Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Buttons840 on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:44PM (#40851077)

What would be the consequences if we did allow Presidents to be prosecuted and some of them did spend the rest of the life fighting prosecutions?

It seems to me the consequence would be that we would have Presidents who act carefully to not break the law. Are there any other consequences?

I've heard it said that "democracies are where the people in power lose". We've all seen "democracies" where the party in power never loses; those aren't real democracies. Likewise, I would say nations that are truly governed by law are where those in power face legal prosecution.

(Also, what's so bad about prosecution? If a person is innocent, the legal system will find them to be innocent, right?... Right?)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by jkic47 on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:10PM (#40851345)

The consequences would be Lawfare.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Buttons840 on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @12:03AM (#40853455)

And what's the consequence of that? Presidents who are extra careful to obey the law because they know they will be highly scrutinized?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Buttons840 on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @06:49AM (#40855313)

Or, to put it another way:

There are good and competent people who say "I'm willing to be President and be subject to the law, I'm willing to do both". Why can't be pick a President from that group?

[ Parent | on HN ]