Should Presidents have absolute immunity for life?

[BillStime]

 

[The Frankish Reich]

On 4/26/2024 at 10:11 AM, ChiGoose said:

textualism unless the text doesn't say what they want it to say

As one Justice asked: where in the constitution does it say that the President shall have lifetime immunity for criminal acts committed while he was President?

The answer is: nowhere. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that accords former presidents immunity from criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court is just making it up.

So what about the textualist's backup argument? That we should look to history of the interpretation of the constitution?

Well, no help there. Gerald Ford preemptively pardoned Nixon because there was no one who even thought that Nixon would have lifetime immunity for any involvement in criminal activity while he was president. 

So they are making it up. How is this different from the "liberal justices just made up the right to privacy (and, in turn, abortion) which is found nowhere in the constitution?" Answer: it isn't.

This article states the argument in greater detail:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/27/supreme-court-trump-immunity-00154744

 

Read the conclusion before you snap back "oh, so I guess you're fine with Dobbs."

No, I'm not. The article (and I) just think that the idea that Supreme Court justices are just some kind of rabbinical interpreters of the words of the constitution without imposing their own ideas of what is necessary for what they've called "ordered liberty" is nonsense. There is no such thing, and this case proves it.

Edited Saturday at 05:04 PM by The Frankish Reich

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[KDIGGZ]