Perhaps the simple solution is that all presidents should serve 15 years in jail after serving their term. Then only extremely socially minded people would dare to do the job. There was a similar sci fi story I read. At the end of a war the rule was that all allied ( not enemy ) generals would be executed. The idea was that war was such a horrible concept that to lead one would require extreme sacrifice and social co…
One of the alien species in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Rama has this rule. The octospiders.
My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…
As someone living in Geemany my bar for auch high level laws is: would Adolf Hitler have been able to use it to abolish democracy?
If so it is bad.
IMO the US president was already too powerful since the cold war, but this is crazy.
I'm imaging an index that measures the semantic similarity between reddit and hn threads on a particular topic. I feel like adding that measure to front page to allow users to sort threads would be beneficial in increasing signal-to-noise and help hn maintain a more distinct brand identity.
Comparing HN to reddit is expressly off-topic: > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Thanks for the guidance. To try and clarify, I was not saying that hm is turning into reddit. Rather I was saying the opposite, that I value hn for its distinct non-redditness and that I would love it if there were features that optimized that difference. I say that in a thread with many comments that do not imo follow the spirit of the guidelines you posted, which is not to say they were posted by redditors -- saying that would itself violate the guidelines, but many of the comments are probably by people who post a lot on some other forum besides hn. I only post here, and again prefer the here-ness of this place over those other places.
Sure. The Founders envisioned an extremely weak criminal justice system, especially for "their class of people." Defendants were given extremely strong protections, and convictions were the exception, not the rule. The Founders were more concerned about facing a duel than a criminal conviction. So they added other mechanisms for presidential accountability: impeachment, elections, and the weakness of the office. Thes…
That's utter garbage. Juries acquit people when the cases are weak and defendents have the same rights they always have had probably more. Prosecutors don't go to trial unless they have a solid case especially against a former pres.
I very rarely see prosecutors drop cases before trial. There's not much incentive for them to drop a case as only a tiny percent of cases go to trial (most are plea deals). It's often worth rolling the dice for the prosecution.
Comparing HN to reddit is expressly off-topic: > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Thanks for the guidance. To try and clarify, I was not saying that hm is turning into reddit. Rather I was saying the opposite, that I value hn for its distinct non-redditness and that I would love it if there were features that optimized that difference. I say that in a thread with many comments that do not imo follow the spirit of the guidelines you posted, which is not to say they were posted by redditors -- sayin…
>I only post here, and again prefer the here-ness of this place over those other places.
I think you should get out more. There is nothing exceptional about HN other than there's a lot less eyes on it.
This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided there was no question that Mr. Trump enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted for one of those methods: his efforts to strong-arm the Justice Department into validating his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud. That was…
> This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. Immune from judicial prosecution. Not immune from Congressional prosecution. --- This isn't a unique concept. For example, if SEAL Team 6 improperly kills someone on a mission, they aren't prosecuted in criminal court; they are court-martialed. There is accountability, but due to the un…
> Not immune from Congressional prosecution.
SEAL Team 6 can take care of that too
how can SEAL Team 6 even refuse a presidential order ?
This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided there was no question that Mr. Trump enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted for one of those methods: his efforts to strong-arm the Justice Department into validating his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud. That was…
Okay, but invert that hypothetical. The American President orders a lot of people killed, including sometimes U.S. citizens. More commonly, they order things that result in significant loss of life, which could be prosecuted as negligent or reckless homicide. Should former presidents be subject to prosecution for those decisions? Remember that criminal laws are often extremely broad, and you can use conspiracy and ot…
The inverse of immunity is not that any prosecutor can prosecute. That's the happy medium. Even the most reckless prosecutor would still have to convince a jury, and would still have to go up against a defense in court.
The inverse of total immunity (freedom, no jury, no trial) would be total oppression (prison, no jury, no trial).
So many people reacting irrationally and misunderstanding what the ruling says. The first few pages are very readable, and I encourage all to read [1] - Actions within the President's conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority: Absolute immunity, in accordance with constitutional separation of powers. - Other actions done within an official capacity: Presumptive (though not full) immunity, to "to safe-guard t…
>So many people reacting irrationally
The entirety of lawyerdom? I think I'll trust their take on it rather than bland, disingenuous dismissals.