this same fascist Supreme Court has made it practically impossible for a government executive to be charged for accepting bribes, but it can now be explicit. Any President can now legally say 'give me X amount of $ and I'll pardon you' and it's completely legal.

There's never been an ability to prosecute for issuing a pardon. The accusation made against Clinton was bribery.  Barrett's partial concurrence points out that the Court's opinion would make prosecuting for bribery in such a case much more difficult, but the Court doesn't preclude it in principle.

The opinion doesn't address the concept of a "preemptive pardon," and if such a thing ever came before the Court it could decide that such a thing doesn't fall within the definition of a "pardon" from an originalist perspective, just as it could also with "self-pardon", without contradicting this decision.

Bolded is a pretty major understatement. Not only did the ruling say you couldn't be charged for official acts, but is also said official acts could not be admissible in court as evidence of another crime. Since bribery is generally always going to be tied to some kind of official act in exchange for the bribe, IDK how you could ever get a bribery conviction if you can't cite what the president did in exchange for the bribe during the trial. The case would just be DOA. You need both parts to prove bribery beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Stop fearmongering. This ruling did nothing to change what was already the post 1974 status quo.

If the President could do what you claim, then the court's decision wouldnt matter to begin with.

Regardless of whether you think this has been the case since 1974 or this Monday - yes or no, would a President ordering an assassination of his political opponent be considered an "official act", and would the President be immune from being prosecuted for this?

No and No

Suppose the following scenario happened on January 19, 2021:

- Trump orders loyalist military members of the military to assassinate Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Leahy, and Mike Pence. They are successful.

- Mike Pompeo is elevated to the presidency at noon the following day, and subsequently pardons Trump and the military members who participated in this coup.

What, in your view, is the legal remedy to this situation?

Well few things :

1. That’s showing how pardon power can be abused not immunity power . That has nothing to do with this case

2. Murder is a crime at the state level too so you could still charge Trump with state level crimes here

3. The courts ruling another way would not provide remedy for Pompeo doing this . That would be a military coup effectively and if that happens then no court decision can save us

This ruling mentioned the President's pardon powers by making them absolute. Again, you really should learn about the ruling before commenting on it.

It mentioned the pardon power, but the pardon power being without limitation by the other branches was established by US v Klein (1872). Even the dissent admits this.

Except this is besides the point. The President has always had unlimited power to issue pardons, but they have not been free from being criminally charged previously for, in this case, offering a preemptive pardon to induce Seal Team 6 (or whoever else) from committing murder. 

I know there was the Mark Rich case with President Clinton, but he was, in fact, criminally investigated for issuing this pardon (by James Comey.)

Of course, that's slightly different in so far as this same fascist Supreme Court has made it practically impossible for a government executive to be charged for accepting bribes, but it can now be explicit. Any President can now legally say 'give me X amount of $ and I'll pardon you' and it's completely legal.

There's never been an ability to prosecute for issuing a pardon. The accusation made against Clinton was bribery.  Barrett's partial concurrence points out that the Court's opinion would make prosecuting for bribery in such a case much more difficult, but the Court doesn't preclude it in principle.

The opinion doesn't address the concept of a "preemptive pardon," and if such a thing ever came before the Court it could decide that such a thing doesn't fall within the definition of a "pardon" from an originalist perspective, just as it could also with "self-pardon", without contradicting this decision.

Bolded is a pretty major understatement. Not only did the ruling say you couldn't be charged for official acts, but is also said official acts could not be admissible in court as evidence of another crime. Since bribery is generally always going to be tied to some kind of official act in exchange for the bribe, IDK how you could ever get a bribery conviction if you can't cite what the president did in exchange for the bribe during the trial. The case would just be DOA. You need both parts to prove bribery beyond a reasonable doubt.

Shua is gaslighting.

[Badger]

A judge cannot be prosecuted for reaching a particular verdict, in accordance with the principle of judicial immunity. He can still be prosecuted for accepting a bribe to reach that verdict. That is a completely real and legally relevant distinction.  

Nobody is talking about a judge, we're talking about the President of the United States with whom this ruling defacto says can not be charged for accepting a bribe.

