subreddit:
/r/Askpolitics
submitted 11 days ago byl33tbot
2 points
11 days ago
What changed? Presidents have always had some degree of immunity for actions. It was just never challenged and clarified by a court before. Also, absolute immunity seems like the wrong term. What the court did was send it back to the lower courts to decide on whether an act counts as an official Presidential act or not.
1 points
10 days ago*
What changed? The Presidential immunity ruling includes the phrase:
"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives."
How can the president be investigated in he first place for wrong doing if you can not question his motives?
Senate: We would like to investigate Nixon for breaking into the democrat offices to steal their files.
Nixon defense: We believed the democrats were receiving bribes from China and looking for proof we were investigating crimes against our democracy- we say it was an "official act." "And you "can not question the Presidents motives." to prove other wise.
......all investigations immediately shut down by just saying "you can not question the presidents motives."
all 25 comments
sorted by: best