Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by awb on Monday July 01, 2024 @03:29PM (#40849612)

On paper it makes sense. The people elect a congress charged with checking the powers of the President. States can also pass constitutional amendments to further limit or define the powers of the President.

In reality, power can be consolidated to the point where these checks and balances no longer work properly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by lupire on Monday July 01, 2024 @11:20PM (#40853259)

And that's point where the SC is irrelevant. You can't paperwork your way out of civil war when the people want one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by dudinax on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @12:39AM (#40853616)

No it doesn't. There's nothing in the constitution that grants immunity to a president and no reason why Donald Trump had to commit the crimes he's charged with.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by ac29 on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @01:19AM (#40853767)

If every past, present, and future legal scenario was explicitly and unambiguously addressed by the constitution, we wouldnt need the Supreme Court.

In reality it is an imperfect document that can never possibly be complete.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by dudinax on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @02:30AM (#40863308)

You're suggesting presidential immunity is a new idea, and criminal charges against ex-presidents are a new threat to the executive branch, both of which were wrong. 230 years ago people had already through through this. Immunity isn't in the constitution because they didn't want it in there.

The president already has all the constitutional protection he needs from prosecution: a prosecutor can't remove him from office.

[ Parent | on HN ]