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 danielmarkbruce on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @12:08AM (#40853473)
If the president is a crook and the senate is full of crooks, that's the foundation. This is a minor fixture.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by skhunted on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @03:39AM (#40854381)
Judicial complicity is not a minor thing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @01:38PM (#40858811)
Sure, but this is just a single decision, and who are the judges supposed to be complicit with? The current president? The last one? The next one? A specific party?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by skhunted on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @10:34PM (#40871883)
Complicit in the sense of helping to set the stage for future abuses. Not complicit in the sense of conspiring. SCOTUS has made quite a few bad decisions which set the foundation that I speak of.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by danielmarkbruce on Friday July 05, 2024 @05:50PM (#40886348)
The ruling certainly sets the stage for something. It's almost like they didn't want to actually rule, but rather set up a framework for making future rulings. I can't say I disagree with the approach.
[ Parent | on HN ]