Do you even believe this nonsense you're trying to fool me with?

He will believe in a great deal of nonsense. It is his MO.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A judge cannot be prosecuted for reaching a particular verdict, in accordance with the principle of judicial immunity. He can still be prosecuted for accepting a bribe to reach that verdict. That is a completely real and legally relevant distinction.   

Nobody is talking about a judge, we're talking about the President of the United States with whom this ruling defacto says can not be charged for accepting a bribe.

Do you even believe this nonsense you're trying to fool me with?

I was responding to your claim that the distinction between prosecuting someone for taking a bribe and prosecuting someone for making a decision that may have been influenced by a bribe is a "hair split."  The judge verdict example is relevant to Presidential pardons because in both cases they are official actions that fall under absolute immunity.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

A judge cannot be prosecuted for reaching a particular verdict, in accordance with the principle of judicial immunity. He can still be prosecuted for accepting a bribe to reach that verdict. That is a completely real and legally relevant distinction.   

Nobody is talking about a judge, we're talking about the President of the United States with whom this ruling defacto says can not be charged for accepting a bribe.

Do you even believe this nonsense you're trying to fool me with?

I was responding to your claim that the distinction between prosecuting someone for taking a bribe and prosecuting someone for making a decision that may have been influenced by a bribe is a "hair split."  The judge verdict example is relevant to Presidential pardons because in both cases they are official actions that fall under absolute immunity.

The reason you're hair splitting is because this fascist Supreme Court has decided that a President can no longer be investigated for taking a bribe whether for issuing a pardon or for anything else. So, the situation of the judge is total garbage as is everything else you've posted here.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A judge cannot be prosecuted for reaching a particular verdict, in accordance with the principle of judicial immunity. He can still be prosecuted for accepting a bribe to reach that verdict. That is a completely real and legally relevant distinction.   

Nobody is talking about a judge, we're talking about the President of the United States with whom this ruling defacto says can not be charged for accepting a bribe.

Do you even believe this nonsense you're trying to fool me with?

I was responding to your claim that the distinction between prosecuting someone for taking a bribe and prosecuting someone for making a decision that may have been influenced by a bribe is a "hair split."  The judge verdict example is relevant to Presidential pardons because in both cases they are official actions that fall under absolute immunity.

The reason you're hair splitting is because this fascist Supreme Court has decided that a President can no longer be investigated for taking a bribe whether for issuing a pardon or for anything else. So, the situation of the judge is total garbage as is everything else you've posted here.

I don't have much of an opinion one way or another on whether Barrett is correct in her dissent on the question point of obtaining evidence; I'd have to look into and think about it more. But she doesn't disagree with the principle that the pardon power is subject to absolute immunity. You want to occlude this distinction as just being a matter of hair splitting but there's no good reason to.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

A judge cannot be prosecuted for reaching a particular verdict, in accordance with the principle of judicial immunity. He can still be prosecuted for accepting a bribe to reach that verdict. That is a completely real and legally relevant distinction.  

Nobody is talking about a judge, we're talking about the President of the United States with whom this ruling defacto says can not be charged for accepting a bribe.

Do you even believe this nonsense you're trying to fool me with?

I was responding to your claim that the distinction between prosecuting someone for taking a bribe and prosecuting someone for making a decision that may have been influenced by a bribe is a "hair split."  The judge verdict example is relevant to Presidential pardons because in both cases they are official actions that fall under absolute immunity.

The reason you're hair splitting is because this fascist Supreme Court has decided that a President can no longer be investigated for taking a bribe whether for issuing a pardon or for anything else. So, the situation of the judge is total garbage as is everything else you've posted here.

I don't have much of an opinion one way or another on whether Barrett is correct in her dissent on the question point of obtaining evidence; I'd have to look into and think about it more. But she doesn't disagree with the principle that the pardon power is subject to absolute immunity. You want to occlude this distinction as just being a matter of hair splitting but there's no good reason to.

There is every reason to given that this ruling blocks off every avenue in practice to investigate the President.

Could you please cut the crap that this has got anything to do with (legal) 'principles.' If you really are that naive, I'm sorry for you.