News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Monday July 01, 2024 @02:55PM (#40849140)
Official act isn't defined, so it doesn't say that.

Your last paragraph is closer to accurate, except a president doesn't just "appoint" a judge. They have to be voted in by the senate. So, if the president is a crook and nominates a crook and the senate is full of crooks and vote yes to have said crook become a judge, then yes really bad stuff can happen. But if the president is a crook and the majority of the senate are crooks, it's already all over.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by skhunted on Monday July 01, 2024 @04:13PM (#40850124)
So, if the president is a crook and nominates a crook and the senate is full of crooks and vote yes to have said crook become a judge, then yes really bad stuff can happen.

That’s essentially what happened with Kavanaugh, Amy, and Neil minus the judge being a crook part. Well, Kavanaugh is a rapist so for him the crook part applies. The really bad stuff is happening. You just are not aware of it.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:32PM (#40851550)
The point: if those things happen, this decision matters not.

If you think all those things are in place, this really is the least of your worries.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by skhunted on Monday July 01, 2024 @09:34PM (#40852740)
This is part of the foundation that will make doing bad things the new plolitcal norm.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @12:08AM (#40853473)
If the president is a crook and the senate is full of crooks, that's the foundation. This is a minor fixture.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by skhunted on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @03:39AM (#40854381)
Judicial complicity is not a minor thing.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @01:38PM (#40858811)
Sure, but this is just a single decision, and who are the judges supposed to be complicit with? The current president? The last one? The next one? A specific party?
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by skhunted on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @10:34PM (#40871883)
Complicit in the sense of helping to set the stage for future abuses. Not complicit in the sense of conspiring. SCOTUS has made quite a few bad decisions which set the foundation that I speak of.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Friday July 05, 2024 @05:50PM (#40886348)
The ruling certainly sets the stage for something. It's almost like they didn't want to actually rule, but rather set up a framework for making future rulings. I can't say I disagree with the approach.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by lenerdenator on Monday July 01, 2024 @03:31PM (#40849636)
> Official act isn't defined, so it doesn't say that.

It is and isn't, which is the problem.

> Your last paragraph is closer to accurate, except a president doesn't just "appoint" a judge. They have to be voted in by the senate. So, if the president is a crook and nominates a crook and the senate is full of crooks and vote yes to have said crook become a judge, then yes really bad stuff can happen. But if the president is a crook and the majority of the senate are crooks, it's already all over.

They more or less do appoint. There's never going to be a judge voted on that doesn't push a President's viewpoint, particularly not in the last thirty years. If a system doesn't take into consideration this particular contingency, it wasn't a very good system, was it?

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Monday July 01, 2024 @03:35PM (#40849681)
Tell that to Merrick Garland.

You are confusing necessary and sufficient.