Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by lenerdenator on Monday July 01, 2024 @09:25PM (#40852686)

> This is wrong, and your ability to make an argument suggests you know it is.

citationneeded.jpg

> And the most extreme acts being mentioned as risks are the exact ones where "presumptive" matters.

Are they? Can you count on humans to not abuse power? I don't trust the SCOTUS to provide a real counterweight. These are the same people who knew that 12-year-olds would be giving birth with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and did it anyways. The same institution that ignored votes in 2000 and appointed a President. The same institution who had no power to stop Andrew Jackson from committing genocidal acts against the Cherokee. Either ineffective or complicit in severe violations of constitutional rights.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @12:06AM (#40853465)

Ok, i gave too much credit. Here's your citation: https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/SCOTUSTRU...

Read the ruling itself.

Roe v Wade was an easy overturn from a legal perspective. Pro choice folks with half a brain knew it stood on nonsense. Obama said in 2007 he wanted to codify it because he knew it was standing on shaky logic.

[ Parent | on HN ]