(07-02-2024, 10:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(07-02-2024, 10:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: If only the majority opinion had given any information to refute what the dissent said...

---

The Constitution explicitly lists pardons as one of the President's powers.
Taking a bribe is a criminal act.
But
If the President takes a payment in exchange for a pardon, is that not an official act? Is he not then immune from prosecution for bribery?

Great question.  I think that would be prosecutable.  

But you have to protect Presidents from prosecution for official acts because otherwise, every President would be hauled into court continuously.

Right, taking a payment or donation for anything other than his salary would be an unofficial act.
But the pardon would be an official act. 
And under this decision, because it was an official act, the pardon could not even be introduced into evidence if there was a trial over the bribe payment.
So I think we would agree that the payment would not be shielded from prosecution, but how would the prosecutor prove that it was a bribe, if the prosecutor is not allowed to introduce the pardon as a piece of evidence?

---