At least with this one they've rescued us from doing national politics like a banana republic. You can't arrest Presidents for doing things they had the total latitude to do as Presidents. We can't have the courts deciding whether Presidents had good or illegitimate reasons for any arbitrary decision that they made during their presidency. It's madness.
If a president took a bribe for a position, prosecute him for taking a bribe (if it's not a gratuity, because Congress has declared tipping politicians legal.) But if he could have made the same decision because he liked someone's tie - it's nothing but second guessing, by a likely hostile later administration.
These people appoint all their campaign staff and big donors to government jobs. If that's legal, then any reason for anything they do which is left up to their discretion is legal. If it's not legal, have Congress make it not legal.
-----
edit: gaganyaan, you are wrong. If you think that the entire point is that a president cannot be prosecuted for taking a bribe, you should reevaluate your understanding of the entire point.
> Under Monday’s decision, a former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case.
> Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the rest of Roberts’ opinion, parted company on this point. “The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable,” Barrett wrote.
> We can't have the courts deciding whether Presidents had good or illegitimate reasons for any arbitrary decision that they made during their presidency.
Why not. The vice president exists for a reason? Here in Europe, in the entirety of Europe, if a president or prime minister commits a crime, they will be prosecuted. If we can do it, why can't the USA?
After all, no one is above the law.
If anything, the more power you have, the more scrutiny you should be under.
You're missing the entire point. Now the president can't be prosecuted for taking a bribe, even if he publicly declares that's the reason for doing so.
Y'know, the president has very convenient authority for just this kind of thing. Something about drones and strikes? Would be a shame if when people tried to impeach the president he exercised his qualified immunity to convince them that it's a Bad Idea.
If a president took a bribe for a position, prosecute him for taking a bribe (if it's not a gratuity, because Congress has declared tipping politicians legal.) But if he could have made the same decision because he liked someone's tie - it's nothing but second guessing, by a likely hostile later administration.
These people appoint all their campaign staff and big donors to government jobs. If that's legal, then any reason for anything they do which is left up to their discretion is legal. If it's not legal, have Congress make it not legal.
-----
edit: gaganyaan, you are wrong. If you think that the entire point is that a president cannot be prosecuted for taking a bribe, you should reevaluate your understanding of the entire point.
> Under Monday’s decision, a former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case.
> Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the rest of Roberts’ opinion, parted company on this point. “The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable,” Barrett wrote.