Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic...
by bbor on Monday July 01, 2024 @03:14PM
(#40849418)
Yeah but isn’t “the president has presumptive immunity for any act done in the service of the executive” and “the president can order military executions with immunity” kinda the same assertion, assuming “presumptive” is allowed to do its work? What’s the difference? I don’t understand how you could possibly argue political violence by the executive is “personal”, when they claim it’s done in the service of their oath…
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic...
by fallingknife on Monday July 01, 2024 @03:21PM
(#40849505)
No because "presumptive" isn't as strong as you think it is. All defendants have the same presumptive innocence and yet are convicted much more often than not at trial.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic...
by harywilke on Monday July 01, 2024 @04:19PM
(#40850199)
But presumption of immunity is different from presumption of innocence. You can't face a trial if you are immune. That's the entire reason this is before the court now, before the trial has even started. They are very different things. The presumption of immunity here is way stronger than you realize.