Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by rayiner on Monday July 01, 2024 @11:20PM (#40853260)

Because that person is elected by a nationwide polity, while prosecutors often aren’t elected, or are elected by politically skewed polities.

Half the country doesn’t share your faith that career prosecutors will do “what’s good for the country” instead of indulging their personal biases.

I would point out that prosecuting Trump under Sarbanes Oxley (a financial fraud law) for supposed insurrection doesn’t exactly engender trust and confidence in career prosecutors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by intended on Monday July 01, 2024 @11:48PM (#40853378)

Any discussion on elections in America that occurs post Fox and post internet has been in an era of extreme partisanship and polarization.

This case came up because a sitting President supported an insurrection.

The law is about the application of principles.

Sure. The President is elected.

Sure. Prosecutors are not. We don’t trust unelected prosecutors.

Sure. The Judges are not elected…

Therefore We don’t trust judges.

——

Frankly with the powers provided, the dems should really just exercise them.

I’m pretty certain that will immediately shift the narrative.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by kaba0 on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @03:44AM (#40854410)

Even the president is elected indirectly in the “land of the free”, it’s a joke of a “democracy”.

[ Parent | on HN ]