@Hyolobrika @AltonDooley @volkris People understandably presume reasonableness of the Court, try to fill gaps in in such a way as you could say, look, this is a balanced measure to prevent harassing or politically motivated prosecution while continuing to ensure that Presidents follow the law. But read the text. It is not that, not at all. It provides absolute immunity for actions with sufficient scope to order violent lawlessness and protect perpetrators from any criminal accountability. /fin
@interfluidity the key point is, absolute immunity is only recognized for legal actions.
Can you cite legal basis for ordering violent lawlessness? Seems like a tall hill to climb.
If you can't cite legal basis for that action, then no, the text does not provide it.
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley that is simply not true. absolute immunity is not distinguished by lawful or unlawful actions. there’d be no reason for that. no one needs immunity for lawful actions. prosecutors are explicitly enjoined from even *inquiring* into whether “official acts” are motivated in order to break the law. for “conclusive and preclusive” official acts, including commanding the military + providing pardons, immunity is absolute and automatic.
you misunderstood the decision.
@interfluidity you say there is no reason for that, but the reason for that is staring us in the face: IF a person is being prosecuted for something that's not illegal in the first place, that's a strong call for immunity from improper prosecution!
And that's what this is all about, reigning in an administration that's overreaching in its prosecution.
When people get hung up on the motivation aspect they're missing that there are some things that current law allows regardless of motivation. AND we can democratically change that law if we wish, adding in the motivation aspect.
Other authorizations are more limited, hence the categorical tiers that came out in this ruling.
Regardless, to claim immunity from prosecution the accused would first have to demonstrate that their actions have legal basis.
There's no automatic get out of jail free card here.
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley again, you are just wrong on the facts. if a person is being prosecuted for something not illegal, the remedy is acquittal, not immunity. 1/
@interfluidity sure acquittal is A remedy, but there's nothing particularly unique about getting the case thrown out before trial based on the unlawful prosecution.
It's a practical way to deal with an overreaching administration, one that saves all the time and expense of going through a trial that was inappropriate in the first place.
Heck, for a prosecutor to approach the courts with an unlawful process is itself a pretty big problem, that the courts recognize in cases like these!
Yeah, the administration could haul a person through an unlawful process and the person can appeal after... but why?
@interfluidity that IS a form of immunity!
So that's all this is, just a statement that courts must throw out invalid (malicious or otherwise faulty) prosecution upon first contact.
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley
No. Courts must always throw out cases that are on their face "invalid (malicious or otherwise faulty)". The problem is, when a lawsuit or prosecution occurs, there is often a dispute over whether a suit is "invalid (malicious or otherwise faulty)". 1/
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley Courts then must inquire into the dispute as a factual matter.
Immunity is quite distinct.
"The essence of immunity 'is its possessor’s entitlement
not to have to answer for his conduct' in court."
That's John Roberts, from the decision. That is quite distinct from saying Courts must examine a prosecution in any way at all, and dismiss the bad ones. It says Courts have no business examining or evaluating an allegation at all. That is what immunity means. /fin
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley Courts can and should absolutely throw out a malicious prosecution upon first contact. Usually there is an immediate motion by the defense to dismiss, have it thrown out because the prosecution lacks basis. All of us have the right to make such a motion, and any judge has a right to rule in favor of the defense and the case is over. That’s ordinary in criminal law. No immunity required.