×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。

关于豁免权的判决,看看大法官Roberts对自由派大法官的意见的批评

“Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President “above the law.”” Roberts wrote.

“The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” Roberts wrote.

Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下茶话 / 社会政治 / 关于豁免权的判决,看看大法官Roberts对自由派大法官的意见的批评 +2

    “Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President “above the law.”” Roberts wrote.

    “The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” Roberts wrote.

    • 某种意义上讲,高法不愿承担更多的责任,这些大法官们把责任推到下级法庭,充分相信下级法庭和美国老百姓的司法素养。
    • 司法战现在乱成了一锅粥。川普没倒,法制先崩。国之将亡,必出妖孽。川普就是打不死的妖怪。 +1
    • 现在美国大法官基本上都按“党籍”投票了。赞党性强😂😂 +2
      • It started from Obama +1