Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> It has a semblance of sense in a good faith governmental system. You don't want a president punished for their hard decisions in office.

I completely disagree, this is a very ahistorical take. The reality is that not a single US president has ever faced a single legal consequence for a decision they took while in office, for over two hundred years.

But, the possibility has always existed, as a check on the powers of the president. Parts of the decision making process for any president have always been "is there a chance this might put me in jail later?". The Supreme Court decided that's done. They have explicitly acquiesced that the president may order Seal Team 6 to assassinate the opposition leader, and the courts would have no right to condemn them for that (if the president pulled out a gun and shot the opposition leader themselves, there might be a trial, since it could be argued this wasn't an official act as presidnet, it was a personal act of the person holding the office; but that would still have to be settled in court before any kind of evidence or injunction against the president would be allowed on the shooting charge).




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: