Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by dagmx on Monday July 01, 2024 @01:46PM (#40848254)

I can’t defend the ruling based on the actual effects, because it puts someone above the law.

However one could argue that this is the logical extension of qualified immunity for police officers which is precedent the court has already set.

To be clear though, I think qualified immunity of any sort shouldn’t be allowed. It’s a subversion of any kind of fair justice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by cushpush on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:52PM (#40851155)

Diplomatic Immunity

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by ethbr1 on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:05PM (#40851292)

The office of the President has always been above many laws.

The redress has been assumed to be federal elections.

If the President were to abuse the law (to the extent he could with the power of the executive branch), then he would be voted out of office in (max) 4 years.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by czl on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:59PM (#40851749)

> then he would be voted out of office in (max) 4 years.

Assuming the abuse of power does not prevent this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by s1artibartfast on Monday July 01, 2024 @08:19PM (#40852301)

qualified immunity makes perfect sense. It would be impossible to have a police force without it. What is wrong with qualified immunity is the "clearly established law" standard, which requires prior case law precedent to pierce qualified immunity.

It is also worth nothing that qualified immunity provides no protection for criminal actions, the enforcement of which are an entirely separate challenge.

[ Parent | on HN ]