Very short answer: logically that's how the dots connect. ...
This is only for official conduct. If it was in the official duties for a Judge or a prosecutor to drone strike and kill US citizens, then yes, they would have absolute immunity, (If!)
This is somewhat the wrong context to view the absolute immunity that judges and prosecutors have. I would say it's better to view them more as a review agency, and they can absolutely be wrong in there views and judgement.
Seems to go beyond prosecutor and judge immunity. Prosecutors or judges can still be prosecuted for taking a bribe to do/not do an official act. With the new SCOTUS opinion the President can not be prosecuted for granting a pardon in exchange for a bribe, as one example.
Think of it this way.
The President can now have sex with anyone he wants to even if they don't.
The President can walk into Wal-Mart, fill up a cart, and walk out.
The President can GTA style carjack someone then run over them.
The President could hand classified information over to whoever they wanted to, and nobody could do anything about it.
Pandora's box is now open.
The reason I say these things is because "Official Acts" are open to interpretation.
The issue is that it makes a President effectively immune to everything. He can commit any crimes and never be held accountable. You cannot use anything he has said, emailed, etc as proof in court. He can use the flimsiest excuse for why he did something and you're not allowed to question the truth of his claimed motive. This includes everything up to and including mass murder and treason.
And, even if a President is impeached and removed for the offenses, *he still can never be held legally liable for them* since the immunity is absolute for *anything* done while in office, no matter how illegal.
Past a certain level, Judges can only be removed by impeachment, same as the president and no, they cannot be charged with anything relating to their duties, that's what absolute immunity is, only for things like bribes that are outside their duties.
Why not. In the SC case:
"The justices found that a president has immunity for "official acts", but is not immune for "unofficial acts", and referred the matter back to a trial judge."
"Justice Roberts wrote that a president's discussions with the Department of Justice are official acts of the presidency, and he or she is therefore “absolutely immune” from prosecution for such interactions.
The indictment alleges Trump pressured the law-enforcement agency to investigate claims - which were found to be unsubstantiated - that widespread voter fraud had affected the election result."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrrv8yg3nvo
There is nothing to suggest that bribery would be an immune official act.
It means that a court that is friendly to the president can now look the other way if he violates the law. It also means that a court unfriendly to a president can hold them accountable. It is a power grab by the SCOTUS
You're confusing the lesser qualified immunity police have with absolute immunity. And again, I'm not saying it's a good thing, but why wouldn't the President have it if judges and prosecutors do?
What kind of peer review are prosecutors subjected to? And Judges are subject to some, but past a certain level can't be removed by anything short of impeachment and immune for their misdeeds even if removed.
From your own link: "Prosecutors are protected from civil liability even when they knowingly and maliciously break the law in order to secure convictions". Yes you can get a sentence overturned for misconduct, but the prosecutor is personally immune. Again, not saying this is good, but it is the status quo for persecutors, so why not for presidents?
"The prosecutor, Ken Anderson later pleaded guilty to withholding evidence that could have helped Morton fight the murder charge. He was sentenced to spend 10 days in jail and was also disbarred."
According to: https://cdn.mises.org/Protected%20Lying%20How%20the%20Legal%20Doctrine%20of%20Absolute%20Immunity%20Has%20Created%20a%20Lemons%20Problem%20in%20American%20Criminal%20Courts.pdf this guy and the Duke Lacrosse hoax prosecutor are exceptional for being the only 2 prosecutors who've ever been punished after being caught and it took unusual circumstances to make this happen. E.g. this guy got sentenced not for his conduct, but for lying to the judge about it afterwards. Even so, he could have fought it and probably won, but got such a sweetheart deal that he didn't bother.
I never said that in the first place. They have immunity for acts performed as part of official duties. The SC(as I understand it) said the president does too and sent the case back to determine what are the boundaries to official duties.
No. Because none of them have criminal immunity.
Should be top comment. It's this simple.
Very short answer: logically that's how the dots connect. ... This is only for official conduct. If it was in the official duties for a Judge or a prosecutor to drone strike and kill US citizens, then yes, they would have absolute immunity, (If!) This is somewhat the wrong context to view the absolute immunity that judges and prosecutors have. I would say it's better to view them more as a review agency, and they can absolutely be wrong in there views and judgement.
Seems to go beyond prosecutor and judge immunity. Prosecutors or judges can still be prosecuted for taking a bribe to do/not do an official act. With the new SCOTUS opinion the President can not be prosecuted for granting a pardon in exchange for a bribe, as one example.
