Comment by redeux
1 year ago
What say you of the Trump vs United States (appropriately named) ruling that gives the president immunity from crimes committed while in office? Does that align with the idea that SCOTUS may reign in presidential power?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024...
I think that decision was wrong, but I don't think we can necessarily use that as a template for future SCOTUS decisions about the things Trump might do. During his first term (even after he'd appointed justices), there were still rulings that went against Trump's administration. Just as during Biden's time in office, there were rulings in favor of his administration. While I do not like the ideological bent of the current Supreme Court, it is not clear that they are in favor of the dismantling of government through illegal means.
(A nit: the word you're looking for is "rein", as in the thing you hold when riding a horse, not "reign", the ruling period of a monarch.)
The article you attached does not say that the ruling gives the president immunity from all crimes committed while in office.
That's the practical effect of the ruling. It would have prevented Nixon from being prosecuted.
Maybe, maybe not. It's not clear that Nixon's legal team could have successfully argued that planting listening devices in the DNC offices would constitute an "official act" of presidential power.
I would hope that, in this hypothetical reality, a judge and jury would still find that laughable.
Even if such a ruling would have kept Nixon safe from prosecution, Congress still could have impeached him, and at least that would have kicked him out of office.
Of course, Nixon was preemptively pardoned, so we didn't even get to see how that would have played out in the reality of the time.