News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts. Parent comment

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by kibwen on Monday July 01, 2024 @01:43PM (#40848217)
> the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty

Fortunately, the past rulings of this court have made the jurisprudence abundantly clear:

If Biden orders Trump to be assassinated, that's unofficial, and he can be prosecuted.

If Trump orders Biden to be assassinated, that's official, and he has complete immunity.

Easy, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by dang on Monday July 01, 2024 @01:51PM (#40848296)
Please don't take HN threads into political flamewar hell, or any other flamewar hell. That's what we're trying to avoid here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by TylerE on Monday July 01, 2024 @02:09PM (#40848541)
This feels likely highly selected be encorcement.

Either let people vent or nuke the whole thread

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by dang on Monday July 01, 2024 @07:42PM (#40852027)
That's not how HN works. People don't get to break the site guidelines regardless of the topic, and people are welcome to make their substantive points thoughtfully regardless of their views. Killing the entire thread would be to punish the latter for the former.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Tadpole9181 on Monday July 01, 2024 @09:01PM (#40852574)
It's been this way for a while. Someone once made a post saying "Christianity is a perfectly peaceful religion and has met benefitted historical society" and then someone replying with "They genocided countless people and nations" would then get a "this is against site rules'.
[ Parent | on HN ]