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 refurb on Monday July 01, 2024 @10:15PM (#40852943)
This is quite common. British parliamentary systems offer immunity to members in their official acts.

Why?

Because, and this is purely hypothetical (lol), an opponent could try and convict politicians with spurious charges to get them out of power.

Singapore’s ruling party loves this tactic. Political opponent is charged with defamation, and if fined more than $5,000, they are no longer eligible to run for office.

It’s a commonly used political weapon which is why most democracies offer immunity.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by xorcist on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @03:45AM (#40854412)
Absolute immunity does not make for a credible juridical system. While most democracies have some sort of restrictions, a full out absolutely immunity is not very common.

Wikipedia has a (non-inclusive) list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_immunity

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by refurb on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @01:00PM (#40858473)
The Supreme Court decision wasn't absolute immunity?

So...kinda the same?

[ Parent | on HN ]