4 ms·

Would have agreed on that sentiment until a couple weeks ago...

by Valodim 2y ago

fragmede 2y ago
What is it that happened a few weeks ago, for those of us who haven't been paying attention?
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  > for those of us who haven't been paying attention? No, no, no. "What are you talking about?", works juuust fine.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  SCOTUS ruled POTUS has absolute civil and criminal immunity for official acts performed within his exclusive powers, no matter the motive or result.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Which generally sounds pretty reasonable. The unreasonable part is that everything POTUS does is official. If you plot with the attorney general to commit a crime then you're not doing an official act. I have no idea who started this "political figures can only be punished at the ballot box" but it really needs to stop. If things were that simple then everybody in the mafia would be an attorney so they'd always have attorney client privilege.
    - OJFord 2y ago
      I don't think it does? It's the difference between absolute monarchy and democracy - take an extreme example, and I'm going to use the UK because I live here and to depersonalise it a bit, like parliament declaring a genocide of all Londoners, because we need to empower the home counties and kickstart growth in the North, or something. That's obviously bonkers, it's an official act, but it's extremely illegal, we won't even have to wait for the public to throw them out at general election for them to be arrested. Just because you make the laws doesn't mean you're not governed by them yourself, at least outside of absolute power like our Kings & Queens of yesteryear or modern day dictators. It was a very surprising decision to me, as an outsider, that an elected leader in a developed country should be above the law while in office.
      - pjc50 2y ago
        > at least outside of absolute power like our Kings & Queens of yesteryear Er, today. The UK monarch is completely immune from prosecution. > parliament declaring a genocide of all Londoners, This is only illegal insofar as it conflicts with ECHR. An explicit repeal of ECHR and withdrawal from the European convention on human rights would be required, and there are people agitating for that. Once that's out of the way it's entirely possible for Parliament to start legalizing open season on whoever they like. The precedent is, of course, Northern Ireland, and the endless litigation since Bloody Sunday and similar incidents ("soldier F").
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The UK monarch is completely immune from prosecution. I'd note, though, that beheadings have precedent.
        lesuorac 2y ago
        > This is only illegal insofar as it conflicts with ECHR. An explicit repeal of ECHR and withdrawal from the European convention on human rights would be required, and there are people agitating for that. Once that's out of the way it's entirely possible for Parliament to start legalizing open season on whoever they like. There's still a large technicality that I think is being missed here. If the law is illegal who do you sue? In the US you can challenge a law as unconstitutional when it's enforced by suing the enforcer. You can't sue the individual people who passed the law; just basically the cops when they apply it (or the government at large as a collective individual).
        OJFord 2y ago
        > Er, today. The UK monarch is completely immune from prosecution. Eh, if you like.. the main problem with this kind of discussion is it's just so unthinkable that it's hard to really reason about. But yes, strictly in principle, it is of course His Majesty's prison service, King's Counsel, etc. I suppose what I meant really was that they are not today (practically speaking) in law-making or executive office.
      - cube2222 2y ago

Would have agreed on that sentiment until a couple weeks ago...

fragmede 2y ago

What is it that happened a few weeks ago, for those of us who haven't been paying attention?

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
> for those of us who haven't been paying attention? No, no, no. "What are you talking about?", works juuust fine.
ceejayoz 2y ago
SCOTUS ruled POTUS has absolute civil and criminal immunity for official acts performed within his exclusive powers, no matter the motive or result.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Which generally sounds pretty reasonable. The unreasonable part is that everything POTUS does is official. If you plot with the attorney general to commit a crime then you're not doing an official act. I have no idea who started this "political figures can only be punished at the ballot box" but it really needs to stop. If things were that simple then everybody in the mafia would be an attorney so they'd always have attorney client privilege.
  - OJFord 2y ago
    I don't think it does? It's the difference between absolute monarchy and democracy - take an extreme example, and I'm going to use the UK because I live here and to depersonalise it a bit, like parliament declaring a genocide of all Londoners, because we need to empower the home counties and kickstart growth in the North, or something. That's obviously bonkers, it's an official act, but it's extremely illegal, we won't even have to wait for the public to throw them out at general election for them to be arrested. Just because you make the laws doesn't mean you're not governed by them yourself, at least outside of absolute power like our Kings & Queens of yesteryear or modern day dictators. It was a very surprising decision to me, as an outsider, that an elected leader in a developed country should be above the law while in office.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      > at least outside of absolute power like our Kings & Queens of yesteryear Er, today. The UK monarch is completely immune from prosecution. > parliament declaring a genocide of all Londoners, This is only illegal insofar as it conflicts with ECHR. An explicit repeal of ECHR and withdrawal from the European convention on human rights would be required, and there are people agitating for that. Once that's out of the way it's entirely possible for Parliament to start legalizing open season on whoever they like. The precedent is, of course, Northern Ireland, and the endless litigation since Bloody Sunday and similar incidents ("soldier F").
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The UK monarch is completely immune from prosecution. I'd note, though, that beheadings have precedent.
      - lesuorac 2y ago
        > This is only illegal insofar as it conflicts with ECHR. An explicit repeal of ECHR and withdrawal from the European convention on human rights would be required, and there are people agitating for that. Once that's out of the way it's entirely possible for Parliament to start legalizing open season on whoever they like. There's still a large technicality that I think is being missed here. If the law is illegal who do you sue? In the US you can challenge a law as unconstitutional when it's enforced by suing the enforcer. You can't sue the individual people who passed the law; just basically the cops when they apply it (or the government at large as a collective individual).
      - OJFord 2y ago
        > Er, today. The UK monarch is completely immune from prosecution. Eh, if you like.. the main problem with this kind of discussion is it's just so unthinkable that it's hard to really reason about. But yes, strictly in principle, it is of course His Majesty's prison service, King's Counsel, etc. I suppose what I meant really was that they are not today (practically speaking) in law-making or executive office.
    - cube2222 2y ago