Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Waterluvian on Monday July 01, 2024 @02:23PM (#40848711)

I think that’s the argument, yes. I think it’s facially a bad one when you consider all the examples of functional police that lack QI. Makes me skeptical that it’s a good faith argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by alistairSH on Monday July 01, 2024 @02:43PM (#40848965)

100% agree.

AFAIK, QI no longer exists in England (not sure about Scotland or N.I.). And Germany never had it (civil cases for damages would be against the state, not the state representative).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by ffgjgf1 on Monday July 01, 2024 @03:42PM (#40849768)

> civil cases for damages would be against the state, not the state representative

Isn’t that the same as QI?

[ Parent | on HN ]