News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts. Parent comment

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by TylerE on Monday July 01, 2024 @04:14PM (#40850135)
No, it bloody well isn’t.

Republicans refused to hold the vote on Garland, spouting off nonsense about “No new justices in an election year”. The same people rammed judges through in Trumps last year. Typical right wing hypocrisy.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:34PM (#40851557)
And if they'd had the vote? The result would have been no. Same result.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by TylerE on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:47PM (#40851654)
It would have put a lot of prominent Republicans - including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - in an awkward position because a number of them had previously said he was a great candidate for the court.

So, they either make a liar out of themselves, or become a rank hypocrite.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Monday July 01, 2024 @07:19PM (#40851876)
They are politicians...

Anyway, I'll grant it's symbolically different and it wasn't a good look. In practice though, the senate has to be on board with the nomination and in both cases they were not and it didn't go through in either.

[ Parent | on HN ]