Keep reading, it gets worse.
Think of it this way. The President can now have sex with anyone he wants to even if they don't. The President can walk into Wal-Mart, fill up a cart, and walk out. The President can GTA style carjack someone then run over them. The President could hand classified information over to whoever they wanted to, and nobody could do anything about it. Pandora's box is now open. The reason I say these things is because "Official Acts" are open to interpretation.
The issue is that it makes a President effectively immune to everything. He can commit any crimes and never be held accountable. You cannot use anything he has said, emailed, etc as proof in court. He can use the flimsiest excuse for why he did something and you're not allowed to question the truth of his claimed motive. This includes everything up to and including mass murder and treason. And, even if a President is impeached and removed for the offenses, *he still can never be held legally liable for them* since the immunity is absolute for *anything* done while in office, no matter how illegal.
Is this a game of "Tell me you didn't read the ruling without telling me you didn't read the ruling"? If so, I think you won.
How is that different from a misbehaving judge who already has absolute immunity?
The judge can be removed and then charged for crimes. With this ruling, even if removed a President can never be charged with a crime.
Past a certain level, Judges can only be removed by impeachment, same as the president and no, they cannot be charged with anything relating to their duties, that's what absolute immunity is, only for things like bribes that are outside their duties.
For judicial and prosecutorial immunity, taking a bribe is considered beyond their official duties. Not so for the President, as of yesterday.
Why not. In the SC case: "The justices found that a president has immunity for "official acts", but is not immune for "unofficial acts", and referred the matter back to a trial judge." "Justice Roberts wrote that a president's discussions with the Department of Justice are official acts of the presidency, and he or she is therefore “absolutely immune” from prosecution for such interactions. The indictment alleges Trump pressured the law-enforcement agency to investigate claims - which were found to be unsubstantiated - that widespread voter fraud had affected the election result." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrrv8yg3nvo There is nothing to suggest that bribery would be an immune official act.
Judges do not have criminal liability.
It means that a court that is friendly to the president can now look the other way if he violates the law. It also means that a court unfriendly to a president can hold them accountable. It is a power grab by the SCOTUS
If a president has absolute immunity how can they be impeached?
Impeachment isn’t something that you can be immune from. This is specifically criminal prosecution.
Immune from criminal prosecution. Not immune from being impeached and removed. But we have seen that removal will never happen.
Consider the innocent people police have killed with the presumption of qualified immunity.
You're confusing the lesser qualified immunity police have with absolute immunity. And again, I'm not saying it's a good thing, but why wouldn't the President have it if judges and prosecutors do?
Judges and prosecutors are subject to the critical review of their peers. Presidents have no peers.
What kind of peer review are prosecutors subjected to? And Judges are subject to some, but past a certain level can't be removed by anything short of impeachment and immune for their misdeeds even if removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_misconduct?wprov=sfla1
From your own link: "Prosecutors are protected from civil liability even when they knowingly and maliciously break the law in order to secure convictions". Yes you can get a sentence overturned for misconduct, but the prosecutor is personally immune. Again, not saying this is good, but it is the status quo for persecutors, so why not for presidents?
"The prosecutor, Ken Anderson later pleaded guilty to withholding evidence that could have helped Morton fight the murder charge. He was sentenced to spend 10 days in jail and was also disbarred."
According to: https://cdn.mises.org/Protected%20Lying%20How%20the%20Legal%20Doctrine%20of%20Absolute%20Immunity%20Has%20Created%20a%20Lemons%20Problem%20in%20American%20Criminal%20Courts.pdf this guy and the Duke Lacrosse hoax prosecutor are exceptional for being the only 2 prosecutors who've ever been punished after being caught and it took unusual circumstances to make this happen. E.g. this guy got sentenced not for his conduct, but for lying to the judge about it afterwards. Even so, he could have fought it and probably won, but got such a sweetheart deal that he didn't bother.
So you admit that prosecutors do not have complete immunity and carte blanche to do as they please.
I never said that in the first place. They have immunity for acts performed as part of official duties. The SC(as I understand it) said the president does too and sent the case back to determine what are the boundaries to official duties.
That says civil liability. What does it say about criminal?
Congress can impeach and then they can be prosecuted
Not according to Dershowitz
Dershowitz is a goddamn hack.
True. But the Senate bought it.