There's two types of person I could be arguing with: one who has just misunderstood the ruling by being credulous of the discourse around it; and one who has misunderstood it by having a partial understanding of the legal context. My goal was the address the former by explaining the judgement. A person of the latter kind would take much more of my time than I can give. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to be helpful by adding explanatory context.
If a person has read the ruling and insists that it places the person of the president, privately, above the law -- then I'd need several hours to explain all the relevant issues. A comment thread isn't a viable place to conduct a seminar on constitutional law, nor exegesis of a SC legal opinion to that depth.
I had hoped I could just explain that the congress and the courts have immunities, and this is just confirming that the office of the president has exactly the same kind of immunity. And that this immunity does not transfer privately to the holder of that office, just as a senator cannot murder someone.
There are deep technical issues surrounding the status of the attorney general which muddies the waters, because this is not a constitutional position, and the constitution does not foresee any one but congress holding the president (as president) to legal account. In that sense, it places the president (as president, not as a private person) outside congress' modern established processes for federal law -- but that's what the constitution actually says. But this process has never worked anyway: the AG is an executive position the president already controls, so it has never made sense to imagine they are answerable to the AG.
The SC confirms the plain text of the constitution which is the office of the president is one of the three branches of government which is held to legal account only by impeachment by congress. The office holder, eg., trump, can still be prosecuted as a private citizen for crimes, in his own private interest, taken during office, when he isnt the president.
If a person has read the ruling and insists that it places the person of the president, privately, above the law -- then I'd need several hours to explain all the relevant issues. A comment thread isn't a viable place to conduct a seminar on constitutional law, nor exegesis of a SC legal opinion to that depth.
I had hoped I could just explain that the congress and the courts have immunities, and this is just confirming that the office of the president has exactly the same kind of immunity. And that this immunity does not transfer privately to the holder of that office, just as a senator cannot murder someone.
There are deep technical issues surrounding the status of the attorney general which muddies the waters, because this is not a constitutional position, and the constitution does not foresee any one but congress holding the president (as president) to legal account. In that sense, it places the president (as president, not as a private person) outside congress' modern established processes for federal law -- but that's what the constitution actually says. But this process has never worked anyway: the AG is an executive position the president already controls, so it has never made sense to imagine they are answerable to the AG.
The SC confirms the plain text of the constitution which is the office of the president is one of the three branches of government which is held to legal account only by impeachment by congress. The office holder, eg., trump, can still be prosecuted as a private citizen for crimes, in his own private interest, taken during office, when he isnt the president.